DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com

Charity for Police-State Parasites?

2009-03-13T18:24:00.010-05:00

Recently I received in the mail an advertisement, soliciting donations to an organization supporting local (Houston) police officers. It featured a photo of a militarized Houston cop, all dressed up for military combat, automatic assault rifle and all — as if about to bust down some innocent citizen's door and shoot him — and/or his dog.

Why, I wondered, did they think that picture would motivate me to give money to help that guy? He's already drawing a parasitic wage, as he and his buddies routinely arrest and imprison local citizens for nothing more than possessing negligible amounts of recreational substances, and fining innocent, law-abiding drivers — to the tune of hundreds of dollars per "traffic stop" — for actions that neither harm nor endanger the persons or property of anyone. Untold heaps of taxes already go towards enabling him and his buds to dress up, not as policemen, but as assault troops. Yet somehow, this image was supposed to prompt me to voluntarily pay something extra?

The photo doesn't depict the kind of "police officer" I would picture serving and protecting me, but the kind I would fear a fellow citizen facing in one of numerous documented cases of "mistaken address" in which innocent citizens have lost their front doors, dogs, and lives to a combination of bureaucratic ineptitude and despotic bravado.

The $100 donation solicited by the mailer is rewarded with a vehicle sticker, identifying the donor as a supporter of police-state assault troopers. Houston traffic is already peppered with those stickers. Ironically, those drivers whose cars and trucks sport the trendy sticker probably feel a little safer, while I most certainly do not.

You Can't Outlaw Stupidity

2008-04-01T22:22:00.006-05:00

There is a popular notion today that endless new laws must be enacted to constrain and control one side of the (formerly) free market (i.e., the sellers, often generalized into a single class or category of evil "robber-barons," "big corporations," or "greedy capitalists."), for the sake of "protecting" the other side of the (formerly) free market (i.e., the buyers, often generalized into a single class or category of "innocent victims").

The commonly typified scenario, then, is one of harmless consumers (buyers) being unfairly and helplessly victimized by immoral, predatory businesses (sellers).

The error inherent in this notion is the false assumption that one side (i.e., the buyers or "consumers") have some exclusive, unilateral "right" to participate in the market without risk, personal responsibility, or duty (e.g., to do any research, ask questions, pre-read contracts, teach their children, learn from their parents, etc.).

[Let's make it clear right up front that a truly free market, by definition, is the ideal "capitalistic" environment for exchange — both buying and selling. Both the seller and the buyer are capitalists, and both are greedy, in that each wants the best advantage he can get from any transaction. Let's dispense with the caricature of all sellers, and only sellers, as greedy capitalists. If anyone is ever "victimized" by another's "capitalism," it is also — always — equally by his own capitalism. And if anyone is ever "victimized" by another's "greed," rest assured that his own self-interest for the best possible advantage in the transaction (i.e., his own "greed") also played a role. His apparent failure to get what he wanted doesn't necessarily render the other party's "greed" more "evil" (or even more "capitalistic") than his own.]

This alleged "right" to participate in the market without risk or personal responsibility is purely an arbitrary invention of the popular imagination. However well-intended the assumption may be, it often turns out be driven far less by a genuine sense of fairness than outright laziness, jealousy, and (concealed?) greed. If some number of people organize themselves into a company (or, God forbid, a corporation) and prosper from their combined endeavors in the market, it's just a matter of time before one or more "victims" emerge to complain that the group somehow "profited" at their "expense."

To be sure, there are times when unethical and underhanded tactics are invoked, but these are already commonly addressed in common law justice. Things like genuine fraud, failure to execute one's part of a contract, and theft don't need new "consumer protection" laws, price controls, or government agencies for their correction. In fact, these things only serve to muddy the waters of justice by putting unwarranted distance between all parties in the market and their direct, personal responsibilities for their own choices and actions, while making the market itself generally less free — for everybody.

Buyers, incidentally, also can (and do, though perhaps not often enough) organize themselves for the purposes of self-education, sharing information (good or bad) about sellers, and taking combined legal action against sellers who have defrauded them, as a facet of a healthy free market at work.

The greatest threat to the modern consumer is his own naive and baseless presumption of a "right" to make decisions and/or take actions driven essentially by stupidity and/or ignorance — without having to deal with the consequences. The old Latin maxim "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware") will always be relevant in a free market, because no one (least of all government!) can truly guarantee anyone else a "risk-free" experience in the market.

The best person to protect you is you. Nobody cares more about your advantage in any given transaction than you do. Nobody has more to gain from that advantage than you. And nobody has more to lose than you. So why should anybody else have to do your homework or guarantee you won't suffer for not having done it yourself?

So the next time someone you know gets — for example — buried by a mountain of high-interest credit card debt, before rushing to blame the "greedy capitalist corporation," consider first the "victim's" greedy insistence on having something without paying for it and the "victim's" willfully becoming — and remaining — a party to a contract involving obscene interest rates. And ask yourself exactly why that "victim" is somehow "entitled" to act with such stupidity and ignorance without having to deal with the consequences.

Then ask yourself whether you would prefer to see that "victim" (and therefore in some measure the whole consumer community) truly learn from his mistake, gaining valuable maturity and wisdom, or the inevitable alternative — a "nanny" government invoked to "protect" him (at the expense of the whole consumer community) from the consequences of his choices — ultimately resulting in a nation of perpetually irresponsible, unaccountable, (and still) stupid babies.

Gun Hysteria from Maryland

2008-03-03T16:17:00.018-06:00

I recently sent an article entitled 'Gun Control Claims More Victims' to my distribution list, which elicited the following response from a big-government statist in Maryland:

Oh right... so the next time some one pulls a gun out and starts shooting we should all pull out our guns and start shooting back, of course no one can aim like sh*t so by the time the smoke clears everyone would be dead from all the missed shots... that would just be great! Just like an old John Wayne movie.

These are not rational people who are going to be deterred by fatal consequences.

I got a better idea... all the gun people move to Texas, secede from the states and leave us in peace.

Guns Kill People! Remove me from your list!

Which got me thinking ... then researching...

It's noteworthy that Maryland does not have a policy of granting concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens except for rare cases approved by the state police.

Texas, on the other hand, is one of 39 states that issue such permits, provided the applicant passes a rigorous background check and undergoes training in safety and the law, which some 289,000 Texans have done.

So taking into account that law-abiding Marylanders are disarmed by their government (supposedly making Marylanders 'safer'), a quick look at The Washington Post's take on gun ownership by state and the FBI's crime stats by state reveals that Texas gun ownership is roughly twice that of Maryland, yet Maryland's violent crime rate nevertheless stands at roughly 30% higher than that of Texas, and the murder rate in Maryland is roughly 60% higher than in Texas.

So Texas has more guns, but less crime, than Maryland.

No wonder the guy resorted to an outburst of irrational hyperbole — that's all he's got, since neither sound logic nor empirical data lend any support to his prejudiced dogma.

Go figure.

(Not that seceding isn't still in Texans' best interest.)

The "Will" Served by the Army is Not "National"

2008-02-28T19:32:00.010-06:00

On February 28, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. Army had just rolled out a new operations manual "putting stability operations - nation-building - on par with combat."

Doubtless it occurs to no one at AP, let alone the U.S. Army, that "nation building" (whether disguised as "stability operations" or anything else) is not a constitutionally permitted function of the federal government, and (therefore) not a constitutionally permitted function of the U.S. Army - no matter what George W. Bush (or any other usurper occupying a public office) may claim (whether via "executive order" or otherwise).

The notion of soldiers occupying foreign countries as "stability" enforcers brings to mind troop deployments of the Roman, British, Nazi, or Soviet empires — each of them a blight on humanity, bloated with depraved arrogance and hypocritical self-righteousness, and subsequently eradicated by men's refusal to live indefinitely under the rule of totalitarian despots.

But exactly when and how did such an enterprise, radically contrary to both the Constitution and the principles of the men who composed it, come to be an accepted role for Americans in uniform? Americans were never asked to vote on whether or not the Armed Services should serve some function besides defending their own country. Nor are taxpayers advised as to what the swelling national debt created by such operations will truly cost them and future generations.

Yet Lt. Gen. William Caldwell IV suggests in the AP article that the Army is an "instrument of national will."

There is no question that the Army has long been an instrument of a will — somebody's will — but much of its deployment in the past century or more (and all the more vividly during the past decade) could hardly be characterized as the carrying out of some American "national will," when the nation was never permitted an informed or expressed will on the matter in the first place.

No expression of a fully-informed American "national will" was behind American military invasions and/or occupations of Korea (1950-present), Vietnam (1964-1973), Cambodia (1970), Lebanon (1982), Grenada (1983), Bosnia (1993), Somalia (1992-1993) and dozens of other constitutionally unauthorized actions.

And no expression of a fully-informed American "national will" currently stands behind the American military's invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't doubt that General Caldwell genuinely believes the Army is an "instrument of national will" any more than I doubt most of the Army's soldiers genuinely believe they are "serving their country," no matter what (or whose) orders they are following.

The truth of the matter is that the Army is an "instrument" of the "will" of "the government" (not to be confused with "the nation" or, more appropriately, "The People"). Likewise, the troops themselves are serving "the government" (again, not to be confused with "their country" or "The People"), and "the government" and its Army are being used unaccountably as "instruments" of a "will" that is actually indifferent (if not wholly contrary) to national (or popular) sentiment.

That American officials (elected and otherwise) and their minions in the military-industrial-congressional-media complex nevertheless persist in pretending an American "national will" is behind their bankrupt misadventures abroad is a grand fraud.

That Americans persist in quietly acquiescing to such fraud is nothing short of a grand tragedy.

Delusions of the 'Christian Right'

2007-12-08T07:15:00.000-06:00

It's downright remarkable that so many in America who profess Jesus as their Lord can simultaneously display a measure of indifference (bordering on contempt) for the truth, to whatever extent that it doesn't fit their political ideology. Instead, these believers practice a brand of politics largely rooted in political and historical illiteracy at best, and baldfaced revisionism at worst.

At its core, the traditional Christian faith has historically held the truth in high esteem. He who is worshipped as Savior and Son of God identified Himself as truth incarnate (John 14:6).

Christians are instructed by Scripture to lay aside falsehood and tell truth (Ephesians 4:15, 25) and to rejoice in the truth (I Corinthians 13:6). They are warned that it is the wicked who won't love or believe the truth (II Thessalonians 2:10,12), that failing to embrace truth renders one vulnerable to myths (II Timothy 4:4), and that it is the noble-minded who study to verify what they hear (Acts 17:10-11).

The Savior Himself said "Take care what you listen to. By your standard of measure it will be measured to you..." (Mark 4:24), and warned that "every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36).

Yet each day, professing Christians can be observed unquestioningly embracing — in casual conversation, in print, and on the airwaves — an entire framework of political beliefs based largely on highly questionable (often downright false) statements originally spawned by one 'conservative' pundit or another.

Unwittingly compartmentalizing their professed love for the truth, and spurning subjective critical analysis, these 'Christians' champion the tenets of a political ideology having little more basis in truth than the 'godless Communism' once targeted as the nemesis of the 'Christian Right.'

Among those tenets (but seldom advertised as such) are...

Statism (at home) & Imperialism (abroad)
How exactly is a 'conservative' or 'christian' version of bloated, expansive, fiscally bankrupt, power-hungry, unaccountable government somehow better than a 'liberal' or 'godless' version of bloated, expansive, fiscally bankrupt, power-hungry, unaccountable government?

(Hint: It's not.)

It boggles the mind that the Founders, amidst a culture heavily influenced by Christian principles, had the wisdom to call for severely limited government, especially on the national level, while today's professing Christians glibly acquiesce to the ever expansive federal leviathan, on the grounds that a professing Christian is supposedly at the helm.

Roman worship of both the State and its Caesars was rejected by the early Christians, and they were persecuted as non-conformist rebels. In stark contrast to this, many American Christians today idolize the State and its Caesar, mislabeling it 'patriotism' -- and are quick to unleash a rather unchristian brand of venom on any who disagree.

Christian 'conservatives' once called for government that was fiscally responsible, less intrusive, and (therefore) generally smaller. Today they mindlessly beat the drums of war on terrorism, war on drugs, etc., oblivious to the truth that most of what the federal government is doing (including every 'war' [all of them being lost, incidentally]) plunges ALL Americans further into debt for the sake of a corporate and/or political agenda that has nothing to do with the actual, genuine interests, security, or liberty of the American People or the Constitution.

History and current events only corroborate the truisms that 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' (Acton), and 'that government is best which governs least' (Paine? Jefferson?), yet such truth seems lost on today's Christian 'conservatives' who all but demand that the federal government become bigger and more powerful, both at home and abroad.

The Welfare State
Professing to despise the government-enforced redistribution of their plundered wealth to the poor, minorities, and 'illegal' aliens, American Christians by and large turn a blind eye to the wholesale channeling of the State's booty to huge agricultural and manufacturing corporations in the form of subsidies, government contracts, and import tariffs.

Having recently controlled both the White House and both Houses of Congress for four full years, 'conservative' Christians' party of choice conspicuously failed to enact even a scrap of legislation deconstructing any significant part of the very same socialist welfare system they're unwilling to share with society's dregs. Socialized education, healthcare, and food stamps remained unaffected amidst a cacophony of dissent over hungry (but mostly hard-working) 'invaders' from abroad and a perpetual class of sluggards from within.

(Jesus said, 'You always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them' [Mark 14:7], but today's 'conservative' Christians, by and large, appear content to accept wasteful, inept, and heavily corrupted government 'charity' at the barrel of a gun as a substitute for personally doing good.)

The Warfare State
With a mere shadow of an understanding of the 'just war' concept, most American Christians seem convinced that it's 'just' (not to mention downright normal) to send and expend military hardware and lives throughout the globe for everything BUT defending the country or its Constitution. Whether due to willful ignorance or abject denial, they don't seem to recognize that such activity as the very essence of imperialism — the mere mention of which truth is often rewarded with jerk-o-the-knee derisive epithets like 'unpatriotic,' 'unamerican,' and 'leftist.'

The Founders laid down strict limitations on the use of military force, and plainly advocated a live-and-let-live policy of friendly, free trade made possible by our peacefully minding our own business. Republican presidents have a history of abandoning that policy — to the detriment of The People they presume to govern — beginning as far back as Lincoln himself. The questionable sloganeering traditions of 'support the president!' and 'support the troops!' regardless of the mission is standard fare among American Christians today, much as it was in vogue among the faithful worshippers at Rome's statist altar.

[It's noteworthy, as the 2008 presidential election primaries are ramping up, that among both Democrats and Republicans only a couple of candidates unequivocally advocate a policy of peace and the withdrawal of American military from their present quagmires in the Middle East. Equally noteworthy is the fact that one of them — a professing Christian (with a solid, corroborating track record) — has received more financial contributions from U.S. military personnel than any other candidate.]

"Print" Money?

2006-11-30T21:43:00.000-06:00

This week, the so-called "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" branch of the so-called "U.S. Department of Homeland Security" announced a new set of "Naturalization Exam" questions and answers.

One of the answers to the new "Naturalization Exam" question number 53 is fraudulent:

53. Name one thing only the federal government can do.

[possible answers]
A: Print money >>FALSE<<
A: Declare war
A: Create an army
A: Make treaties

The federal government is permitted by law only to coin money (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, [not lawfully repealed or amended]).

The word "coin" does not mean "print" (or even "issue") — it means stamping/pressing metal into coins. In its true and original context, that can only mean real money -- from gold and silver, as otherwise specified in the same Constitution (Section 10, Paragraph 1, [not lawfully repealed or amended]). Constitutional (i.e., lawful) money cannot be "printed" — it can only be coined.

The federal government (including the so-called "U.S. Department of Homeland Security" and so-called "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services") commits fraud by pretending it has authority to "print money" when it lawfully does not. Answer "A" should be removed from the set of answers for question 53.

The above facts, when presented to the "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services" and a few of the media mouthpieces which had glibly gushed the contents of the new exam evoked a resounding and unanimous response of ... silence.

Could it be that neither a federal agency nor the (presumedly independent) "media" wishes to face up to the fact that — even today (despite public conditioning to the contrary) — printed paper "notes" do not constitute lawful money?

The implications threaten the very foundation of the monetary house-of-cards foisted on the American public by the "Federal Reserve" bankers nearly a century ago, so the truth simply cannot be allowed to see the light of day.

So untold numbers of Americans (both new and old) continue to be conditioned to believe that government-printed paper "dollars" backed by absolutely no tangible value of any kind constitute "money".

Sad — but sadder still is the prospect of the untold millions who will one day discover that those "dollars" (whether paper or electronic) are ultimately worth no more than the nothing that has "backed" them for decades — outside of whatever crumbs of perceived "value" the bankers have allowed in the interim.

The "Fair Tax" Fraud

2006-11-28T21:34:00.000-06:00

Aaron Russo's latest film has been waking a lot of Americans up from the statist-serf slumber that has plagued several generations.

I think that's a good thing.

But the film falls short of informing Americans of what is unquestionably the best solution to the problem.

Of course, I think that's a bad thing.

Russo seems to conclude that both the IRS and the "Federal Reserve" must be dispensed with -- shut down. I couldn't agree with him more on that count. What Russo does not conclude is what is most disconcerting. The supposed vacuum created by the elimination of these two unlawful and corrupt institutions will surely be replenished by the politicians and the bankers who own them, unless Americans realize at least two things not found in Russo's film:

1) The federal government has no lawful (that is, constitutional) authority to "issue" money -- including worthless paper "money" -- or to assign such an authority to any other party or institution (including the so-called "federal reserve"). The only lawful monetary authority the federal government has is to coin money (that is, press silver and gold into coinage), and determine the value of it (that is, determine how many grains of silver or gold must be contained in each coin). That's the law, folks. That's all the Constitution allows. Any "act of Congress" that arbitrarily presumes to ignore or overrule the Constitution is null and void, no matter how long it has been "in effect".

2) The federal government's only lawful (that is, constitutional) funding is from duties and imposts -- not from any taxation of The People or their property or "income". That's the law. And, again, any "act of Congress" that presumes to ignore or overrule the Constitution is null and void, no matter how long it has been "in effect".

In light of the above, only politicians, bankers, and their dim-witted dupes will seriously suggest the so-called "Fair Tax" (or any other illegal scheme contrary to the law of the land) as a substitute for the "federal reserve"/IRS method of funding the federal government.

If Americans really want the Constitution to be honored, now is the time to put The People's proverbial foot down, and just say no to unlawful funding (of any kind) of the federal government. And if all their bloated, meddlesome, self-serving, unaccountable bureaucracies can't survive on lawful funding, well...

I think that'll be a good thing.

The Global Warming Game

2006-11-02T20:53:00.000-06:00

Few matters of supposed “science” have been as politicized as global warming has been in recent years. True to form, the “true believer” zealots of the political left consider global warming an unassailable “fact” of science. Heck, I’ve even been chastized (and labeled a “conservative”) by a left-wing academic — a philosophy professor (go figure) — for questioning this dogma.

If it were really a matter of scientific fact (and not a political agenda), one would not expect large numbers of practitioners of the applied sciences to question the claims of the church of global warming.

But they do.

The Heartland Institute cites several dozen webbed articles from just such sources, as does CO2 Science. Even Richard Muller, physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley has written an article on the topic.

These voices would be enough to persuade many folks that the “fact” of global warming (and its associated catechism) is not necessarily as scientifically established as advertised. But another anomaly recently emerged on the landscape of global warming “science” as the 2006 hurricane season drew to a close.

In April of 2006, “experts” at Colorado State University, and in May, “experts” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted a season at least as bad as the previous year’s (2005) — both suggesting that the “science” of global warming made their predictions all-the-more reliable.

Now, the soothsayers of weather have been neither particularly credible nor “scientific” from where I've sat most of my adult life. But when they suggest that their predictions are more credible and “scientific” because they are based in part on the “fact” of global warming — and then for those predictions to turn out to be utterly wrong — goes a long way in revealing just how truly “scientific” and meaningful the global warming agenda truly is in the real world.

As if that weren’t enough, the post-season re-spinning of global warming's “scientific” role in “causing” a milder season further indicts the whole thing as more of a political agenda than a “fact” of science.

To recap, prior to the 2006 hurricane season, we were told by the “experts” that because of global warming, we should expect a heavy season not unlike that of 2005, and after the (remarkably mild) 2006 hurricane season, we were told by more “experts” that it was because of global warming that we had such a mild season.

Genuine science doesn’t allow double-standards. Genuine politics does. You do the math.

Immigration Crisis, Causes & Cures

2006-04-22T21:46:00.000-05:00

For over three decades the U.S. Congress, together with more than a half-dozen presidential administrations, have carried out a two-pronged immigration policy:

1) Increase the number of legal immigrants by significantly raising the quota of legal immigrants permitted into the country
2)Increase the number of illegal immigrants by severely limiting enforcement of immigration laws both at the border and internally

[Congress alone is lawfully charged with "Rules of Naturalization" and to "repel Invasions" (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphs 8 & 15 respectively, of the Constitution for the United States of America)]

Presidential administrations and congressional dominance have come from both sides of the bipartisan monopoly in the interim, but there hasn't been a public outcry until now -- after decades of irreparible damage has already been done.

And what exactly -- until very recently -- has been the response of The People to the initiation and on-going execution of this congressionally legislated and presidentially executed policy?

Little to nothing.

But now, with easily 10 million illegal immigrants (twice that, by some estimates), some Americans (many, in fact) are calling for the criminalization and deportation of these millions, apparently without giving much thought to the feasibility and ramifications of such a task.

Sure, they're lawbreakers. (Their entry into the U.S. was illegal, right?)

But if after three decades of indifference, it has suddenly become the will of The People that immigration laws be tightened and/or enforced, should the illegals really be justly punished for Americans' willful ignorance and apathy concerning what their own government was allowing to happen? After all, this wasn't done in some dark corner of Washington. The Congressional Record is in the public domain, as have been illegal immigration numbers.

Do Americans really have a right to abandon the requisite “eternal vigilance” and then project their own guilt onto those who embraced the opportunities created by their negligence?

The Founders long ago insisted that the American experiment in republican liberty would only succeed to the extent that The People held their government accountable to themselves and the Law. In this (as in other matters), The People have failed to do their part. And now, rather than deal with the consequences of their failure in a reasonable, responsible, and humane fashion, they're effectively demanding that Congress ratchet up the American police state, in which a Gestapo-like army chases down and forcibly hauls off illegals for deportation ("You're papers, please."), oblivious to the inevitable impact on the liberty of both citizens and immigrants (legal and otherwise).

Perhaps a more sensible solution would begin with The People's owning up to their responsibility in fomenting this crisis, then pursuing a solution that places no additional power or responsibility in the hands of the already demonstrably inept (and already demonstrably bloated) federal government.

The forcible deportation of many millions (most of whom work for a living, to the benefit of American society and economy) is nothing more than a scapegoat policy guaranteed to yield untold violence, racial tension, and the further erosion of liberty -- not only for illegal immigrants, but for all Americans. The blame lies squarely with The People and Congress -- not the majority of illegals who sought a better life for themselves and their families by taking advantage of a do-nothing government policy and a do-nothing-about-it People.

Bush's World

2005-11-24T23:22:00.000-06:00

...Where Truth is Dispensed With by Half-Truths

In a recent (11/05/05) issue of World Magazine, founder Joel Belz's weekly column took another shot at cheerleading for President Bush by suggesting that the truth were on Bush's side, and that he should speak up and say so.

Almost as if taking his cue from World, just a few days later (11/10/05) Bush forcefully attacked his critics, in an "effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died," according to World.

Perhaps most stunning among Bush's assertions concerning his critics was his suggestion that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began" (implying, of course, that the Bush-led federal government has not attempted to "rewrite history" in order to justify its meddlesome imperialist actions abroad, while willfully failing to enforce immigration laws at home.

Mr. Belz's column first seeks to clarify things by asking "whether Mr. Bush and his team were indeed wrong on the weapons [of mass destruction] issue" (they were, says the evidence). Then he asks, "if they were wrong, were they also dishonest[?]."

We're talking about mainstream American career politicians here, Joel. How exactly do you propose to discern whether -- or when -- they could actually be "dishonest" or not?

Belz writes, "It is widely assumed, of course, that the Bush team was dead wrong..." It need not merely be "assumed" ("widely" or otherwise), however.

As recently as 11/20/05, Germany's official intelligence sources went on record in a Los Angeles Times article to the effect that the case for Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was questionable from the outset -- the accusations having come from a lone Iraqi defector (of questionable character) in the first place -- and German intelligence advised prior to the U.S. invasion that his claims were unverifiable and highly questionable.

Mr. Belz seems to think that Mr. Bush would benefit from being honest, but I'm not sure he realizes what he's asking for. With every new revelation (of the honest truth, that is), both the WMD rationale and the credibility of the Bush administration have become less viable. And if that's not enough, the Hussein--al-Qaida rationale has likewise been revealed as a falsehood that the Bush administration was well aware of within weeks after the 09/11 World Trade Center catastrophe.

Likewise, a 11/22/05 [MSNBC article] further disposes of the notion that Hussein was a friend of al-Qaida, leaving Bush's top two rationales for invading Iraq where they belong: on the growing heap of bald-faced whoppers that should be a major embarrassment to Bush and his supporters.

"The main argument from the beginning was that Iraq and the surrounding region were being dominated by bullies, and that the people of that region deserved better," asserted Mr. Belz. So? There are people all over the globe who are "being dominated by bullies" and who may or may not "deserve better," but that doesn't ipso facto entitle anybody -- including George Bush -- to go abroad miring American resources in no-win wars to the tune of billions in debt and tens of thousands of lost and broken lives.

With their eye now on Iran, the Bush regime will surely appreciate more apologetics from the likes of Mr. Belz. If they aren't already, Americans are soon likely to become the most despised people of the present era in the eyes of every Muslim, if not in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. The hollow assurances offered by Bush's faithful in the media will play an important role in soothing the American public's distaste for having gained a world-wide a reputation as aggressive, meddlesome imperialists.

And when the bill finally comes due for the looming debt created by these overseas adventures to which Congress and The People have mindlessly acquiesced, and the dollar plummets to its inevitable death, the defenders of this agenda of aggression are sure to go curiously silent, their vacuous "defenses" having vaporized in the face of cold, hard reality: "whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

ACORN's a Bad Nut

2005-10-08T07:42:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the 2005 hurricane season, a group of rabid socialists that call themselves "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) got their name in the paper by whining about ... socialism's shortcomings.

Notwithstanding their pretense to be all about "social justice" (read: socialism) and "reform" (read: redistribution of property), their complaints to the leading local FEMA bureaucrat were obviously meant to make him a scapegoat for the failure of what has become the US federal government's socialist infrastructure to save hurricane victims from the effects of nature (as if it actually could).

According to their website, ACORN is twenty-five years old, and they actually take pride in having started out as a gaggle of welfare sucklings determined to win an ever greater portion of others' property, coercively confiscated from its original owners by the state.

Singling out Houston FEMA coordinator Tom Costello for what the paper described as "allegedly failed efforts" to help Texas and Louisiana hurricane victims, the ACORN folks celebrated a public conniption over the US federal government's failure to make it all better by giving them more "free" money and goods.

Of course, both parties were careful to avoid any mention of the fact that private charity and non-government organizations provided the bulk -- and the most efficient delivery -- of genuine relief to the storm-shattered areas. The indiscriminate and unaccountable redistribution of state-extracted plunder by so many FEMA bureacrats was presumed by both parties to be the SOP* response to natural disasters, despite its obvious failure to make a substantial difference.

Sadly, ACORN's ruckus isn't likely to be seen by the general public for what it really is -- a plea for more socialist plunder redistributed as "welfare" by big government, at the expense of all responsible, hard-working Americans. Instead, it'll probably be a shot-in-the-arm for statism in general, persuading a few more ill-informed people to mindlessly adopt the socialist agenda despite its persistent failure, both here and abroad, throughout history.

Wa-a-a-ah!

*SOP = standard operating procedure

The NRA does it again

2005-10-03T22:01:00.000-05:00

I've already pointed out how the NRA cast principle to the wind by endorsing George Bush. Portraying him as a "pro-gun" hero, they conveniently neglected his vow to renew the purely political Clinton "assault rifle" ban.

And as long as we're talking about constitutional rights, it bears repeating that Mr. Bush signed into law the wholly unconsitutional so-called Campaign Finance "Reform" [read: "incumbent protection"] Act, in which the federal government -- all three branches -- further trampled Americans' free speech and property rights.

Now the NRA is offering further evidence of their contempt for constitutionally protected rights whenever such rights prove inconvenient to gun-owners.

On the surface, an NRA-backed boycott of ConocoPhillips (because they don't allow firearms in employees' vehicles on their employee parking lots) seems like a reasonable strike in defense of the 2nd Amendment. So does NRA's support of Republican lawmakers' efforts to make it unlawful for Florida employers to adopt such a prohibition.

But what does that say about the NRA's view of property rights? Does the 2nd Amendment really trump a property owner's right to determine what is allowed on his property?

The answer is no.

Even if it's a stupid policy, a property owner is entitled to prohibit firearms on his property, including in cars, when parked on his parking lot. If employees dislike the policy (and they should), they can park offsite, or seek employment elsewhere.

I have to give credit to Sheldon Richman, of the Foundation for Economic Education for patiently clarifying this issue for me. Mr. Richman framed this issue clearly and succinctly:

"Rights can never negate rights. If you have a case in which you think a right has negated a right, then at least one of the alleged rights is not really a right. There is no right to use someone else's parking lot in a manner to which he objects, however senseless his reasons."

Would that the folks at the NRA had such a balanced and informed respect for all rights!

How Big Government Feeds on Crises

2005-09-16T20:32:00.000-05:00

It should come as no surprise that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, proponents of Big Government at every level were milking the tragedy for all it would produce in terms of increasing their power.

Few opportunities are missed by career politicians and government officials to portray Big Government as everybody's Savior, to justify still more taxation to fund still more unaccountable, bureaucratic meddling in the lives of The People.

President Bush has said the "federal government" (read: all US taxpayers, whether willing or not) will foot the bill for "recovery" from Katrina.

[James Madison (Remember him? Father of the Constitution? Remember the Constitution?) in 1794 said: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It might surprise the likes of George Bush to discover that such an article remains conspicuously absent from that document.]

After Hurricane Rita had come and gone, "the authorities" wasted no time in awarding themselves incrementally more power over their subjects, in this case with a drive towards permanently controlling who may travel where and when.

As Rita approached the Texas coast as a Category 5 (out of 5) threat, on September 22nd and 23rd, the major freeways (and other roads) leading out of Houston quickly became parking lots, effectively quadrupling drive times to inland destinations like San Antonio and Dallas. Cars overheated and ran out of gas -- and the fuel supply all but vanished.

Never mind that the stampeding herd had been conditioned to obey "government officials" whose warnings were hyped and re-hyped via every available media channel. Supposedly unable to foresee, control, or prevent the inevitable and unfortunate consequences of their heavily broadcast (and, it turns out -- for many Texans -- false) alarms, those same "government officials" nevertheless hastened to assume control of all evacuees' return journeys, effectively saying: "We accept no responsibility for our contribution to this mess, but y'all must trust us to dictate your travel options throughout the aftermath."

Rita's impact turned out to be far less than predicted for most of the Houston-Galveston corridor. The worst was over by mid-morning on September 24th, with little more than intermittent light rain and wind gusts remaining as evidence of a hurricane in the Greater Houston area. Both flooding and wind damage were far less than "authorities" had predicted. So naturally, folks started driving back home.

But "the authorities" couldn't let it be that easy. Instead, still side-stepping responsibility for the outbound traffic jams of just a day or two ago, they rolled out a "plan" by which they would control the timing of evacuees' return by region. Their "plan" demanded that residents of each region return to the Houston area only on the specified day for their respective regions -- spread out over a 4-day period.

Never mind who could (or could not) afford to remain away for one, two, or three more days. Never mind who had pressing personal, family, business, or property matters awaiting their attention back home.

No, the most important thing was that "the authorities" extend and exacerbate the crisis by exerting their power, proving that they could avert evil traffic jams, if only they are allowed to control who goes where and when.

What most folks will too quickly overlook in all this is that: 1) crises always have and always will generate troublesome conditions (with or without government involvement); 2) government never could and never will effectively avert every crisis -- especially where nature is concerned; and 3) government's assertion of control after a crisis is little more than a thinly disguised drive towards increased power of government over The People ("for their own good, of course").

Forcing (or attempting to force) folks to return home according to a government-prescribed schedule proves only that "government officials" are capable of "solving" a problem too late to be of any genuine value, with a government "program" that is sure be less than viable, while increasing incrementally in the public mind the perceived "value" of more government control.

Short answer: Don't do it -- it's a trick!

Thank Big Government for Katrina’s Mess

2005-09-03T12:21:00.000-05:00

One of the collectivist soundbites found floating in the wake of the hurricane Katrina disaster was apparently "government is your enemy until you need it."

This bit of boilerplate propaganda coyly misdirects hearers' attention away from government's role in causing the New Orleans disaster, while brazenly suggesting government -- and not free-market action driven by genuine human compassion -- will somehow drive relief and recovery in the smitten region.

But truth matters here no less than elsewhere, and the facts -- when brought to full light -- effortlessly dispense with all the ideological spin of "the government" and its apologists...

How Government Made the Mess

First, let's resist the temptation to overlook government as the chief cause of the Katrina disaster. The storm itself was a natural phenomenon, sure enough, but responsibility for the disproportionate level of flooding and damage lies squarely with unaccountable self-serving big government bureaucracies.

Setting aside any questions about the wisdom of building a city below sea level in the first place, New Orleans residents' protection from flooding has long been based on a system of levees owned and maintained by the US federal government's Army Corps of Engineers, "backed up" by a drainage system owned and maintained by the city government's Sewerage and Water Board.

Both systems failed: Neither of the two government bureaucracies had anything to lose by doing an inadequate job. Katrina didn't flood New Orleans -- it was some ten hours after the worst of the storm had already passed when the government-managed levees broke, overwhelming the city and its all-but-abandoned drainage system.

That there had been adequate (though unheeded) advance warning is well documented in a recent Newsday article and a warning published last year in National Geographic.

What had the Army Corps of Engineers done to prepare for such an event? Apparently little or nothing. What resources did they have on hand to correct the problem? Again, little to none. (This due in no small part to their resources having been redirected to support another US big government quagmire -- in Iraq.)

What contingency plan and resources did the municipal government have in place? Suffice it to say that institution had all but relocated itself to Baton Rouge, leaving its drainage pumps to fail virtually unattended.

And what penalty will either of these two government bureaucracies pay for such negligence as to cost untold millions in property loss and damage and loss of life? Again, little to none.

That's what is most troublesome about this tragic fiasco. The public mind has been so conditioned to acquiesce to statist collectivism as a norm that government and media alike will blithely overlook big government's failure -- once again -- to do a decent job at something, facing no substantial accountability for the huge losses it has caused to those whom it pretends to "protect."

How Private Enterprise will Fix the Mess

Second, let's revisit the tired-but-perennial myth of government as "savior" (i.e., the "...until you need it" part of the collectivist soundbite mentioned above). Please keep in mind the fact that government produces no wealth, property, or rights -- it can only do right by protecting them, or do wrong by confiscating and controlling them. Kindly adjust your expectations accordingly...

Long before Katrina had finished her (minor) part of this catastrophe, such private enterprises as the American Red Cross and the North American Mission Board already had massive relief efforts underway, with enough infrastructure to provide comfort, shelter, and sustenance in many hundreds of shelters spread out among several states, caring for tens of thousands of people, serving over 100,000 meals per day.

No bloated branch of any American collectivist bureaucracy could have done half as much with anything less than twice the funds -- which is exactly why government can't (and won't) be providing much of the essential relief or reconstruction in the wake of this government-induced disaster.

And while the Army Corps of Engineers and the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board may be brazen enough to claim jurisdiction, if not ownership (yet still without responsibility), of the city's flood-prevention apparatus, don't expect anything but private enterprise to provide the bulk of the real cleanup in the wake of yet another case of criminal negligence at the hands of big government bureaucrats.

As a sideshow spotlight on US socialism at work during the same period, keep an eye on the largely self-aggrandizing deeds of FEMA and Congress -- done entirely with billions in "charitable" funds coersively confiscated either directly from the unwitting masses of the US collective, or indirectly through more national debt via the Federal Reserve system -- remembering that coerced "charity" (which is no charity at all) is socialism's parasitic substitute for genuine liberty and a voluntary, free-market, compassion-driven response to calamity.

The only folks who "need" that kind of government are those despots who control it.

All Pain, No Gain

2005-08-14T21:40:00.000-05:00

While there's no telling how much longer the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" in Iraq will persist (a top U.S. military figure recently suggested four more years), what now seems more sure than ever is that the enterprise will not accomplish even one of the artificial justifications suggested (at various times) by those who initiated and are executing it.

Thus, Americans are ostensibly being saddled with the bill for an abject "foreign policy" failure to the tune (so far) of multiple billions of dollars in debt, thousands of lives, and many thousands more maimed for life.

The apparent reason?...

1. WMDs and Terrorist Ties

The original twin-justification for U.S. aggression against Iraq was Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of "weapons of mass destruction" and his alleged ties to bin Laden's organization. Both have since been vaporized by the conspicuous absence of any corroborating positive evidence, after U.S. "intelligence" and muscle failed to find (or fabricate) credible empirical support after (what has now become) years of investigation.

Truth matters. So let's face it: Top-level U.S. government office occupants simultaneously pulled a ruse on the U.N. security council and duped the American public with lies. From the very beginning, U.S. military aggression in Iraq was never truthfully justified on the basis of any "weapons of mass destruction" or ties to bin Laden's organization.

2. "Nation Building"

As the WMD/terrorism myths vaporized in the face of reality, the Bush administration was quick to justify this costly "war on terrorism" project as an endeavor to bring "democracy" to the Iraqi people. The intent was obviously to garner and retain support for a blatant act of military aggression by recasting it as a "foreign aid" project, designed to "give" the Iraqi people "democracy" (as if forcibly delivering the same [whether possible or not] were a lawful mandate of the U.S. Constitution -- which doesn't even contain the word "democracy" or any derivative thereof).

It should be no surprise that the Iraqis' process of establishing their own "democratic" constitution (under U.S. tutelage, however misguided) has persistently broken down, and for good reason: The concept of "democracy" offends the sensibilities and logic of some Iraqis and their culture, while it presents an enticingly potential means to positions of power for a smattering of Bush-approved officials.

3. The Bottom Line

This needless, tragic assault on Iraq serves not to eliminate terrorism (terrorist violence has only multiplied exponentially since the arrival of U.S. forces), or to establish "democracy" (resistance to which is wisely championed by advocates of true liberty in Iraq and elsewhere).

Instead, this "war on terrorism" has become (yet another) example of U.S. government officials' means of (once again) drawing Americans' attention abroad, so that the moral and fiscal bankruptcy of the U.S. federal government may remain "below the radar" just a little longer.

Make the Feds Enforce Their Own Laws

2005-07-24T22:10:00.000-05:00

Collectivist busybodies of various stripes have recently objected to the fact that the Houston, Texas police department has not been enforcing federal immigration laws for several years. Typically, all their political posturing and rhetoric betrays a general ignorance and apathy concerning what constitutes lawful jurisdiction.

For example, it is not the prerogative of the federal government (or local collectivist busybodies, for that matter) to require Texas peace officers to do the federal government's "dirty work." Federal laws, by definition, require federal enforcement.

Simply put, there is no lawful (i.e., constitutional) provision empowering Congress or one of its agencies to requisition or divert the law enforcement resources of a State or local government for the regular enforcement of federal law.

Just as when state and local officers were unlawfully diverted into federal service during Prohibition -- and are similarly drafted in its reincarnation, that colossal failure popularly hawked as the "war on drugs" -- the central problem with immigration law enforcement is federal officials' enactment of laws for which they are unwilling to supply the necessary resources for enforcement.

Instead of allowing their own locally-funded law enforcement resources to be unlawfully diverted for the enforcement of federal laws, the citizens of Texas (and other States) should be holding the federal government accountable for its habit of embarking on multi-billion dollar "nation-building" adventures abroad at the expense of secure borders at home.

The Liberator Myth

2005-07-04T09:25:00.000-05:00

This Independence Day has given rise to the din of self-styled "patriots" who persist in parroting the popular myth that U.S. forces have "freed" the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Current events -- only a tiny glimpse of which appears in "the news" -- tell an entirely different story.

In each of those countries, U.S. troops (supposedly executing their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States") have indeed toppled one less-than-perfect regime and replaced it with one occupied by officials for whom some folks "voted" -- but "democracy" does not equal freedom, and violent, divisive, civil unrest remain in those countries as a direct result of U.S. actions and continued presence there.

The people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan aren't "free" now and they won't be "free" even if U.S. forces are ever pulled out. Unlike the generation that founded the U.S., they obviously didn't have a united will to "free" themselves from the regimes that were violently toppled by the U.S. military. In fact, many of them are obviously unhappy with -- and remain violently opposed to -- those actions, so now our troops (supposedly executing their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States") are tasked with killing them, so the original "nation building" invasions won't end in failure.

This July 4th, instead of getting our warm fuzzies from our goverment's masquerade as a "liberator" of foreigners, we ought to remember exactly what the founders of United States liberated themselves from. That should include some time in sober reflection on how much the U.S. government has grown to resemble the very despotic regime from which the Founders sought that original independence, remembering that a true patriot loves his country -- not the government.

CAFTA: The Bad News

2005-06-29T22:17:00.000-05:00

Today the U.S. Senate Finance Committee endorsed CAFTA, sending it to the full Senate for a vote, which could still take place this same week.

Not surprisingly, the general public in the U.S.--mindless hedonists that most of them are fast becoming--remains oblivious to what CAFTA is, and what its implications are for U.S. self-determination (read: liberty).

But what they don't know (and don't want to know) can and will hurt them and their children and grandchildren...

Consider:

** CAFTA is only the beginning. The Senate Republican Policy Committee policy paper admits that CAFTA's purpose is "integrating more closely with 34 hemispheric neighbors-thus furthering the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)." Have they bothered to ask how many Americans actually want to be "integrated" with the poverty, corruption, and Communism of our hemispheric neighbors? (Hint: NO!)

** CAFTA will put the U.S. under another anti-American international tribunal. CAFTA includes hundreds of pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals. The World Trade Organization has already ruled against the U.S. in 24 costly cases and even had the nerve to outlaw Utah's gambling ban. A NAFTA tribunal opened our highways to Mexican trucks even though they don't comply with U.S. laws. CAFTA will only guarantee more of the same.

** CAFTA would prohibit states from giving any preference to contractors in their state. Any Central American country could file a complaint.

** Under CAFTA, state legislatures would relinquish their right to regulate utilities, land use, and taxpayer-funded contracts. It forces us to use the "least trade restrictive" regulation and change our laws so they are "no more burdensome than necessary." Activist judges can make that language cover anything they want.

** The pro-CAFTA folks aren't really for true free trade. They are for global managed trade ... because that is what CAFTA (like NAFTA) really is. Think about it: Why does it take over 1,000 pages to define "free trade"?

** CAFTA fits hand-in-glove with the world-government agenda to make the U.S. just another client state. How?

Consider: CAFTA article 10.16.3 places the United States under the jurisdiction of international tribunals supervised by the United Nations.

Consider: CAFTA article 10.5.2(a) states that these international tribunals must use "customary international law" as established by the "principle legal systems of the world" when deciding cases.

Welcome to the United Nations' world court system!

Will enough Senators have the presence of mind and/or constitutional awareness to do the sensible thing and oppose CAFTA?

Will sufficient numbers of alert and informed citizens compel their Senators to do the sensible thing and oppose CAFTA?

Time will tell.

Michael Jackson Hysteria

2005-06-14T20:54:00.000-05:00

It was at once astonishing and discouraging to observe how so many self-styled American "Christians" reacted to the "not guilty" verdict in pop star Michael Jackson's trial in early 2005.

Apparently accused of multiple counts of child molestation, Jackson was acquited by the jury of all counts. When the news reached the place where I was on June 13th, there were shreiks of incredulous derision for the jurors. These self-appointed "Christian" erstaz jurors--some 1,000 miles away from (and only superficially familiar with) the actual court proceedings--apparently "knew" Mr. Jackson was guilty, contrary to the jury's findings.

My quiet suggestion that none of us had heard all the testimony or saw all the evidence presented throughout the trial was met with the pregnant silence and sideways glances indicative of a rained-on bigotfest. The very idea that their prejudiced disparaging might be driven more by the folly of prejudiced ignorance than reason and truth was something they simply refused to even consider.

I'm no Michael Jackson fan, mind you. I've been aware of the guy, but never bought a single recording of his music. In my opinion, he's a bit weird for any number of reasons. But neither my--nor anyone else's--subjective estimation renders him ipso facto guilty of child-molesting.

Justice in the U.S. strives to remain based on the presumption of innocence, not the presumption of guilt. The scenario described above illustrates a disturbing popular trend in the opposite direction.

Likewise, the biblical Christian principles of giving the benefit of the doubt (I Corinthians 13:7), loving one's neighbor as one loves one's self (Matthew 19:19), and treating others the way we would like to be treated (Luke 6:31), suggest that consciencous Christians would refrain from fanning the flames of fact-free feeding frenzies on overpopularized figures. But no (apparently).

I don't intend to ever grow tired of saying it: Truth Matters. And their failure to develop and apply objective critical analysis skills renders the bigoted hostility of many Americans--"Christians" included--no less credible than the arbitrary (and ultimately very deadly) verdicts of the Inquistion.

Whenever the truth takes a backseat to uninformed personal opinion--even if it is "popular" or even "majority" opinion--authentic liberty and justice are at risk of being on different bus altogether.

Can't Something be Done?

2005-02-20T22:35:00.000-06:00

Many Americans today are becoming well aware that things are not as they should be. The on-going accumulation of power by the federal government; the federal debt's steady climb year after year (currently over $7.6 trillion ); bloated, tax-funded, unaccountable bureaucracies yield questionable "results" contrary to the promises of so many career-lawyers-turned-career-politicians...

(The list is practically endless.)

Sadly, the most common reaction to these trends seems to have been the head-in-the-sand approach: "enjoy life as well as possible, and try not to think about the stuff that's beyond your control." A few of us might complain, but the general consensus seems to be that there's little we can -- or should -- do about it.

I've pointed out elsewhere that it's no use blaming the "liberals" or the "conservatives" -- these are just labels we're given to stick on our "enemies" -- while our real enemies are those members of the bipartisan, monopolistic monster in Washington D.C., who daily violate the very Constitution they're sworn to uphold, defend and protect.

What matters most now is what you can do to: 1) reverse the habit of all parties of the federal government of unlawfully (unconstitutionally) amassing and centralizing power over The People; and to 2) ensure that you, your children, and grandchildren might live in liberty, as sovereign citizens of the American Republic (the United States, as established by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).

Are we -- The People -- really powerless? Do we -- and subsequent generations -- really have no choice but to acquiesce to our "masters" who profess to be our "government"? Not yet!!

WE'RE STILL THE LAWFUL MASTERS

The United States government was created by "we, The People." That's a fact as real today as it was when the Consitution was ratified in 1789. The usurpation of The People's ultimate authority over the government they created provides all the more basis for our taking action to correct the matter.

Our government's power depends entirely on "the Consent of the Governed" [that's us!], and "when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government."

Furthermore, the same Law by which The People created the federal government also prohibits Congress from hindering our "right...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" -- meaning we cannot be prevented from officially advising the federal government that we're displeased with its conduct, and that we want matters corrected.

WE THE PEOPLE

In fact, at least one group of people has initiated the process of doing exactly that, and their complaint, originally initiated by a Bob Schulz, has become a class-action lawsuit that any State citizen can join without cost.

That organization is "We The People." Everything you need to know about the lawsuit and its history can be read at and/or downloaded from their website:

http://www.givemeliberty.org

All the necessary instructions are provided, including a Q&A letter from the attorney handling the case, Mark Lane.

I highly recommend investing the time and effort required to read over the details of the suit, and then submitting your notarized affidavit to join in the effort. As the plaintiff list grows by the thousands, the message to the federal government is bound to become more clear and (therefore) more difficult to ignore.

THE 861 EVIDENCE

Another effort well worth participating in is that spearheaded by Larken Rose, exposing the details of the law concerning what is really "taxable income." (Hint: your wage/salary income very likely isn't included.)

Mr. Rose and company have produced an hour-long digital presentation laying out all the facts. With a high-speed internet connection, you can see the presentation for free at the official website:

http://www.861.info

You can also order bulk quantity copies of the presentation on mini-CDs right there at the website, for your own viewing, or to share with others.

But you can take some real action by raising your government representatives' awareness of the truth by sending a handful of one-page letters to your Senate and House representatives, as well as Mark Everson, the current IRS Commissioner, asking four simple questions.

I personally urge you, reader, to click on the "6 Questions" link at the website cited above, and copy, paste, print, sign and mail the letters and questions to your representatives and Mr. Everson. Again, the more people they hear from, the more clear will be the message that federal despotism is being recognized and openly questioned by The People.

"We The People" and "The 861 Evidence" are just two of many efforts going on today to inform The People and spur them to exercise their Right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and put the feds on notice.

Please don't let "government power" intimidate you from joining these two worthy causes. And please don't count on others to fight the fight of liberty on your behalf.

American independence was first won because a fraction of The People were willing to stand against British tyranny. The need for true, selfless patriots to raise their voices today is no less great.

The Bipartisan US Political Monopoly

2004-12-21T21:33:00.000-06:00

Most Americans have been conditioned to think politically in terms of a "two-party system" in which the Republicans and the Democrats represent the opposing "mainstream" positions on relevant issues.

Year after year voters choose between the two "major" parties, without asking why there are (or should be) only two choices -- or whether both parties could be unacceptable in terms consitutional legality.

"Conventional wisdom" suggests while any other parties are free to join the contest, none have had a sufficiently compelling or popular platform to merit public consideration. The government itself, along with the major media outlets, and much of academia, concur, further reinforcing popular belief in the "two-party system" as the American way.

What's wrong with this picture?

First, it is instructive to observe not only the differences, but also the many profound similarities, between these two parties.

For example, both parties have increased the size of the federal government; both have increased federal taxation; both have increased the size of the federal budget, the federal deficit, and the national debt; both have actively fostered the expansion of intrusive and meddling federal bureaucracies and police agencies; both have also been heavily engaged in the practice of "pork barrel" (tax-and-spend favoritism) politics, including corporate welfare when and where it suited their agendas (i.e., getting or keeping power).

Presidents of both parties have repeatedly used "executive orders" and "emergency powers" to wage costly, unconstitutional, undeclared wars abroad against opponents that posed no direct threat to U.S. security or sovereignty. Likewise, these same presidents, often with no opposition from Congress, have given away billions in "free" aid and "loans" to foreign governments, much of which has never benefited the people over whom they rule.

In these practices, both parties have incurred an ever greater national debt, the ultimate liability for which rests not with any president, nor any other elected federal official, but with the people themselves -- who are given no opportunity to speak (or vote) on such matters.

No matter what their popularly touted campaign slogans and platforms might have been, both the Democrats and the Republicans have had various turns controlling the White House and one or both Houses of Congress. Yet at no time did either party actually take substantial steps to reverse any of the above trends. Instead, both have "pushed the envelope" in disregarding the legal limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, resulting in today's bloated, power-hungry federal government.

Furthermore, the parties themselves and much of the media, have jointly hindered other voices from reaching the ears of the American public. While giving lip service to the Constitution and parroting phrases like "rule of law" (which carry little meaningful weight amidst a plethora of consistently unlawful actions), proponents and protectors of the bipartisan monopoly (both the deliberate and the unwitting) largely exclude "third party" challenges from serious public consideration.

A highly instructive example of this practice involves the "presidential debates" in which the two parties (and only the two parties) participate every four years. It's no secret (though they don't publicize it themselves) that these carefully staged events are heavily controlled and protected by the two parties, shielding both parties' candidates from issues for which neither party wants to be held accountable.

Sound like another "conspiracy theory" to you? The whole sordid scam is thoroughly documented at the website of Open Debates, an organization dedicated to exposing this farce and getting the voices of the "third parties" heard. I urge you to take the time to study their coverage, and make your own informed assessment of the matter.

Candidate	Party	State Ballots	State Write-Ins	Electoral Votes
Bush	Republican	51	0	538
Kerry	Democrat	51	0	538
Badnarik	Libertarian	49	0	527
Peroutka	Constitution	36	3	407
Nader	Independent	35	5	363
Cobb	Green	28	7	396

Details of the 2004 presidential election (and "debates") provide further insight into the perpetuation of the bipartisan monopoly of what should be an entirely non-partisan event. By mid-October, the "third party" candidates were on the ballots of U.S. states with potential electoral votes as indicated in the table above.

The number of electoral votes needed to win a presidential election in 2004 was 270, so every candidate shown in the table above would have technically been capable of winning the presidency, if it hadn't been for the fact that all but the first two were virtually ignored by the U.S. government, both major parties, and the media in general. (How many times have you seen the "other four" viable candidates and their positions on any issues even mentioned (in any form) in the media [let alone on what are supposed to be non-partisan "debates"]?)

Suffice it to say that there is something terribly wrong when both public (taxes) and private funding are used to give the two largest parties additional, unnecessary and free advertising and exposure under the guise of "public debate," to the deliberate exclusion of four viable, officially registered, and politically competitive platforms. The "news" media ought especially to be ashamed, since they pretend to offer balanced treatment of presidential elections, yet they largely ignore the presence and platforms of the "third parties," as well as the injustice done to them via such charades as the "presidential debates."

"Brother" Bush?

2004-11-07T22:53:00.000-06:00

One of the more confounding phenomena of George W. Bush's presidency has been the contrast between the firm and unquestioning support he receives from conservative Christians, and the degree to which authentic Christian character has been conspicuously absent from the president's words and deeds.

Stephen Mansfield's book, The Faith of George W. Bush, certainly indicates that there may well have been a true conversion to Christ in George W's not too distant past. Indeed, Bush the president is portrayed as a Bible-studying man of faith, as told by numerous quotes and anecdotes.

But now -- a year after Mansfield's book hit the streets -- the president goes on record on national television (ABC's Good Morning America, October 26) to declare that Christians and Muslims "all worship the same God," and that not only Christians, but also "non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven" -- having only "different routes of getting there."

Reality Check #1: The God of Islam, through his prophet Mohammed, decreed death to infidels (non-Muslims, including Christians), explicitly denounced Christ as Messiah, and denied Christ's resurrection. On the other hand, the God manifested through Christ the Son encourages one's being at peace with all men and loving one's enemies. Besides, His own unique atoning death and resurrection, are core tenets of the very teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, and of the apostles who knew Him and established the church.

Bottom line: Both cannot be true.

Reality Check #2: Islamic scripture denies that infidels (including Christians) will see heaven just as rigidly as Christian scripture denies that anyone will see heaven without personally entering into a "saving relationship" with the Creator through the explicitly God-given gift of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Bottom line: Both cannot be true.

[Lest I be accused of attributing ignorance to Christians alone, I should note that when the above facts were pointed out to WBAL Baltimore radio talk show host Chip Franklin (who shortly after 09/11/01 declared that it was "wrong" to point out the differences between Christianity and Islam), Mr. Franklin provided the following "informed and relevant" response: "Why don't you live by the scripture instead of judging those who don't."]

In light of the doctrinal chasm that separates essential Islam and essential Christianity, Bush's statements are indeed perplexing, if not downright disturbing. No less disturbing (to me, anyway) is the tenacity with which some "conservative" Christians themselves can respond when such inconsistencies are pointed out and questioned.

Case in point: An internet acquaintance, and professing Christian (whom I'll call "Vaughn"), rather than discuss such questions directly, responded by declaring me to be "obviously a very angry, judgmental man with...a bitter heart..."

(How's that for a sampling of contemporary "Christian love" and intellectual honesty? I'm branded as "angry, judg-mental, and bitter" for asking questions in pursuit of the truth. Sounds like Chip Franklin would feel right at home at Vaughn's church!)

But suppose we give president Bush the benefit of the doubt, and assume a genuine salvation (duly noting a personal theology of questionable biblical content after years of supposed Bible study and church attendance). What then are we to make of a "Christian" who openly declines to do the duties to which he is lawfully bound in the office to which he has been elected?

"What ‘duties'?" some may ask...

Well, just sticking to the basics -- how about the president's job, as defined by the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution (which every U.S. president solemnly swears to "preserve, protect and defend"). And to keep this post from getting too long, let's just use a few examples...

Example #1: The Constitution's First Amendment protects the People's right to free speech, but president Bush happily signed into law the so-called McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" (read "incumbent protection") bill, which unlawfully prohibits the publishing of the position or record of an elected federal representative during the 60 days preceding an election (and who does that benefit, besides the elected -- incumbent -- federal representative?).

Example #2: The Constitution's Second Amendment protects the People's right to keep and bear arms, but president Bush explicitly asserted that he would sign a bill extending the so-called "assault weapons" ban, had it ever reached his desk. [Disarming the citizenry has been on the agenda of every major oppressive government in history, and was one of the last straws that fomented American independence from Britain.]

Many other examples could be cited, but these two suffice as clear-cut cases in which the Consitution was not preserved, protected and defended by an ostensibly "Christian" president, who has solemnly sworn himself to do exactly that.

What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps if I weren't so "angry" and "bitter" I could join the throng of "conservative" Christians who mindlessly embrace "Brother Bush" by turning a blind eye to his perpetuation (and enlargement) of the federal State and the increased powers with which it usurps the rights recognized and protected by law in the Constitution.

Maybe then, with my "angry" and "bitter" critical analysis skills and intellectual honesty effectively dulled by a renewed sense of partisan loyalty and pseudo-patriotism, I too could embrace "Brother Bush" and his statist agenda.

Nah.

Affluent Slaves

2004-08-30T07:08:00.000-05:00

With the commencement of the 2004 Republican National Convention, the Houston Chronicle announced today that "after four years of keeping conservatives content," George W. Bush and the national leadership of the Republican Party shall henceforth be distancing themselves from "conservatives" in an effort to woo the votes of "moderates" and "independents."

The Chronicle (and untold other media outlets), while invoking these tired and ambiguous labels, takes care to sidestep the truth about the Bush administration -- and its record vis-á-vis the U.S. Constitution -- just as adroitly as the administration itself has done.

The so-called "conservatives" with whose contentment Bush is credited apparently favor ever-increasing federal spending, deficits, and national debt. They prefer that their medication choices (and others') be controlled by a socialist bureaucracy, instead of any free market alternatives.

These "conservatives" are so fed up with the Constitution's protection of their right to free speech -- and so enamored with the gang of political opportunists whose heels are presently dug in on Capital Hill -- that they're refreshingly pleased to be muzzled by their federal government for a full 60 days leading up to any federal election -- the truth about any incumbent's voting record or political agenda be damned.

And they so abhor the right to self defense guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment that they're quite "content" with a president who would happily renew the (entirely ineffective) Clinton "assault weapon" ban, were it to arrive at his desk for a signature.

Oh, and these same "conservatives" delight in the expenditure of untold billions of their children's and grandchildren's wealth on an endless string of imperialistic (albeit doomed to failure, every one of them) adventures abroad in "nation building" and "tyrant toppling," while at home, U.S. borders welcome all manner of criminal, "terrorist," and welfare aspirant among the "undocumented."

This, apparently, is what a "content conservative" is today, as defined by the Bush administration and the American Press.

Supposedly, if you don't like leftist (i.e., "liberal") socialist statism, your only alternative (so long as you remain paralyzed by your own misguided belief that the two-party system is all that matters) is "conservative" socialist statism. And now Bush apparently wants to bring into the Republican fold those who subscribe to some brand of "moderate" or "independent" socialist statism.

Has it really come to this? Do so very few actually care about real freedom any more that the very principles of liberty upon which this nation was once founded have vanished from the political radar screen?

Robert Higgs, of The Independent Institute, in the introduction of his recent book Against Leviathan, suggests rather lucidly that the chief reason why the U.S. government has become such a swollen collectivist monster is that "so few people in the United States today really give a damn about living as free men and women," having chosen to "label their servitude as freedom and to concentrate on enjoying the creature comforts that the government still permits them to possess. They may be slaves, but they are affluent slaves, and that condition is good enough for them."

Mr. Higgs appears to have hit the nail on the head. This ugly truth stands as a perpetual indictment of the historically and politically ignorant, spineless, self-serving character of the American People today, the price of whose "contentment" will ultimately be the slavery of us all and innumerable generations after us.

Shut up he explained

2004-08-18T07:22:00.000-05:00

The collective, numbing, drone of the NeoCons notwithstanding, much is terribly amiss with contemporary American foreign policy.

NeoCon pundits everywhere hasten to slap disparaging labels on anyone who questions the wisdom of spending billions of dollars plundered from American taxpayers and their progeny to "liberate" a nation from its despotic leader.

Or was it to "preempt" an "attack" -- via a fabled cache of "weapons of mass destruction" -- from that unsavory despot?

Or is it an imperialistic expression of NeoCon frustration over Osama bin Laden's successful evasion, vented out on the nearest available substitute?

It seems that at any given moment, the purpose of this taxpayer-funded "nation-building" adventure depends on which one is least indicted by a lack of empirical corroboration in the speaker's recent memory.

But while cycling through their list of justifications, NeoCons persist in neglecting the U.S. Constitution, rejecting out-of-hand any objections raised on the basis of the rule of law, the absence of which has rendered that document a relic of a bygone republic. They aim to silence such objections, burying them under a heap of patriotic-sounding slogans.

What's more, these same NeoCons have the nerve to presume that their brand of unabashed, unequivocal collectivist statism alone is patriotic, and anyone who differs (say, by suggesting that the present administration's conduct is well beyond the lawful limits of the Constitution) is ipso facto branded "anti-American."

NeoCons would do well to recognize that a patriot loves his country -- not the government. Their belief system -- not unlike any other -- merits a healthy dose of objective critical analysis, lest they find themselves unwittingly marching down the same unfortunate road as many a self-styled "conservative" or "patriot" of past generations (and nations).

In the absence of such introspection now, we (and our progeny) are doomed to a needlessly unhappy repetition.

Calling in "The Boss"

2004-08-12T07:14:00.000-05:00

A friend recently complained (justifiably so) that some members of Congress were appealing to foreign officials, asking for their "supervision" of U.S. elections.

The law does not permit such action to be taken on elections, which I pointed out to my friend: Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, supplemented by the 12th Amendment, in a straightforward, commonsense reading, tells us that it is not the business or jurisdiction of any national-level politician, official, judge, agency, or president to interfere with the election process, which by and large is defined and executed at state and local levels.

My friend's intended angry response to these congressional scofflaws was to appeal to the president, asking him to "rescind that invitation" because "he is the boss and he can do it."

This attitude (which is common among contemporary Americans) reflects how poorly many of us understand such concepts as rule-of-law and the very principles on which our (legal) system of government is based. Americans have become far too accustomed to clamoring for legislation, presidential decree (executive order), or judicial activism to solve problems (merely perceived or otherwise), when the Constitution already serves as a basis for resolving them.

We see the president, not as the executive administrator of the national government, as prescribed by law (i.e., the Constitution), but (thanks in part to Lincoln and his party) as "the boss." We want him -- and Congress -- to so arrange the laws and policies of the entire nation as to give us what we want, regardless of whether it is consitutionally lawful or at whose expense it must be procured.

I encouraged my friend to write the president, but not as "the boss." Instead, I said he should ask that the president censure those representatives who have gone beyond what the law permits, giving him (and them) an explanation of their error. A similar request could be made of the officers of the chambers of Congress to the same effect. And personal letters of censure could be sent to each of the representatives behind the invitation, advising them of their error.

By addressing our elected officials in the above manner, we put them on notice that we are familiar with the U.S. Constitution (which has not been repealed, contrary to popular opinion), and that we expect them to abide by it and the limitations it imposes.

And if it should happen to be the case that we are not familiar with the U.S. Constitution (or at least endeavoring to become so), then shame on us -- and we'd best get started!

The Biased Media

2004-07-21T07:21:00.000-05:00

Enough has already been written by others, unequivocally demonstrating the liberal bias inherent in most of the U.S. media (in itself, a sad commentary on the oblivious mental state of the average U.S. citizen).

Now for an exposé concerning a bias commonly found among selected conservative news sources. Today's specimen is the latest issue of the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine.

I'm an NRA member, and I'm not turning in my membership card or asking for a refund, but the NRA's political schizophrenia seems to have reached an all-time high with this issue of the magazine.

While extolling President Bush for standing up to the U.N.'s recent efforts to foist globalist gun control on U.S. citizens, America's First Freedom conveniently neglects Bush's campaign promise to renew the so-called Clinton Gun Ban (remember? The "Assault Rifle Ban"? The one that even the federal government admits has had zero effect on crime?) A more blatant double-standard could hardly be found. In effect, the NRA is cheering Bush for saying to the U.N., "You have no business trampling the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment -- that's my job!"

Elsewhere in the same issue of America's First Freedom, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Judiciary are castigated for their roles in creating and upholding, respectively, the so-called Campaign Finance "Reform" Act -- arguably the federal government's worst trampling of our constitutionally protected liberties yet. Strangely silent, however, is this blindly pro-Bush magazine on the fact that President Bush is the man who signed the bill into law!

If they want to retain any semblance of credibility, the folks at the helm of the NRA will have to learn, sooner or later, that they can't maintain this schizophrenic posture, defending constituionally protected liberties from one side of their collective mouth, while extolling, from the other side, anyone (especially a president!) who is actively participating in -- nay, leading -- the federal trampling of those same liberties.

Let's just hope it's sooner.

On Christian Conservatism

2004-07-11T22:06:00.000-05:00

There's something terribly amiss within that body of zealous American voters commonly identified as "Christian Conservatives." (Perhaps I'll address the topic of America's "Christian Liberals" another day.)

It's not necessarily either the "Conservative" or the "Christian" part of the label that's the trouble, but the common assumption that "Conservative" is what every "Christian" should be.

Never mind the fact that, its popular "talk" notwithstanding, the "Conservative" movement's "walk" is very nearly as collectivist as its so-called "Liberal" counterpart. They're equally adept at perpetuating the bloated big-government tax-and-spend entitlements, pork-barrelling, and international give-aways of the plundered property of American citizens.

Not so, you think? Then consider...

Over the past 100 years (and especially within the past 50), the federal government has experienced wholesale increases in size (by every method of measurement), power (usurped from the People), massive debt (burdening the People and their progeny for decades), and nearly every constitutional abuse imaginable. Exactly how many "Conservative" Presidents or members of Congress vigorously and successfully opposed all or part of this trend, calling for nothing less than an unmitigated halt, if not a reversal?

Very, very few, as a matter of fact.

"Conservatives" by and large have played much the same role as "Liberals" in pushing the envelope of U.S. federal government well beyond its constitutionally defined limits. In plain English, this means "Conservatives" are by and large explicitly guilty of violating the Law of the Land and spurning the very Rule of Law to which many of them point as an essential principle for sound government policy.

Now to the "Christian" side of the matter. Genuine, Bible-believing Christians are supposed to highly esteem things like truth and moral integrity. What then are we to make of their ostensibly immutable love affair with the patently lawless and morally culpable "Conservative" movement?

Do they think the Bible demands that they limit themselves to the contemporary American "two-party system" wherein one may choose only between two varieties of assisted suicide for the American Republic, but not among alternatives to suicide itself? Are "Conservative Republican" liars, cheats, and tramplers of the Law somehow more noble and worthy of the Christian vote than "Liberal Democrat" liars, cheats, and tramplers of the Law? Does George Bush's profession of (Christian) faith somehow negate the fact that he, together with the party he leads, perpetuates that very system of liars, cheats, and tramplers of the Law, implicitly condoning it by their combined failure (refusal?) to expose, oppose, and dispose of it?

Instead of congratulating themselves for being in the camp that they perceive to be the lesser of two evils, perhaps it's time American Christians recognized that they are under obligation not to choose evil in the first place. Their civic responsibility is to expose and oppose it, all popularly embraced professions of faith notwithstanding.

The Pledge

2004-06-14T21:56:00.000-05:00

Today it was announced that the U.S. Supreme Court threw out an atheist's lawsuit challenging the Pledge of Allegiance in government schools.

At issue, ostensibly, was the ‘godless' gentleman's objection to his daughter's compulsory recitation of the words "under God." Fair enough. Seems simpler (and less costly) for the young lady to have remained silent while her peers enunciated those two words than for her father (and all his lawyer friends) to raise such a ruckus. But lawyers need to eat, too, I suppose.

That's not to say I'm personally 100% pleased with The Pledge -- but my beef is with the word after that otherwise innocuous "under God" clause: indivisible.

That one word says volumes about the transformation the U.S. has undergone, thanks, in no small part, to the outcome of the Civil War.

While the popular (and oversimplified) myth persists that the Civil War was fought primarily to end slavery, the facts of history (for those willing to examine them) bear witness to a much bigger picture, involving economic coercion via government power, among other things. The largely industrialized North was using the federal government's taxation power to the disadvantage of the largely agricultural South. For lack of fair rules, the southern States chose to opt out of the game.

Slavery was peaceably eliminated in numerous other nations during the same era. The same would have been America's inevitable destiny, had federal power not been invoked to shield northern industry from economic reality. President Lincoln only played the ‘slavery' card after the crisis was already well underway, in order to rally sufficient volunteers towards what was to become America's bloodiest armed conflict.

Each individual State embraced membership among the United States on a voluntary basis. It logically follows that -- in the absence of any explicit, pre-existing constitutional prohibition to the contrary -- each State likewise remains free to secede from the union on a likewise voluntary basis, should the people of that State see fit to do so. The federal victory has since been consistently construed to suggest that secession -- on any basis -- is simply not allowed.

So now the Pledge of Allegiance (which, incidentally is not a definitive legal document as are the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution) effectively propagandizes us from our earliest years at government schools with the word "indivisible" -- the actual Constitution (i.e., the Law of the Land), the People, and the States themselves, notwithstanding.

There may well come a day in the not too distant future when the American People again rightly esteem the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution, and dispense with petty debates about "The Pledge" and "under God." The constitutional abuses of the federal government have only increased exponentially in the years since the Civil War. May the American People soon wake up and put their servant government back in its constitutionally defined place.

Otherwise we -- and our progeny -- will remain the servants.

Oath? What Oath?

2004-06-11T07:52:00.000-05:00

U.S. President George Bush, in a recent interview, said, "The job of the president is to help cultures change." Hmmm. I can't seem to find that in the official job description for the President of the United States of America.

In fact, what I do find conflicts disturbingly with the conduct of President Bush and each of his predecessors for the past century:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Unless I'm mistaken, that's the same Constitution that prohibits waging war without an explicit declaration from Congress. I'm no "peace-monger" myself, but one can't be blamed for wondering why so many constitutionally illegal wars have been fought in the last 50 years at the expense of American blood and money.

Could it be that the American people -- and their elected representatives -- wouldn't actually consent to these constitutionally illegal wars, had they been consulted? How exactly did it come to be that "the government" and "the President" simply take action, telling the People why such action is essential, instead of acting in response to the expressed will of the People, within the limits of the Constitution?

From where I sit, it appears that our Republic, keeping one's word, and the popularly touted "Rule of Law" have become things of the past.

Feds at it again

2004-06-10T19:15:00.000-05:00

It says a lot about the U.S. federal government’s view of the U.S. Constitution when its agencies, ostensibly with the blessings of Congress, trample the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

Case in point: Federal agents just raided the Denver home and business of income tax opponent and gun rights advocate Rick Stanley, taking property... But no federal charges have been filed against Stanley, and court documents relating to the raid remained sealed. [FULL STORY]

Go figure.

Mr. Stanley isn’t the only victim of federal intimidation tactics in recent history. One Larken Rose, whose TaxableIncome.net website and video expose the IRS fraud in crisp, clear detail, also recently suffered a home invasion by the IRS and DOJ, with no charges being filed, as did his colleague Tom Clayton.

You may have no problem with the IRS or a bloated federal government that plunders citizens’ wealth for the coerced funding of someone else’s globalist, collectivist programs. And you may even think anyone advocating "gun rights" is probably some kind of nut.

But if you think it’s okay for the federal government to trample the constitutional rights of people who lawfully voice their disapproval of federal abuses, don’t be surprised when the feds don’t stop there, and your favorite constituional rights are just as easily dispensed with.

If agencies of the federal government can invade law-abiding citizens’ homes with such impunity today, just wait to see what they’ll be doing to us in another decade -- unless a lot of us get substantially braver.

Is this thing on?

2004-06-09T20:58:00.000-05:00

It’s amazing how technology facilitates culture’s transformation. Things move quickly. I must confess I was still enjoying my vinyl LPs when most folks’ music libraries were stocked mostly with CDs. Less than a year ago I didn’t even know blogs existed (or what they were) -- and now I have one of my own!

I’ll be around. Telling the truth. The worldview espoused here will not be based on mere speculation, ideology, party line, or what the media and academia say. Before you see it, it will have undergone rigorous critical analysis. (You’re welcome to subject it to more.)

In the end, if even a few individuals have benefitted, the effort will have been worth it.