Sunday, May 28, 2006

Respectables in the Heartland

I read an article by Robert Higgs that will make you depressed, if you are for the principles of liberty. His story simply states the mainstream conservatives who believe in the philosophy of "small government" genre, wouldn't know a true small-government if it hit them in the face. They still believe that government is good and proper, especially when Republicans are at the helm. Do you want to know a little secret: conservatives are no different than liberals. They both believe in whatever the government tells them, whether or not you prove them otherwise. If you do, that just makes the mainstream YOU!

In reading the next to last paragraph, in the middle of the paragraph, it says, "Coming away from the event, my overwhelming impression was that the government has absolutely nothing to worry about." How sad but true that is. From my personal experience, it is true in Oklahoma!

I wrote a letter to my local paper last week. My letter was about the trivialness competing between a liberal versus a conservative, or a Democrat versus a Republican. Both are Big Government, pro-war hawks. I ended with a return to a paradigm of liberty. On social issues, we should repeal all of that socialist welfare-state garbage, including the taxes that will pay for it. My fatal flaw was I reminded them the controversial but true case that there is no law today which requires most Americans to file a form and pay taxes anyway.

My letters before the last, the paper published them within a week. But not this one. Maybe there is a new editor who is not a pro-free press person. I don't know. The last paper had only three opinions with plenty of space for a fourth. But not mine. I believe there are two reasons why I didn't get published: the paper was too scared to print my letter, or the population of my town was too angry to believe the reality of my paper. In both cases, liberty is headed for a fall.

UPDATE: Finally, it ran my story. Whether it was good journalistic and 1st Amendment ethics, or it had only three letters in today's editorial page and my letter made up half of the page, I will refer to the former. Here is my letter.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Unalienable rights

In reading the Declaration of Independence, 2nd paragraph, we see the underlining principle of Americanism. It reads, in part, "[T]hat they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

What exactly does the Declaration meant when it says, "unalienable rights"? Let's look it up.

Since it is from a legal document, let us look it up in Black's Law Dictionary [BLD]. It says "unalienable" is the same as "inalienable". When we look up "inalienable right", BLD describes it as "a right that cannot be transferred or surrendered; esp., a natural right such as the right to own property". The traditional American philosophy says that man (or woman--the individual) is endowed at birth with rights which no one can alter, change, eliminate...nothing; the rights are PERMANENT because he/she was given by God.

Do you know how powerful that statement implies?

Right, by itself, means, "Something that is due by just claim". It's you rights; not mine, or somebody elses. It's yours alone. You are sovereign with your rights. You are the master, there is none higher. And, thus, I am sovereign with my rights. And every person is sovereign with his/her rights. If someone is sovereign with your rights, then you are nothing but a slave.

What if you want to loan someone your rights, can you do this? No, it's unalienable. A perfect example is a surgeon performing surgery on a patient. The surgery is getting long on time, and the doctor is getting hungry. Can the doctor tell a nurse to take over while the doctor gets a bite to eat? No, because the nurse is not qualified to perform the task.

The government is not qualified to use the individual's rights. Other people are not qualified either. Only the individual itself has the capability to use his/her rights. Government's only role is to protect their individual rights. That's it. I hope that this will give you a clearer picture of what our Framers' minds were thinking when Thomas Jefferson wrote, and the rest of the people signed, the Declaration of Independence and formed our nation.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Frighten Washingtonians

The Rayburn Office Building was reopened after it was closed for five hours, and the police searched floor to floor, to find...nothing. The best hunch is workers from the building made a noise that frighten someone else to call police.

Geeze, not again?

A year from now, people were screaming bloody murder after a student flew a Cessna--that's right, a Cessna--above the White House.

Will this never end?

The major reason the people of Washington are scared of little things is that they forbid the use to "keep and bear arms"; Washington has the most restrictive gun-laws in the country. And, you guessed it, it has the highest murder rate, too.

Let's rid of the gun-laws forbidding the people the right to keep and bear arms, like the 2nd Amendment intended. In that way, people would ease about guns. By the slight chance that the warning is justified, the people will say:

"Look, a criminal!"


"He's got a gun!"

(Bleww!) "Dead criminal."

"Carry on."

As compared to what we have now and the police closed the building for 5 hours...for nothing. You make the call.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Environment and property ownership

Here is a story by Sheldon Richman, equating improving the environment and protecting property ownership that you should read.

No more reporters left reporting in Iraq

The right-wing pro-war radio talk-show hosts complain that too much violence and destruction is reported in Iraq. They say not enough is reported on how much good we American troops are doing in Iraq. The reason why that not enough positive news is reported is not enough news, period, is reported. Journalists are fleeing away from Iraq. Not enough reporters are willing to go, on account of they are too scared, because of all the violence.

By the way, as I write this, 2455 American deaths have been counted since the beginning of the war against Iraq (March 19, 2003)...for now. I don't know how many Iraqis have died during the war because, according to General Tommy Franks, US Central Command Leader in Iraq, "We don't do body counts."

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Natural laws trump man-made laws

Whenever a man-made law, especially a government-made law, conflicts with a natural law, the natural law will win every time. Case in point, the federal government put in 4 billion dollars and spent 2 years trying to wipe out cocaine in Colombia, and Colombia is growing more coca than when the program started (coca is the main ingredient in cocaine).

You can't pass a new law, and that law will alter the law of supply-and-demand, just like a new law will alter the law of gravity. With all drugs; in fact, with all commodities, whenever you make that commodity illegal, you ultimately raise the prices considerably, which means more profits for the distributor, which means more distributors.

Since drugs are illegal, dealers don't use the legal avenues to settle disputes, so dealers turn to violence. And that violence might take an innocent victim. And since drugs are illegal, you don't know how strong or if there is an unknown quantity in your drugs. I know how strong and what quantity of alcohol there is in my tequila or beer. I don't know how strong or what quantity of drugs there is in my ecstasy or acid. Unknown quantity leads to sickness, or death (do you remember Maryland Terrapin player and basketball star Len Bias?).

Whenever you arrest a dealer, you make a void, and eventually someone else to fill the void, if the money is right. You end up with what is happening today: jails filled to capacity, and more and more drugs to go around. Some dealers are stupid, and make a lot of mistakes, and they will be arrested quickly. While others are smart, and make few mistakes, and they live a long time without being put in prison. But make no mistake: for every dealer in jail, there is a future dealer who will take the place.

Besides, whether drugs are legal or illegal, I can bet you will take the same amount of drugs.

What you will get by making drugs illegal is higher prices, gangs and violence, impure mixtures, but drugs on every corner.

I say end this futile and wasteful war on drugs, once and for all.

Monday, May 22, 2006

'Quick! Hide your liberties!'

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a speech today in which he said he thinks any media that reveal any government secrets should be prosecuted on account of "national security".

Gonzales, over four years ago, used the words "quaint" when discussing about the "war on terror" and how it handled its Geneva Convention's treatment of prisoners.

Gonzales, a year ago speaking on the Constitution, "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is" , implying the Constitution is a "living" document.

And now, he is destroying the freedom of the press. All of this from an Attorney General (he knows the "law" better than anyone!). What disaster is our country headed into?

No Gonzales, the Constitution is not a living document. It is "dead". It's ink on paper. James Madison read the same document as I read now.

I want to reteach you the principles of the Constitution: "Constitution 101", okay Alberto? "We the People" "ordain"ed "and establish"ed this Constitution, and the Constitution formed the federal government. That means the people are over the Constitution, and the Constitution is over the government. Not the other-way around, like you want to believe. The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land"; there is no law higher, including Gonzales' laws referring to national security. And being from the part of the government, the Constitution to you is the Alpha and the Omega.

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads in part, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press". That doesn't mean a few laws, and that doesn't mean one law; that means "NO LAW"! Which part of "no law" did you not understand, Gonzales? "No law" means "no law", period, end of story. If Congress passes no law concerning the press, the President couldn't execute a law, and the Attorney General is on the president's cabinet. The Attorney General follows the President, and the President follows the Constitution, including the First Amendment, so it follows that the Attorney General will follow the Constitution. Am I being clear, Alberto Gonzales?

Do you want to arrest me now?

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Wonderful ideas on liberty

There are two articles on what would it be like if we lived in a free society. Jacob Hornberger (of The Future of Freedom Foundation) wrote a story about the wonderful and prosperous world we would live in if we separate school and state. And Llewellyn Rockwell (of also wrote a story about the wonderful and prosperous world we would live in if we live in a pure free-market economy. Both are excellent, and I would like to share them with you.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

The "official" language

The full Senate will convene next week to debate a bill to make English the official language of the U.S.A, and both sides are up in arms. This current debate is whether to make English the "official" language, or the lesser-known "common and unifying" language. Come on guys, give me a break.

If you want to call English "official" or "common", that is negligible. We will still be speaking English in a majority of America, whatever the Senate decides. I am 38 years old, and I speak only English fluently. Being pre-school, school-age, college-age, or after school, the only language spoken in this country is English.

The "second" language I speak is French, but it is broken at best (je m'appelle Thomas Bell, mais je ne parle pas tres bien francais), The reason is I don't get to practice the language at all. Jacob Hornberger was born and lived into his adult life in Lardeo, TX. Lardeo is a border town, north of the Rio Grande, so he gets to practice both Spanish and English regularly, and he speaks both fluently. But, anywhere except the border with Mexico, the only language that is spoken is English.

In fact, for America's 231 years, the only language that the people spoke was English. The Declaration of Independence was wrote in English. So is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We spoke English in the past, we speak English today, and we will still be speaking English in the foreseeable future.

Besides, in a free society, the government's only role is to secure individual's rights; that's it. Government wants to pass a bill to make a language "official" or "common" has nothing to do with protecting the individual's right. In fact, it restricts the people's rights. Making English the "official language" or the "common and unifying language" is symbolic at best, and it destroys our cherished freedom.

Friday, May 19, 2006

'Do Not Resuscitate'

Mary Wohlford, a 80-year old great-grandmother, left no doubt when the time has come. She tattooed the words "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" on her chest. She got the idea from 30 years of nursing and the Terri Schivo fiasco last year. She wants to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what she wants to do if she was like Schivo. She said, "If Terri Schivo had a 'Do Not Resuscitate' tattoo, then her husband could have said, 'See, it's right here. This is what she wanted.' But she verbalized it, so they had this big rigmarole." For Wohlford, her tattoo will prove, hook, line, and sinker, what she wanted. The tattoo, by itself, wouldn't stop a doctor from resuscitating her, but the idea is clear.

The focal point of the situation is missing in all of this: who owns and has control of her body and her life? Anyone with a little common sense will say Wohlford. Wohlford is an adult, and, being in a sound mind, her decision on what she wants to do with her body is paramount. If Wohlford has a tattoo with instructions on what to do with her vegetative body, that instructions must be carried out. But like the doctor said, I don't think a tattoo, by itself, wouldn't stop me from helping her, but that's why she also has a living will. But, says Wohlford, "I don't believe in lawyers too much."

If you have a marked video with her instructions for family or friends to view, that would be plenty. The tattoo shop owner had it right. "Ultimately, it was her decision." And her decision is final.

Not in my house!

After what happened in New Orleans, I have a pledge of my own: the Second Amendment is still the law in my whomever it applies!

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Here we go again

George W. Bush is at it again. Now, he is monitoring all of our phone calls. Not a few, not some, but millions of call records were turned over to the federal government. Only the Denver-based Qwest refused to give up their customer's records, on account of the questionable legality. This is another example of how Bush is trashing the Bill of Rights. The last time that he was spying on the American people was in the beginning of 2005, barely over a year from now.

I don't believe it. I don't believe it at all. I guess George Orwell's predictions came true; the only inaccuracy is he is late 22 years, that's all. Now, Bush replied, "The intelligence activities I authorized are lawful", and the people believed and supported him. I guess that he is George W. Bush--"The Decider". His plan is working flawlessly. He produce the fears of the people, frighten them to death, then impose dictatorial powers in order to "protect the masses" from the evils of the "terrorists". I thought that the president is dumb, but if he did what he intended to do, and the people conclude what they did, I have to tell you; George W. Bush played the situation masterfully.

But, the Framers are geniuses as well. They foresaw a tyrannical government in the future, even if the people develop their government with good intentions. That is why the underlying principle of the Constitution, with the three equal branches of government, checks and balances, and adding a Bill of Rights before ratification; is they recognize the greatest threat to the freedom and liberty of its citizenry lies with their own government. The only thing positive out of this situation is more people will believe Aaron Russo's movie, America: From Freedom To Fascism when it aires nationwide in 2 months (UPDATE: AFFF will be now airing nationally late July).

Thursday, May 11, 2006

The price of gold, among other things

Do you know what an ounce of gold sells for these days? It passed $700 earlier this week, with no end in sight. Gold, or any precious metal, is a hedge against inflation. Personally, on my portfolio, gold is over 12.5 times ahead of the other three (+31.99 versus +2.53). If I eliminate bond, which it is the only product I lost money, gold still was ahead almost 3 times (+31.99 versus +10.88). Since the potential of inflation is real, the Feds raised the interest rates continually for the past two years straight (no wonder my bond lost money!) to curb loans to the private sector (and thus, to curb inflation). But, the Feds still maintain the money supply to fund the government. And, within the last two months, the Feds quit publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. M3 is the best indicator of monetary inflation.

What all of this means?

Read today's's Downsizer-Dispatch, and you will know the truth. I tell you what, it is not good for this country for sure. You can take action at the end of the article, if you want. Some of you will look the other way and take a blind eye at the obvious and think, "It is fine." The last group of you, I can't help it if that is your choice. But you should face the reality. As Thomas Jefferson once said about trying to be informed, "If a nation [or an individual] expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was, and never will be." Now, all I can do is speak the truth. It is up to you to listen, absorb, reflect, and act.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Nancy Pelosi

After watching Meet The Press and Tim Russert interviewing Representative Nancy Pelosi (from California) last Sunday (read the transcript), it raised an interesting dilemma. No where in her 30-minute speech did she used the term "taxpayer". Russert used the term twice: once from reading from the USA Today, and another when he questioned Pelosi, but not from Pelosi herself. She switched "taxpayer" to "American people" (e.g., Pelosi said in her speech, "You have corruption, cronyism, and incompetence which has cost--has a cost to the American people", not "has a cost to the American taxpayer", or "has a cost to the taxpayer").

It may surprise you, but "American people" and "taxpayer" are not the same thing. If Pelosi used the world "taxpayer" in the appropriate places, her speech would be accurate. But what Pelosi said is inaccurate. The word "American people" means--well, it's self-explanatory. The word "taxpayer" is a legal term, found in the Internal Revenue Code, or IRC. In IRC Section 7701, we find the general definitions of terms not found anywhere else in this code. In Paragraph (a)(14) in the preceding section, titled "Taxpayer", it states, "The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax." If all American people are "taxpayers", there wouldn't be a special term in the IRC. If I am subject to any internal revenue tax, I am a "taxpayer". But, if I am not subject to any internal revenue tax, that would mean, by definition, I'm a "nontaxpayer". The definition of "nontaxpayer" is not found in the IRC; but the courts have a definition of "nontaxpayer" (4th paragraph from the top, right below Section 7701). Which one are you? It is all up to you. If you have trouble labeling yourself one or the other, look at the law!

There is one more thing Pelosi is inaccurate in her speech. She said about taxes, "[Y]ou're paying your considerable taxes, thank you for your patriotism". Now, let's get the facts straight: paying taxes is not being a patriot. Patriotism means loving his/her country. If the government wants to hurt the country, it is the genuine patriot who is willing to stand up and fight against the government in favor of the country. In taxes, it is the patriot who remembers the last right listed in the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the petition the Government for a redress of grievances", and to make the government answer simple questions about taxes, including the basic question, "Where is the law requiring me to pay?" If government refuses to answer, or refuses to show up at all, the genuine patriot will have no choice but to refuse to pay taxes. That is what Bob Schulz and the rest of the members of We the People Foundation and We the People Congress did. Those members are true, outstanding patriots, in spite of what Pelosi claimed!

Sunday, May 07, 2006

A solution to the rising gasoline prices

As gasoline prices are soaring through the roof, the people are screaming, and the Democrats are licking their lips. They blame Republicans on sharing their bed with the Big Oil companies. The Republicans retaliate by blaming Democrats on sharing their bed with the environmental agencies. Both are blaming each other, but none are offering a solution. I know, Republicans are offering a $100 gas rebate check, but...get real! A hundred dollars will by two or three tanks of gas; that's it. Mandatory mileage requirements, taxing gas profits, or otherwise shifting the blame to the companies will only force prices higher. But, there is some solutions that we can do to help.

First, and the simplest, is to repeal the tax on gasoline; federal, state, and local combined that add to the price of gas. That would save 50-70 cents per gallon at the pump. I would eliminate all taxes period, but for now, just the gas tax.

"But, how will we pay for services without the tax?" Easy. First, get the troops out of Iraq, Iran, and the other 135+ countries around the world, bring them home, and dismantle the empire. We would then discharged them and release them to the private sector.

"How will we defend this country?" By using the 2nd Amendment the way the Framers intended. Remember, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) are the people instructing the government, not vise versa. Just ask Switzerland and its neutrality while surrounded by Germany, Italy, France, and Austria in World War I and World War II. Hitler called Switzerland "a little porcupine".

Besides, I thought Iraq will pay for the "liberation" (i.e., invasion and occupation) with oil. Before the war, oil was less than $30 a barrel. Today, it is over $70. So much for the oil prices, among other things.

Next, remove restrictions on the building of refineries. Refining plants are the "choke point" that is currently driving down the supply of gasoline and thus resulting in higher prices. In supply-and-demand system, if you lower supply or raise demand, that will raise the price. If you raise supply or lower demand, that will lower the price. It is called a free-market economy.

Finally, eliminate the requirement that refineries produce different mixtures of gasoline for the 50 states. This all but destroys the ability of gasoline producers to take advantage of economies of scale and adds an unknowable amount to the price of each gallon.

That is just a start. Each of these things represents a hurdle that government places in the way of gas suppliers. By eliminating these three, it should drive down gas prices considerably while making a profit for the stockholders. The companies are happy, and the people are happy. The only one who's not happy is the government, which means I'm happy. I love my country, but I don't trust its government.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Rush Limbaugh

In the latter part of 2003, The National Enquirer published an article about his housekeeper getting OxyConin, a pain-killer described as "hillbilly heroin", for the conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. After the Enquirer was published, law-enforcement officials were investing Limbaugh on over-lapping prescriptions of the drug, commonly referred to as "doctor shopping", and as such, Limbaugh checked himself into rehab.

But, after rehab, instead of admitting that drugs are medical problems and not criminal, Limbaugh lashed out at investigators who served warrants for shopping physicians willing to prescribe drugs, like before. There was no mention of being remorseful about what he said earlier. Earlier, in 1995, Limbaugh said about drugs, "There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. It destroys societies.... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." After spending 30 days in rehab, not a peep out of him on what he thinks about drugs.

And in 2006, Limbaugh is at it again, although law officials let him off with a probation. And now, Representative Patrick Kennedy is doing what Limbaugh did in 2003. Now, conservatives will say that it is okay with releasing Limbaugh, but put Kennedy in the slammer. But liberals will offer that let's hold off with Kennedy, but throw Limbaugh in the brig. This is just the same old mantra, but the opposite targets.

As a pure unyielding libertarian, I believe in principles, and these principles will apply to conservatives, liberals, libertarians, authoritarians, Congressmen, radio talk-show hosts...everybody. The principles that I believe are individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, and every issue that is raised, my answer is one or more of these 3 principles. On drugs, I believe in individual liberty; I believe in the title description on my blog (see above). As such, I believe that victimless crimes in general violate no one, so victimless crime is not a crime (the definition of a "crime" is it violates the rights of a "victim"; ergo, if there is no victim, there is no crime). Injecting drugs is a victimless crime. Limbaugh hurt no one (but Limbaugh) when he injected drugs. Kennedy hurt no one (besides Kennedy) when he injected drugs. I know, Kennedy drove a car after taking drugs, and that act violated other driver's and passenger's rights, but that is another story altogether. However, just taking drugs doesn't. You may disagree with me, but that's what I believe. I seldom use drugs (I don't use hard drugs at all; the hardest drug I use is legal), but like I said, I believe in my principles.

I wish both Limbaugh and Kennedy will finally realize that drug use will hurt no one but themselves, and the taxpayers' money will be wasted in the process. If they want some honest help, they should apply to a private rehab, like Limbaugh in 2003 and Kennedy today. But, I realize both, especially Limbaugh, will do what they have been doing before, and the futile drug war will continue.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Mexico decriminalizing drugs...temporally

Mexico has a policy of going toward self-responsibility. Mexican President Vicente Fox assured the media that he will sign a bill which would legalize the use of nearly any kind of drug, including cocaine, heroin, LSD, marijuana, PCP, opium, synthetic opiates, mescaline, peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, amphetamines, and methamphetamines.

Now, the legalization is for use, not marking, so drug lords and drug gangs will continue to exist. And, since drugs are still sold in the street with no legal supervision, the drugs would still be more dangerous. But legal drug use is a big step in the right direction, and the U.S. drug forces don't like it at all. The tried the same-ole stories that they tried before: "If we legalize drugs, drug use will explode. There will be crack-addicts in the street; pill-poppers in the alleyways; marijuana users in every corner." Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said, "Any country that embarks on policies that encourage drug use will get more drug use and more drug addiction."

Church leaders feel the same way. "If they thought they had a problem with drugs before, wait until they see the monster they create with this policy," said Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy with the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "Demand will skyrocket and so will supply."

But, I know the real reason why the drug war must continue. If we legalize drugs, using as well as selling, drug-war agents will not be needed. They must find another job to work, just like alcohol-war agents did when Prohibition ended in 1933.

Drug-money the police made out of raids and seizures would dry up, as well as the taxes the officials collected to fund them. Asset-forfeiture in drug cases would end. Drug-war bribery of government personnel would cease. Prison guards would have to be laid off.

Everybody knows that the 30-year futile war on drugs has failed miserably. In fact, there are two consequences of the drug war: 1) the massive drug money will continue as before, and: 2) the massive personal infringements on the American people will continue, as before.

The two groups that are the most dependent on the drug war to continue are the drug cartels and the drug enforcement agencies. This is not surprising that the two fiercest opponents of drug legalization are the two forementioned.

UPDATE: I was informed the Mexican president, after pressure from the U.S. officials, refused to sign the drug bill today. I guess that self-responsibility will have to wait a little longer. The drug gangs and the drug officials have prevailed! I guess it's might equals right. Fox is a cowardly wimp.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Say that again!?

George W. Bush, in 2000, named himself the "uniter, not a divider"; now, he proudly called himself: "the decider!"...say THAT three times fast!!