A Free Society

2008-06-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

The real cause in rising gas prices is the shrinking dollar and the Federal Reserve

For the first time in history, the average price of a gallon of gasoline reached over $4.00, with no end in sight! How high can prices go? Who is to blame? The CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, and Conoco? The "soccer moms" riding around in their SUVs? Or is it the "nasty" free-market at work?

Part of the answer lies in understanding the economic bubbles and monetary inflation, but the root of the problem lies in the Federal Reserve System (which causes the economic bubbles and monetary inflation in the first place). The Federal Reserve is charged with controlling the money supply through interest rate manipulation. However, as most of us failed to realize, creating money by raising or lowering interest rates is its only tool. When the Federal Reserve creates money by lowering interest rates, more people will want to borrow, the banks will satisfy the need, and new money is injected throughout the economy. That creates an economic bubble. But also, when more money is chasing the same amounts of goods, that's the text-book definition of inflation, and prices will rise. But in reality, it is actually the fall of the dollar which causes the price to rise.

Let us take an example. Let's say the only thing you can buy in "Thomas' fantasy world" is widgets, and it is a finite amount of widgets. Let's say there are $1 million in the world, and there are 100,000 widgets, so a widget is worth $10. You need 100 widgets to accomplish your goal, so you take $1,000 to buy 100 widgets (in Thomas' world, there is no sales tax, or any tax, as I requested). But you are tired, so you put your money in a safe, went to bed, and planned to buy widgets tomorrow.

But during the night, the Federal Reserve (it has the Feds in my world too, in spite of my rants) printed $1 million more dollars, out of thin air, so there are $2 million and the same 100,000 widgets. I go to the store with my $1,000, but 100 widgets now cost $2,000! The Feds cut my money in half! Now you know why the Federal Reserve, through inflation, is robbing us blind, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Federal Reserve notes (aka US dollars) are nothing but ink and paper, and tended to be inflated. Precious metals (e.g., gold and silver), on the other hand, are "inflation-proof" (you can't print more gold!). As for gas prices, in reality, the price will remain the same. In 1947, the average price of a gallon of gas was 23¢ (i.e., slightly below a quarter). In 1947, a quarter was composed of ¼ ounce of fine silver. Today, an ounce of silver costs around $17.00, so ¼ ounce of fine silver costs around $4.25, so the average price of a gallon of gas is slightly below ¼ ounce of silver--the same! Inflation caused by the Federal Reserve caused the dollar to plummet in value, not the gas prices to rise! The Federal Reserve is evil in my mind.

The bottom line is average Americans are being seriously hurt by these flawed policies, and they are not getting good information about the true dynamics at work. The important thing concerning monetary concepts is to address the subjects of central banking and fiat money, and the destructive tendencies of both in our financial lives. The only way to have stability is to get rid of the Federal Reserve and introduce sound money (money backed by gold and silver) again. Government needs to get out of the way, so that the people can go to work and correct government's mistakes. By doing that, we can get our economy back on stable ground. If we continue to do what we are doing before, the American economy is doomed.

2008-05-26T19:33:00.000-07:00

Is the price worth it?

Was getting rid of Saddam Hussein worth it? I mean, Saddam was a brutal dictator. He murdered millions of Iraqi people. But he didn't hurt Americans, or even threaten to hurt us. Other dictators murdered millions of his own countrymen, and those dictators are friends of the U.S.A. So was getting rid of Saddam worth the price?

In 2003, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney said that invading Iraq in order to get rid of Saddam wouldn't cost that much. Among other terrible things in order to scare the people to attacking Iraq (WMD the most prominent), they said the Iraqi people could bear the brunt of this war.

That isn't so. After a year or so, it was obvious that either the Iraqis wouldn't handle the load, or they was too broke to do so.

Bush and Cheney also said Iraqi oil will pay for the majority.

But that isn't so either. According to an article in the Washington Post, Iraqi oil production went down after the invasion than before. Part of the reason for this is that Iraqi insurgents are skimming large portions of the oil profits to fund the insurgency, with bribes playing a major role in the operation.

In the mean time, it wasn't the "surge" that caused the casualty levels of U.S. troops to go down. It was the American officers bribing the Iraqi insurgency to switch sides and fight al-Qaeda. Better to pay Iraqis to fight al-Qaeda than to fight them yourselves! But those bribes are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and obviously must go on indefinitely since everyone knows what will happen if the bribes stop.

So, what’s the cost of getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

For one, there are over 4,000 dead American soldiers since the war began. But those deaths are worth it, right?

And there is an estimated one million dead Iraqis in that time. But, according to retired general Tommy Franks, "We don't do [Iraqi] body counts." So those deaths are definitely worth it.

What about the over 30,000 injured, maimed, and disabled U.S. soldiers, and countless of Iraqis. Is the price worth it?

There is also the total destruction of Iraq and the millions of Iraqis who have had to flee the country. By and large, Americans feel that that cost has been worth it.

And now, the Federal Reserve, in obvious panic over the state of the financial markets, was working overtime to come up with a bailout plan for Bear Stearns, also using the opportunity to lower interest rates again rather than simply wait until its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday.

A Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who has co-authored a book with Linda Bilmes, former assistant secretary of commerce, entitled The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. According to them, the U.S. government has spent $600 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As when Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure, and as the dollar continues to crash in international markets, at least Saddam Hussein is dead.

Is the price worth it?

2008-05-05T09:46:00.000-07:00

Freedom and God

I love liberty. I have a passion for being free. I want to live my life anyway I choose, as long as I don't hurt or interfere with anybody else, and I want others to live their lives as they choose, so long as they don't hurt or interfere with anybody else, including me. If I want to paint my house a different color, I should be free to make my decision. If my neighbor wants to move and sell his house, and another person wants to buy and move in next to me, I have no right. That decision is between my old and new neighbor, not me. And the government has no right to tell me what color my home ought to be, or what kind of neighbor ought to live in my neighborhood. In fact, the only role of government (in my utopia) is to secure each individual's rights, and the people have carte blanche on what their rights are (as long as our "rights" don't imply another's obligations). That is the epiphany of liberty.

I also love the Lord. I love God, His Son Jesus, and the Bible is God's Word. Even though I found libertarianism recently (in '02), I was a Christian as long as I remember (I was saved when I was 8 years old). As the definition of Christian means (literally) "like Christ", I follow the famous initials, WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?; if Jesus would do it, then I would do it too). I follow the Ten Commandments, and all God's teachings through the Bible. And (in Matthew 22:37-40), the first and greatest commandment is to love God with all of my heart, sole, and mind, and the second is to love my neighbor (i.e., mankind) as myself, and I obey God's scripture. The Bible is just like a user's manual for my life. But, in reality, obeying God's teachings are irrelevant. The only thing God asks of you is to let God come inside your heart, confess your sins, and He will save you. And I did that when I was 8.

Did I sin after I have been saved? Unfortunately, yes. In Romans 3:23, all people have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, including me. The only man who didn't sin is Jesus, and Jesus died on the cross for our sins, past and the future. So if you confess your sins, and believe with your heart, God will forgive you. Combining freedom and God, I am a Christian libertarian.

Some will say that "Christianity" and "libertarianism" are an oxymoron. Christians, to them, means teaching God's word, and if someone refuse to obey God, those Christians want to force the unbeliever to "straighten the course" (the antithesis of libertarianism). And libertarians, to them, means conservatives who smoke pot, do other drugs, sleep with prostitutes, and do other victimless but immoral behavior (the antithesis of Christianity). In other words, the two don't mix.

But you know what? Jesus Christ is a libertarian! The Lord is an all powerful God Who is willing to permits humanity to turn its back on Him. Is there any better way to show tremendous respect for individual will and free choice than that? The greatest gift God bestows for all mankind is the gift of free will.

Do you remember in Matthew 19:16-22, and again in Mark 10:17-22 (et al), as Jesus was walking down the road, a young rich man approach Him and said is there anything he can do to inherit eternal life. Jesus answered the 1st thing is to know and follow the Ten Commandments. The young man replied he did that and will do that; what more? Jesus answered again and said to the man to sell his belongings, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Me. Unable to part with his possessions, the young man walked away sad.

What did Jesus do to the young rich man? Remember, He fed 5,000 men and women with five loaves of bread and two fish, walked on the sea, healed a girl from death, cured the sick, and made a deaf-mute hear and speak plainly. Do you recall the two greatest commandments are to love God and our neighbor. But the young rich man turned his back on his neighbor. What was Jesus' reaction? Did he cause the money to float in the air from the man to the poor and needy? When the rich young man was asleep, did Jesus cause his wealth to disappear and reappear in the arms of the poor?

On the contrary, when the young man made his choice, Jesus simply permitted it and then live with it. Isn't this what liberty is all about? Each person is free to love God...or not. He is free to love his neighbor...or not. If the government is permitted to interfere with the choices by coercing people, through fines and imprisonment, into loving God or their neighbors, then it diminishes God's gift of free will.

It all boils down to this: all mankind are endowed by God with unlimited freedoms, and all governments want to take their freedom back; different degrees with different governments.

The basic principle of libertarianism is not anarchic. There are real limits. My freedom will end where yours begins. Neither the community nor I have any claim whatsoever on your property or your life.

And what about the Christian element? Christianity is integral to the core philosophy of libertarianism, as without the spiritual core of its demand for individual liberty and personal responsibility, libertarianism has a tendency to devolve into simple utilitarianism, which eventually leads to the very collectivism it was conceived to oppose. Christianity is timeless and so provides the inexhaustible spring of moral refreshment that is necessary to any political ideology that hopes to resist corruption over time.

The link between Christianity and libertarianism is very simple. The Christian moral philosophy includes the libertarian principles that it is wrong to initiate violence and it is wrong to steal. Christianity is, therefore, a libertarian religion. Since Christians accept the premises of libertarianism, they should, logically, reach the same conclusions about the morality of government. If it is morally wrong for a Christian to steal or to initiate violence, it should also be morally wrong for a Christian to advocate, condone, recommend, approve, or authorize someone else committing these crimes in his or her behalf. So it is morally wrong for a Christian to advocate, condone, recommend, approve, or authorize government taxation, punishment, legislation, war, or violence of any kind. The only role of government is to secure people's unalienable rights. The rest is voluntary interaction with each other--there is no government.

To love Christ and to love liberty; that is what it means to be a Christian libertarian, and that is me.

2008-04-21T19:01:00.000-07:00

Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin....9/11?

Who is the culprit(s) who caused 9/11? Was it the government's story? The government claims that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda who's at fault; your friendly government was caught completely by surprise. Or was it the "9/11 truthers" who don't believe the government? Those people claim the government was responsible ("9/11 was an inside job!"); people like bin Laden and al-Qaeda have nothing to do with the crime. Now although I don't trust the government either, I believe that 9/11 was in the middle, and I base my facts on history.

Take a look at the RMS Lusitania. The official government story is that Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine. But in reality, the British purposely planned the sinking of that ship so that to infuriate the American people so much that they decided to go to war against Germany during World War I. Woodrow Wilson knew that the Lusitania would be sunk. The British government knew that the Lusitania would be sunk. Even the New York Times knew that the Lusitania would be sunk. So much so in fact that it ran ads in New York telling Americans don't get on board that ship. But both Britain and America dismissed these reports as scare mongering.

When Lusitania was sunk, Wilson refused to take the bait, while demanding an end to German's attacks. Germany complied. But after Wilson was elected a second term (by promising to keep America out of war), he asked Congress to declare war, which Congress did. He blamed his decision on Lusitania and the British telegram supposedly showing German talking to Mexico about joining the war as Germany's ally (which Mexico never did). In point of fact, Winston Churchill planned the sinking of several ships, among them the HMS Hampshire and the RMS Lusitania, in an effort to stoke American opinion against Germany. Meanwhile, the U.S authorities were aware of his plan, but turned a blind eye because it suited their own purposes.

Take a look at Pearl Harbor. The official government story is Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack by the Japanese Navy which cost almost 2,500 American lives--the most lives lost by an attack before 9/11--and it cost America entry into World War II. But in reality, Franklin Roosevelt knew beforehand the plans of Japan. Now since the first world war was fresh on American's minds, they don't have to face a second world war, and Congress was listening.

Roosevelt tried everything to fuel America's fire. First, he violated fundamental principles of neutrality under international law by assisting and arming one of the warring sides. Through Roosevelt's lend-lease plan, millions of dollars of American military hardware was shipped to Great Britain, encouraging Germany to counterattack. But Germany refused. Then He began using American military convoys to ship goods to Britain - another act of war under international law. But Germany again refused to attack America's ships. Finally, desperately trying to goad the Germans into an attack, Roosevelt ordered American ships to begin searching out German submarines and reporting their positions to the British. One American ship finally was attacked. But America, and thus Congress, told Roosevelt to "stay out of this war!"

Roosevelt was at his wit's end, until his focus shifted to the Pacific, his "back door to war" in Europe. On the west coast of the Pacific, Japan and China were fighting. Now, China had ties with Russia, and Russia had ties with England and France, while Japan had ties with Germany, so America was on the side of China. But the American people, and thus Congress, had no interest in getting the US involved in another foreign war. So Roosevelt starting tightening the noose around the Japanese necks: first, Americans gave assistance to the Chinese; second, with help from other Allied powers, the American people refused to sell Japan oil (Japan had no oil for itself; it was dependent on others). As a front, Roosevelt told the Japanese if they back off China, America will release the embargo. Unfortunately, Japan had too much pride, so it prepared for its attack on Pearl Harbor.

And all of Japan's messages were read by Roosevelt! He cracked the Japanese code! Did he warn Hawaii of the attack? Of course not! In fact, he told the Hawaiian Head Admiral to line all the ships in a row (like sitting ducks). The admiral refused. So Roosevelt fired the admiral and promoted a new admiral, and the new admiral submitted. Pearl Harbor took place, Roosevelt made his "infamy" speech, America declared war against Japan (and Japan reciprocated), Germany declared war against America (and America reciprocated), and the rest is history.

What about the Gulf of Tonkin? The official government story is that there were two attacks by North Vietnam ships against American destroyers (USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy) which led American forces into a large-scale involvement in Vietnam. But in reality, it was a hoax. There was no attack. The facts as recorded was not true. Take a look at James Stockdale. Stockdale was a Navy aviator who responded to the "attacks" on the Maddox and Turner Joy, and, in 1992, Ross Perot's running mate. He said it didn't happened.

"[I] had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets - there were no PT boats there. There was nothing but black water and American firepower," Stockdale wrote in his 1984 book, In Love and War.

Congress, however, responded to Lyndon Johnson's call to arms, giving him a veritable blank check to make war.

Looking back at history, do you know what happened at 9/11? The facts are that bin Laden and al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. How do I know this? Osama admitted it himself, several times! Although he is a terrorist, he doesn't lie, unlike George W. Bush. But like FDR before, Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand...and did nothing. In fact, he caused part of the destruction. Watch the video for yourself. It compares the controlled demolition of buildings imploding with the Twin Towers imploding. See it for yourself; do you see the resemblance? In 30-40 years or so, we will know the truth.

2008-04-01T19:05:00.000-07:00

The true meaning of rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to carry a firearm

Two weeks ago (March 18), the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. Walter Dellinger argued for the District, Alan Gura argued for Heller, and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for the federal government. You might say, "2 against 1; it's not fair!", but you are wrong. Make it 3 against 0; Gura didn't give the Court a too compelling argument.

Also, due to the controversial nature of the case, the Heller case filed 67 amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs (47 urging the court to affirm the case and 20 to oppose it). When the USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted, the editors decided to use the brief written by attorneys Bill Olson and Herb Titus. Olson and Titus explained in a 300 word op-ed the primary reason for the Second Amendment. It is titled, "An unambiguous right", and I couldn't agree with it more. You can read it for yourself.

Let's look at the structure legally of the 2nd Amendment. There are two clauses in that amendment: the first starting with, "a well regulated militia...", and the second starting with "the right of the people...". Which clause is a complete sentence on its own? The second clause. That is why the D.C. Circuit's ruling labeled the first clause "prefatory" (i.e., preliminary introduction) and the second "operative" (i.e., producing an appropriate effect). In other words, the main clause in the 2nd Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, what is the meaning of the phrase "right of the people" (or the word "people") and the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment? When you placed the 2nd Amendment beside the other amendments, you will see the word "people" in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; your right to be secure, or your unenumerated rights (both of the people) are yours alone. And Webster's definition of "arms" is "a means of offense or defense, especially firearms". So when you put the two together, you have a right to carry firearms individually.

And what is the meaning of "rights" anyway? The Declaration of Independence states (in part), "[A]ll men (including women--including you, me, and anyone out there) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". The first 10 amendments (including the 2nd) are called the "Bill of Rights". Looking in Black's Law Dictionary, a "right" is defined as "something that is due to a person by just claim". In other words, you don't need a higher authority; you are it. In that aspect, a right is the opposite of a privilege (take a look at chapter 2 of Michael Badnarik's book, Good to be King [.pdf]). And thus, you don't need government's permission to exercise your rights (e.g., your "right to bear arms", you don't need a CCW license). And the last 4 words, it can add to the end to imply "reasonable nor unreasonable, with no regulation." Else, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be a right at all.

Now, I know I am correct on this. But I am not a Supreme Court justice. I don't know whether or not the different justices may see things differently than I. I guess we have to wait until summer to see their ruling.

2008-03-21T15:27:00.000-07:00

There is another reason to own gold

Everybody knows that gold is an inflation hedge. That’s why most people buy it. They know from experience that the purchasing power of all national currencies is being constantly eroded by inflation. But they also know that their purchasing power is preserved by owning gold.

For example, the price of crude oil has been rising for decades when viewed in terms of dollars or any national currency. But when the cost of a barrel of crude oil is viewed in terms of ounces or grams of gold, its price is essentially unchanged. In other words, the dollar price of crude oil and the dollar price of gold are both rising more or less lockstep. By owning gold instead of US dollars, you can today purchase basically the same amount of crude oil as at any other time in history.

In other words, gold is an inflation hedge. But that is only one of gold’s advantages. There is also another valuable reason to own gold, and significantly, this other reason is becoming increasingly important.

Gold is also a catastrophe hedge. Gold enables us to protect our wealth from a financial meltdown because it does not have counterparty risk.

The monetary and financial system is rapidly spinning out of control. We are witnessing the unwinding of decades of reckless credit expansion. Borrowers--corporations, hedge funds, homeowners, etc.--who no longer have the financial capacity to repay their debts are defaulting on their obligations in increasing numbers. In that environment, the safety of one’s wealth becomes paramount, to protect against the catastrophe of default in all types of financial assets.

In short, promises are being broken, so in an environment in which financial assets are becoming increasingly doubted, one needs to own tangible assets. Own things instead of promises, and there is only one money that is not dependent upon someone’s promise and that’s gold. So buy gold; it is the best catastrophe hedge. But also buy gold because it remains the best inflation hedge.

For example, gold was $670 per Toz in August of 2007, and crude oil was $71.50 per barrel. In other words, the ratio was 9.37 Toz of gold per barrel.

Gold today is $992 per Toz, and crude oil is $109 per barrel. So both prices have risen considerably in dollar terms (i.e., inflation), but the price of crude oil today is 9.10 Toz of gold per barrel, less than last August, but essentially unchanged. Gold performed as expected, being a nearly perfect hedge against inflation.

So when considering all of its advantages, gold provides what everyone wants: peace of mind knowing that the portion of your wealth placed in gold is safe.

2008-03-17T19:13:00.000-07:00

Loving my country while loathing its government

Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why did he refused to wear his American Flag lapel pin. He, as well as other Congressmen, wore the pin right after 9/11 as a sign of unity and American pride. But October 2007, Obama said refusing to wear the pin was from principle: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest."

Some of the neocons might get steamed. Neoconservatives--and the rest of the conservatives, and liberals today--think that refusing to wear his American Flag pin is the opposite of patriotism. They say the act is a lack of this noble gesture.

Although I find fault with many of Obama's positions, I applaud him for that. I know there is a difference between loving my country and loving its government, and Obama knows it too. As for me, I love my country, but I don't trust its government.

In fact, the Founders and many important people in government in the past think like me. Thomas Paine said, "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." Carl Schurz said, "The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: 'Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'" Theodore Roosevelt said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country." Are all three men unpatriotic?

Even the founding documents had a difference between the country and the government. When you look up the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you will see that the "Bill of Rights" doesn't give us rights at all. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights is actually a bill of restrictions restricting the government from interfering with our unalienable rights!

If you ever want to befuddle one of these people who conflate the government and the country, remind them that the very purpose of the Constitution, with its equal but separate branches of government, those branches are checked and balanced by the other branches, and adding a Bill of Rights before ratification, is to protect the country from the government. Their systems will begin to short-circuit as they try to figure out a response.

A perfect example of true patriotism was the White Rose. The German newspaper, consisting of a number of the University of Munich students, was a resistance leaflet opposing Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany during World War II. All of the students were beheaded because of it. You tell me, were members of the White Rose patriotic, or they were just traders?

That's why John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates were angry and confused when Ron Paul said the reason for 9/11 is American foreign policy and "blowback". In fact, Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Obama's pastor) preached the same thing during his "America's chickens are coming home to roost" sermon (except both speakers use the word "we" too much--it's more accurate if they would switch "we" with "the American government"--I didn't nuke Japan, or I didn't starve Iraqi children or make them have diseases) . But the other Republican candidates can't understand the reality that the country and the government, including our foreign policy, are completely different. In their minds, Paul's philosophy is to "blame America", because (in their minds) the federal government and America are conflated into one entity.

But don't blame it solely on the conservatives. In 1995, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed (I live and was living in Midwest City OK, a suburb of Oklahoma City, when the bombing occurred), I felt a lot of emotions. But when I asked the reason why the terrorist(s) wanted to do this, I made the correct conclusion and concluded that the OKC bombing was exactly two years after the fire and deaths of 74 innocent victims outside of Waco (the OKC bombing killed 168 innocent victims), so OKC was a reaction to Waco. Many people made the correct conclusions also. And the reasons that the Murrah building was the building to be bombed was most of the ATF and FBI agents was stationed in that building. Some people (including me) made Timothy McVeigh seem almost human (although I totally condemned his actions). When word came to Washington, Bill Clinton was flabbergasted. He said in disgust, "There's nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country." He can't understand how Americans could love their country while disapproving of the government's massacre of innocent men, women, and children at Waco.

Many conservatives and liberals can't understand it either. They would rather put on your American Flag lapel pin, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, wear red, white, and blue clothing, and never question the government's motives. That, to them, would be a true patriot.

2008-03-07T15:16:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul concedes the presidential bid is over...I think

It's a sad day. Yesterday night, Ron Paul released a video (below) that said his candidacy is winding down. However, he doesn't say "quit", or "halt", or "give up", or "come to the end", or something to the effect that the race is over.

And, for unexplained reasons, he does urge "loyal volunteers" to keep up the struggle to gain delegates to the GOP convention in September, although John McCain already has acquired more than enough to win the nomination. Paul sounds rather like the general who got safely off the island radioing back to his stranded troops to keep up the good fight.

But it sure sounds like a farewell message. Paul says things like, "The presidential campaign will soon wind down." And, "I will continue to make every effort to visit states where enthusiasm for liberty exists."

And also: "While victory in the conventional political sense is unavailable in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm. For that I am deeply grateful and encouraged."

But he said his campaign was "a significant first step" and we should "plan for the next phase". Does that mean the second step will be continuing his campaign as a Libertarian? I hope so. Since there are no Democrats campaigning in TX District 14 this year, and 3rd parties will not compete against him (on account of they like him), Paul has already won his seat and will have nothing to loose in trying. You can see it for yourself:

UPDATE: Ron Paul is still running! ...except for what? Check out this new video:

Now, the Libertarian National Convention will be in May. I guess I will have to wait and see how things turn out.

2008-03-06T19:48:00.000-08:00

Chicago bans small bags

This is the most asinine law I know. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in order to win the fight in the war on drugs, Alderman Robert Fioretti, with the help of the Health Committee, passed a law banning "self-sealing plastic bags under two inches in either height or width." His reasoning is that those bags are used to sell small quantities of meth, heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs in.

That's right, Chicago is prohibiting small plastic bags, under a "crackdown"!

With an I.Q. bigger than your shoe size, you can figure that drug dealers would sell the same drugs in a bigger bags.

Fioretti is not alone. According to Lt. Kevin Navarro, commanding officer of the Chicago Police Department's Narcotics and Gang Unit, he said the law would be an "important tool" to go after the rogues in the city, such as grocery store owners and other businesses who sell the evil bags (...but not drug-dealers or drug-users).

And Health Committee Chairman Ed Smith said the ban on the bags (but not the drugs) is a part to stop "the most destructive force" in Chicago.

"We need to use every measure that we possibly can to stop it because it is destroying our kids," the chairman said.

Violators would be punished by a $1,500 fine; it doesn't matter if the bag is used to carry something perfectly legal.

Now, I am not a drug-dealer, but I am a rock musician, and in my lifestyle, drugs are everywhere, especially marijuana. And speaking of marijuana, the bags which hold a quarter ounce of pot (the standard size for personal use) are larger than 2 inches by 2 inches.

But based on the fact that some people in government think this is a good idea, I think that the Chicago City Council committee (and all Chicago politicians) should be drug tested. No sober person could possibly think that this is going to curb an iota the war on drugs!

The government of Chicago have lost their minds!

2008-02-21T11:34:00.000-08:00

Proud of my "country"

When Michelle Obama spoke for her husband Monday in Milwaukee, she drew a firewall of rants from "patriotic Americans" (i.e., nationalists) when she said, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country," implying she was not proud before. She drew angry rebuttals from Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, National Review's Jim Geraghty, Bill O'Reilly, and John McCain's wife Cindy. In fact, O'Reilly used the words "lynching party" when referring to Obama. I guess the conservative pundits are a little steamed!

But what does Obama mean when she said "country" in the aforementioned quote? Country means America, I know that, but "country" is a vague term. Does she mean the American people? Or does she mean the American history? Or does she mean the American government? I simply don't know.

As for the people, I speak of the people as individuals, not groups. But on the average, there is a difference among the people of different nations. Americans as a whole are more independent-minded and rugged as compared to Iraqis or Spanish. And (on the average) there is a difference among different states within the United States. Although there are some exceptions, the people of Texas or New Hampshire are more independent-minded than the people of California or New Jersey. Now I am a Christian, and God's two greatest Commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor (i.e., people), so as a whole, I am proud of the people of my country.

As for the history, I am proud of American history in the late 18th/early 19th century, not 20th century and today. I would be happier if the presidents were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Q. Adams, and Andrew Jackson; not Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush. When America was young, America was a country of independent and free people, who take care of themselves. But America today is a country of weak and timid people who need government for everything. I am more proud of my country back then compared to now.

As for the government, it's similar to history. I am proud of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights--I am proud of all our founding documents. In the late 18th/early 19th century, the American government was small and limited; it only got its power from the Constitution, as it should. Now, American government is huge and bloated; it has unlimited power, and seeks more every day.

For example, back then, America got its money from gold and silver; now, it gets its money from the Federal Reserve, an unconstitutional cartel of private banks which prints its inflationary "money" (i.e., fiat-paper notes with no backing) out of thin air. Back then, Americans had no income tax. The people could keep all what they earned, and they could decide how to spend/save/invest their earnings; now, 40% or more of the people's earnings, the government (not the people) gets to decide what to do with it.

Back then, people who wanted to protect themselves, their families, and their property simply carried a firearm--no licenses, no permits, no restrictions, no anything; they just carried and went along their way. Now, if the people want to defend themselves, they have to apply for a permit, take a CCW class, get finger-printed (like a common criminal), wait for three months (or more) in order to receive a permit, and then the guns are not allowed in government buildings, schools, court houses, and anywhere else the government wants to restrict--and some states won't allow guns, period!

And thus (back then), America was growing and thriving; now, America is on a road to disaster. I would be skeptical back then when the elected officials supposed to honor their oaths, but I don't trust them now when they don't. In any case, the adjective "proud" is not a word I will use to describe the government.

Now there is one thing that Obama feels proud now but not before, but I can't comment. It is because she is black and I am white. I am blind of the racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, and all that entails to be growing up black in the '60s and the '70s. Now she might be blind of how the government did and does things to her and the people around her (which I covered before), as well as me (i.e., government abuse is colorblind). But there is no getting around the fact that I am not black.

What did Michelle Obama meant when she said her quote from the first paragraph? Only she (and God) knows for sure.

2008-02-10T16:33:00.000-08:00

NRA: friend or foe of the 2nd Amendment?

From a recent solicitation letter I received from the National Rifle Association in order to increase membership, I excerpt the following quote: “We actively work to fight anti-gun media bias by encouraging law-abiding gun owners like you to stand tall and defend our freedoms without apology or compromise.”

For our purposes, let’s set aside the misnomer of defending freedom while remaining “law-abiding.” Thoreau, I suspect, among others--myself included--might have had a thing or two to say about that all by itself. It is also arguable that from a libertarian standpoint, being a member of any organization that actively lobbies government in any form is counterproductive and antithetical to freedom. Insofar as this is true, I must admit that for several years I have been a member of Gun Owners of America, which prides itself on being “the only no-compromise gun lobby.” In all the time I’ve been a member, I’ve seen nothing to dissuade me from the contention that the staff at GOA are genuine in this assertion. It’s what, in part, makes the aforementioned quote from the NRA so breathtaking. Let’s have a look at some additional recent events:

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, Congress ginned up the so-named “Veterans Disarmament Act.” This bill, in essence, expanded the infamous Brady background check law. To anyone who knows anything about government, this should come as no surprise. What is shocking is that this bill had the full backing and blessings of the NRA. In fact, the NRA staff worked very closely with none other than Senator Chuck Schumer and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy--both long-time and rabid attackers of gun ownership--in order to get the bill passed. To quote Schumer in speaking with the Associated Press on September 27, 2007 , he said: “When the NRA and Chuck Schumer agree, that tells you it’s something worth doing.”

Here’s something just as maddening. Congressman John D. Dingell, in actually speaking before an NRA audience, told the assembled crowd, “In times of great stress, it is permissible to walk side by side with the devil to get to the other side of the bridge.” In so saying, he was quoting his self-proclaimed “hero”, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had originally made the statement in defense of working hand in hand with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in World War II.

But here’s the kicker, the thing that should make everyone stand up and take notice. In a letter from Iloilo Marguerite Jones of the Fully Informed Jurors Association (FIJA) to Larry Pratt, Executive Director of GOA, published in the Winter 2007 issue of American Juror, in which Ms. Jones refers to a recently produced FIJA jury nullification brochure focusing on gun rights, she had the following to say: “Because you, Larry, had the courage to distribute this brochure, other groups, knowing you had done so, have been distributing the brochure as well, including Liberty Belles and JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). NRA has ignored our offers and correspondence regarding the brochure, which we offered to provide them to mail to their entire membership, more than once” (italics are mine).

I first received a copy of the brochure in question because of my GOA membership. It is of the highest possible quality, and upon subsequently contacting Ms. Jones to congratulate her for having done such an outstanding job, she graciously provided me with a large quantity of the brochures, and has subsequently sent me even more jury nullification materials at no cost to myself. So I can arrive at no other conclusion than this: The NRA, for all of its hyperbole, does not even want its own membership to be aware of the concept of jury nullification, even when an innocent gun owner may be standing in the dock. I can think of no legitimate excuse for that kind of behavior from a gun rights organization that claims to encourage defending freedom “without apology or compromise.” None. Can you?

I must admit that, as a libertarian, I remain a GOA member not to engage government, but because I enjoy staying informed, and also as an insurance policy: GOA has been known on numerous occasions to assist its members who run afoul of government thugs. Not just in high-profile cases, either; often just regular folks like you or me. Having said that, I’m not going to go so far, necessarily, as to accuse the NRA of being little more than a front organization for the forces of gun control--although one might, based on the evidence, well make that assertion. What I am going to say, however, is only that which should be obvious by now: the NRA is no friend of freedom!

2008-01-30T10:53:00.000-08:00

Spending our way to bankruptcy

Americans do not need any more proof that the fiscal and monetary leadership of the United States is bankrupt. Both the Republican administration and the Democratic congress have joined hands in the total destruction of the American dollar.

The combination of the Federal Reserve (Fed) lowering interest rates and the Congress promising legislation allowing for dollars to fall from the sky to Americans (with the president's encouragement) is pretty much sealing the fate of the American currency.

The so-called $150 billion "stimulus" package insures that the value of the dollar drops even further, buying less and less. Foreign governments may not even accept the dollar except maybe under threat of attack.

No one, not even the government of the United States, can continue to spend more than it earns, and pay for that difference through the printing of money, without severe economic consequences.

Extremely little is even mentioned in the media as to where the $150 billion dollars is going to come from. The federal government is already in the hole to the tune of almost $250 billion for the year, not to mention that the total federal debt is close to $10 trillion, which does not even include unfunded liabilities of Social Security.

The current deficit and debt increases the amount of interest to be paid, which in turn increases the amount of government expenditures to pay. In order to pay for the increased expenditures the government must increase tax revenues, but the leaders of this once great nation are engineering tax decreases.

Tax decreases are a good thing because they allow for individuals to keep more of what they earn and decide for themselves how to use their income. However, when the expense side is increasing exponentially, there is not enough revenue to cover the bill.

Hence, the Fed comes to the rescue to lower interest rates to increase the supply of money to make up the difference - which only ratchets up the inflation rate even further.

The nation's leaders have put all Americans in a very precarious position, encouraging more individuals to go into further debt and leading citizens to bankruptcy.

Federal government officials have no money to give to American citizens except that which they first take from American citizens. In other words, federal government officials either directly take from some to give to others through taxation or, as is currently done, they rob everyone through inflation (the increase in the supply of money).

The economic "stimulus" package being offered reminds one of the airplane dropping fire retardant over a forest fire in order to put out the fire. However, in this case what American government officials are doing is dropping gasoline on an already raging fire.

The solution to this whole economic morass is very simple, but very painful. No American government official - except for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul - proposes a gigantic cut in all government expenditures greater than the necessary cuts in taxes.

If the only solution to every economic downturn is the printing of more money, then hyperinflation is in the future of every American.

Dropping dollars into the laps of individuals so they can go out and spend more than they earn encourages bankruptcy, not economic well-being. With dollars dropping all over America and the world, $3 for a gallon of gasoline will seem extremely low. We are in a financial meltdown.

2007-11-19T19:51:00.000-08:00

Liberty Dollar raid

The ardent supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic Texas libertarian whose campaign for the presidency is threatening to upend the battle for the Republican nomination, got word yesterday of a new source of outrage and motivation: reports of a federal raid on a company that was selling thousands of coins marked with the craggy visage of their hero.

Federal agents on Thursday raided the Evansville, Ind., headquarters of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Code (Norfed), an organization of "sound money" advocates that for the past decade has been selling a private currency it calls "Liberty Dollars." The company says it has put into circulation more than $20 million in Liberty Dollars, coins and paper certificates it contends are backed by silver and gold stored in Idaho, are far more reliable than a U.S. dollar and are accepted for use by a nationwide underground economy.

Norfed officials said yesterday that the six-hour raid occurred just as its six employees were mailing out the first batch of 60,000 "Ron Paul Dollars," copper coins sold for $1 to honor the candidate, who is a longtime advocate of abolishing the Federal Reserve. The group says it has shipped out about 10,000 silver Ron Paul Dollars that sold for $20 and about 3,500 of the copper $1 coins. But it said the agents seized more than 50,000 of the copper coins -- more than two tons' worth -- plus smaller amounts of the silver coins and gold and platinum Ron Paul Dollars, which sell for $1,000 and $2,000.

"They took everything, all of the computers, everything but the desks and chairs," the company's founder and head, Bernard von NotHaus, said in a telephone interview from his home in Miami. "The federal government really is afraid." Von NotHaus changed the name of Norfed to Liberty Services earlier this year, but affidavits for government search warrants served yesterday continued to use the older name.

News of the raid lit up Ron Paul online forums yesterday, the latest unlikely episode in a campaign that began as an idiosyncratic bid by the veteran congressman but has grown into a cause with the potential to influence the GOP contest. Paul, 72, has attracted droves of disaffected Republicans and independents to his platform, which includes ending the war in Iraq, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and adhering to a strict libertarian interpretation of the Constitution.

He raised a record-breaking $4 million in a single day this month and nears double digits in some New Hampshire polls.

A Paul campaign spokeswoman said yesterday that the campaign has "no affiliation" with the Ron Paul Dollars. But Paul's supporters said the seizure of the coins is sure to further stoke support for the campaign.

"People are pretty upset about this," said Jim Forsythe, head of the Paul Meetup group in New Hampshire, who said he recently ordered 150 of the copper coins. "The dollar is going down the tubes, and this is something that can protect the value of their money, and the Federal Reserve is threatened by that. It'll definitely fire people up."

Von NotHaus said agents also raided Sunshine Minting in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, a company that makes the organization's coins. He said agents seized huge pallets of silver and gold, worth more than $1 million, that the organization says back the Liberty Dollars. Sunshine Minting did not return calls seeking comment.

The Indianapolis bureau of the FBI referred calls to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte. That office's spokeswoman, Suellen Pierce, declined to comment. But bloggers at the libertarian Reason Foundation posted online a 35-page copy of the affidavit for a search warrant filed last week in Asheville, N.C., laying out the government's case against Norfed. Pierce said the search warrant had been accidentally made public and has since been sealed.

In the affidavit, an FBI special agent states that he is investigating Norfed for federal violations including "uttering coins of gold, silver, or other metal," "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. "The goal of Norfed is to undermine the United States government's financial systems by the issuance of a non-governmental competing currency for the purpose of repealing the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code," he states.

The agent states that the investigation started two years ago. A year ago, the U.S. Mint issued a warning against using the Liberty Dollar, prompting a lawsuit by Norfed. But that has not kept Liberty Dollar fans from speculating online that the raid was prompted by Paul's strong campaign or by the precipitous recent decline in the value of the dollar.

Von NotHaus said that he has known Paul for years because they "move in the same circles" but that he had expressly not talked with Paul about his plans for the special coins so as not to violate federal election laws. He posted a message on the organization's Web site urging Liberty Dollar supporters to respond to the raid by donating to Paul, saying that "in light of this assault on our financial freedom, it is clear that we need Ron Paul to lead this country more than ever."

Should he be charged, he said, "I'll turn it into my golden opportunity to validate the Liberty Dollar as a legal, lawful currency and save the country from a monetary collapse."

The seizure of the coins held an upside for those who have received their orders. On eBay, silver Ron Paul Dollars that were bought for $20 were selling for more than $300 last night.

2007-11-05T22:46:00.000-08:00

"Remember, remember, the 5th of November"

Historians and British schoolchildren remember Guy Fawkes as the Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant rebel who on Nov. 5, 1605, tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Parliament. Supporters of the Republican primary campaign of the libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick.

On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $4.07 million in one day — approaching what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter — through a Web site called ThisNovember5th.com, a reference to the day the British commemorate the thwarted bombing.

Many fans of Mr. Paul know of the day primarily through a movie based on the futuristic graphic novel “V for Vendetta,” by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, in which a terrorist modeled after Fawkes battles a fascist government that has taken over Britain.

The Paul campaign has raised more than $6.84 million in the first five weeks of this quarter, more than the $5 million it raised from July 1 to Oct. 1. Many of the contributions appeared to come through the independent Fawkes effort, but how much was unclear.

On Monday alone, the campaign signed up more than 21,000 new donors, said Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman.

Among 2008 presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York holds the record for raising the most in a single day: $6.2 million on June 30. But Mr. Paul has surpassed the best day of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who raised $3.14 million on Jan. 8.

ThisNovember5th.com includes video clips and the text of a speech by Mr. Paul, a 10-term Texas congressman. In it, Mr. Paul declares, “The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual.”

Mr. Paul has stood out from the Republican field for his opposition to the war in Iraq. In the speech he argues that the fight against terrorism is threatening American republic.

“The American Republic is in remnant status,” he says. “The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into military dictatorship, and few seem to care.”

Mr. Benton clarified that Mr. Paul did not support blowing up government buildings. “He wants to demolish things like the Department of Education,” Mr. Benton said, “but we can do that very peacefully, in a constructive manner.”

2007-10-03T10:16:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton

Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.

It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google "Medicare expansion" for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father's or grandfather's GOP.

There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.

It isn't his status as the leading advocate of limited, constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)

Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.

Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.

If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)

If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.

Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.

Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.

Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.

Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.

Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it's obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible.

Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won't be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no "Law and Order" writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary.

When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.

Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?

Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.

Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.

Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.

Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....

Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent ... now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.

The rEVOLution has already begun!

2007-09-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

A tax dilemma

If you don't know, Ed and Elaine Brown still have been holed up at there house trying to ask Marshal Stephan Monier, or anyone else, where is the law that makes the Browns liable to file a return and pay an income tax. So far, the police/government will not answer (Hint: there is no law!). Here's why the government has a dilemma in Plainfield, NH.

1. The obvious and peaceful way out of this standoff is for it to name, publicly and in detail ready for open scrutiny, the law that taxes what the Browns earned. Ed Brown has promised to surrender upon seeing that, and if the condition is met but he breaks his word, public opinion would swing firmly against him and force would then become an acceptable option.

2. However, the government has not done that. Not in the two years preceding the Brown trial, despite their repeated requests of the IRS; not at the trial itself in early 2007, which so disgusted them that they declared it a farce and walked out; and not since the trial during the 6-month standoff, during which government lips have been zipped in what is daily becoming an ever more deafening silence. Reasonable people (and eventually, who knows, even mainstream journalists) might conclude from this that the government does not answer that wholly reasonable question because it cannot answer it - and that it cannot answer it because no such law exists. Now, if no such law exists while the Feds have been enforcing collection of a trillion (2007) dollars a year for all of living memory as if it did exist, the Emperor would be exposed as buck naked. So much for Option #1.

3. Option #2 is to use force, of which the government has plenty, but that brings a downside: public opinion will rightly call them bullies and murderers, as public opinion did after Waco and Ruby Ridge, and even more strongly suspect that since the Feds would sooner kill than reveal the mystery law, probably the mystery law doesn't exist. So the Marshal in charge has said he will not "play that game" but instead prevent people coming and going around the Brown house - at a cost which he reportedly does not know but which can hardly be less than $1,000 every day. Understandable; for ultimately government, for all its enormous arsenal, depends on favorable public opinion, along with widespread belief that the mystery law does exist. So while Option #2 is not impossible, it's extremely unpalatable.

4. Option #3 is to wait the Browns out, to starve them into submission. To make that work they have to prohibit supporters visiting and bringing supplies, which is what happened this month with their court order. But that's risky; suppose the court order is dismissed as unconstitutional? Further risk: the Browns are so principled that they have let it be known from the beginning that they would rather die than submit, so Option #3 may simply not work. Weeks, months or years from now when all has gone quiet, SWATters may move in to the house one night and find only a pair of corpses. That will bring just as much public revulsion as Option #2. Either way, Option #3 is very dodgy, yet that's the one currently being attempted.

5. Option #4 would be simply to declare victory and walk away. Normal life has already been denied the Browns; they can be put on so many black lists that they will never again earn more than can keep them at subsistence level. The declaration will of course be false, but the mainstream media can be relied upon to publish it uncritically and move on to important news about the next Red Sox game. I'm surprised that this Option has not been chosen, for the associated risk is quite small.

I disagree with most of Ed Brown's opinions, which I think absurd, except the one that matters - that no law taxes earnings. Every day, that one becomes more and more credible. I've wondered why, if no such law has been written, Congress doesn't just fix the problem and write one. This paper suggests why it cannot, and if any reader can rebut its reasoning, I'd be eager to learn how.

It is really impressive that one determined man, and his courageous wife, can stop this arrogant, scofflaw government cold. It reminds me of that un-named Chinaman, standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square.

2007-09-24T11:51:00.000-07:00

The true meaning of the Constitution

"Done...the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven. " Thus, the United States Constitution was finalized and sent to the state conventions for approval. It would take until the following June, when New Hampshire approved it, before the Constitution would become effective.

Many individuals think that human beings get their rights from the Constitution. Many think that individuals have freedom of speech, religion and the right to bear arms because the Constitution says they do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Throughout history it was the common belief that individuals were subjects of the ruler. Only the ruler had any rights. When the ruler spoke, whatever was said was done. The Declaration of Independence, the philosophical base of the Constitution, turned that everyday notion on its head.

The founders stated that rights did not come from the ruler or any document at all, not even the Magna Carta. They said that rights were inherent in the individual and came from the Creator. Individuals, through the Creator, are allowed to do anything they so choose so long as they do not interfere with another's right to do the same.

The Constitution called into existence a government that was authorized to make sure that individuals did not force others to accept their beliefs and to ensure that murderers, rapists, thieves, liars and cheats would be arrested, prosecuted and punished for such anti-social behavior.

The Constitution reads as a book authorizing very specific and enumerated powers given to government officials. Its addendum, the Bill of Rights, is actually a list of "thou shall nots" that government officials are forbidden to do.

The Constitution does not give the right of free speech to the individual. The Constitution restricts government officials from interfering with that right that is already inherent in the individual. Even the individual does not have complete freedom of speech because he can only say or write his ideas with his own property or obtain permission from another to use his property.

For instance, The Sun is not obligated to print any column or letter to the editor. It has total control over what it prints. If an individual wanted to get his ideas out to the public, he would have to first get permission from The Sun to use its paper - or start his own publication.

The same goes for any store, restaurant or business. Everyone has the right to engage with whomever they please so long as the other individual voluntarily agrees. When real freedom exists (i.e., no government controls upon the individual), competition exists and individuals get to choose.

The reason for the Constitution is to make sure the force of government is only used in its proper place, very similar to forming rocks in a circle on a camping trip to make sure fire is only used in its proper setting.

As has been seen time and time again, when fire gets out of control, the devastation is disastrous. When government gets out of control, it too becomes devastating and the disaster that takes place is horrific.

All one has to do is look at Nazi Germany, Napoleon's France and the pharaohs of Egypt to see the devastating effects of out-of-control government. One can also see the debilitating effects of out-of-control government by observing Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran today.

It was 220 years ago that the founders created the Constitution to corral government officials because they did not trust anyone, even democratically elected ones, with the awesome and devastating power government officials possess. The Constitution makes it clear that government officials have very limited and enumerated powers.

For instance, Congress is the only government entity that can declare war, not the president and not any judge - just a group of individuals that must debate the issue before that decision is made.

Individuals have no constitutional rights. They already have all the rights the Creator gave them. Individuals acting as government officials, though, only have those rights permitted them by the Constitution.

2007-09-10T10:54:00.000-07:00

A dilemma about gun control

If a criminal breaks into Melanie Brandon's clothing store and wants to rob her, or worse, which would she choose as her customers: people like me, or Dave Champion, or anyone else who carries a gun and knows how to use it--or the average Joe in Philadelphia who doesn't?

2007-09-07T14:08:00.000-07:00

Who knows better what your children see, you
(the parents), or the FCC?

When is a cuss word broadcast over television or radio indecent? At a live awards show where an award recipient uses a profanity? During a war movie? In a blues documentary where expletives fly?

If you said all three were indecent, you would be wrong.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is America's indecency police, but its vague and confusing criteria for what constitutes "indecency" leave everyone in the dark.

At the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, where rock star Bono exuberantly received his award, the FCC initially said it wasn't indecent, then, under pressure from Congress, said it was.

Shortly thereafter, several stations refused to air the war movie "Saving Private Ryan" because of its multiple usage of the same expletive Bono used. When a complaint was made to the FCC, it declared the drama was not indecent.

At about the same time, PBS aired "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons," a documentary whose real-life blues players used some profanity. The FCC decided it was indecent.

Confused? So are the broadcasters. The government should not be making these decisions in the first place. Parents should.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia introduced legislation in late July that has already passed the Senate Energy and Commerce committee to regulate indecency on television. And there is talk of a similar bill coming soon to regulate television violence.

Congress should reject any proposals that would allow the FCC to regulate what the public sees on television.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly believe that the government should not replace parents as decisionmakers in America's living rooms. There are some things the government does well, but deciding what is aired on television, and when, is not one of them.
Parents already have many tools to protect their children, including blocking programs and channels, changing the channel, or (my personal favorite) turning off the television.

The ACLU is not blind to the issue at hand. We can see why some parents are upset about what they see on television. But the answer lies in teaching those parents how they can limit what their children watch – not censorship. Congress may choose to play a role in educating parents on the dangers of overexposure to media. But government focus should then be on providing those educational opportunities – not on replacing parents as the primary decisionmakers in their own homes. Government should not parent the parents.

Our concern is that imposing standards for television programming would be unconstitutional and damage important values that define America: the right to a free and open media, the right to free speech, and the right of parents to decide the upbringing of their children.

Parents today have unprecedented control over what comes into their homes and what media their children consume.

The most basic and user-friendly tool every parent has against unwanted media content is the ability to turn the television off, or to establish rules about where and when children may watch TV. Recent technology in digital boxes permits blocking by rating, channel, title, and even, in some systems, program description. Cable subscribers who do not have set-top boxes can simply ask their cable companies to block specific channels.

Additionally, a multitude of websites rate television shows, permitting parents to choose ones that suit their taste and to determine what their children watch. Both the Parents Television Council and Common Sense Media have easy-to-use websites.

The ACLU is not opposed to solutions that parents and industry come up with. What concerns us is when Uncle Sam gets involved. There is a long history of using the media as a scapegoat for society's problems. At one time or another, books, movies, opera, jazz, blues, rock 'n' roll, heavy metal and rap music, comic books, and video games have all been accused of causing antisocial or violent behavior among minors and adults.

Since not all portrayals of violence are bad, the government would have insurmountable difficulty defining what is "good" violence and "bad" violence. Even those who research this issue use inconsistent definitions of violence. If the researchers cannot concur on an objective definition, then will any regulations provide truly objective results?

Parents have the tools they need to protect their children. If the government steps in and regulates the content of television shows or relegates certain shows to a late-night or early-morning hour, it steps over the line and becomes the Federal Babysitting Agency – replacing parents as the ultimate decisionmakers.

The power to control the upbringing of children, including what they watch, should remain in the most capable, effective, and constitutional hands possible: the parents.

2007-09-07T12:53:00.000-07:00

The capitol's flawed logic

In asking the Supreme Court to let the District of Columbia ban handguns, the city has a simple argument: Whatever one thinks of the Second Amendment, banning handguns is a "reasonable regulation" to protect public safety. The problem for the city is that anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see that D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban.

D.C. notes that criminals like to use handguns to commit crimes. We all want to disarm criminals, but, as long as one recognizes the possibility of self defense, at best the city's claim can only be part of the story. As with all gun-control laws, the question is ultimately whether it is the law-abiding citizens or criminals who are most likely to obey the law. If law-abiding citizens are the ones who turn in their guns and not the criminals, crime rates can go up, not down.

The city's brief focuses only on murder rates in discussing crime in D.C. Yet, in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. But there is one fact that seems particularly hard to ignore. D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but has only once fallen below what it was in 1976 (that happened years later, in 1985). Does D.C. really want to argue that the gun ban reduced the murder rate?

Similarly for violent crime, from 1977 to 2003, there were only two years when D.C.'s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976. These drops and subsequent increases were much larger than any changes in neighboring Maryland and Virginia. For example, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than in the neighboring states during the five years before the ban and rose back 3.8 times more in the five years after it. D.C.'s murder rate also rose relative to that in other similarly sized cities.

Surely D.C. has had many problems that contribute to crime, but even cities with far better police departments have seen crime soar in the wake of handgun bans. Chicago has banned all handguns since 1982. Indeed, D.C. points to Chicago's ban to support its own ban. But the gun ban didn't work at all when it came to reducing violence. Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring Illinois counties: Chicago's murder rate fell from being 8.1 times greater than its neighbors in 1977 to 5.5 times in 1982, and then went way up to 12 times greater in 1987.

Taking a page from recent Supreme Court cases, D.C. points to gun bans in other countries as evidence that others think that gun bans are desirable. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning guns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give D.C. and its supporters some pause. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

D.C.'s brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared.

The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose fivefold by 1974 and in the 20 years after the ban has averaged 114 percent higher than the pre-ban rate (never falling below at least 31 percent higher).

Jamaica banned all guns in 1974, but murder rates almost doubled from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 19.5 in 1977, and soared further to 41.7 in 1980.

Evidence is also available for other countries. For example, it is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union. Yet despite a ban on guns that dated back to the Communist revolution, its murder rates were high. During the entire decade from 1976 to 1985 the Soviet Union's homicide rate was between 21 and 41 percent higher than that of the United States. By 1989, two years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it had risen to 48 percent above the U.S. rate.

Even if D.C.'s politicians want to keep arguing for a ban based on public safety, hard facts must eventually matter. If they can't see that gun-control laws have failed to deliver as promised, may be the Supreme Court can point it out for them

2007-09-05T09:59:00.000-07:00

A nation of fools

President Bush and his pro-occupation supporters are gleefully singing the magnificent successes of “the surge” — the increase of U.S. troops in Iraq intended to bring “stability” to the country.

What I don’t understand is that if the surge has been as successful as they say it has, then why did President Bush have to keep his recent trip to Iraq secret, why did he fly into an isolated U.S. military base in Anbar Province rather than into Baghdad (where the surge was), why did he stay a grand total of 8 hours in the country, and why didn’t he walk the streets of Iraqi cities and towns accepting people’s gratitude and praise for his having brought “democracy” to Iraq at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis?

Didn’t Napoleon and Santa Anna remain with their troops through thick and thin?

I wonder how many of Bush’s pro-occupation supporters who are singing the praises of the surge have signed up for vacations in Iraq? My bet is none. Of course, they couldn’t plan to visit any Iraqi museums since all those were ransacked during the U.S. invasion of the country.

Another option for surge celebrators would be to simply join the U.S. armed forces and volunteer to be deployed to Iraq, but I’m willing to bet that all of them take the same position that Vice President Cheney took when his peers were being sent to Vietnam — they’ve got more important things to do here in the United States than to fight to defend our freedoms and our national security.

I read in the New York Times that Air Force Captain Nick Sloan volunteered for Iraq duty solely for financial reasons — to get the tax-free income to pay off his $68,000 debt. Wow! What greater and more nobler cause to kill and die for than that? If Sloan has to kill an Iraqi, I wonder what he’ll say to God on Judgment Day.

The surge celebrators are ignoring a critically important thing: In terms of morality, any measure of the surge is quite irrelevant. No U.S. soldier has had any moral right to kill even one single Iraqi because the U.S. government had no right to invade or occupy Iraq, given that Iraq never attacked the United States. He has no moral right to kill anyone for the sake of “stability,” regime change, order, or any other political goal.

Meanwhile, the Congress, preoccupied with the bathroom activities of Senator Larry Craig, has yet to show any interest in conducting a full, complete, and thorough investigation into the torture and sex-abuse policies and practices of the Pentagon and the CIA.

Federal spending continues out of control, especially on the U.S. military-industrial complex and the permanent occupation of Iraq. That includes the $600 million being spent on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which is about the size of the Vatican.

Our country is heading toward a very high cliff, and federal officials are taking us there. At least some of us are resisting the trend, while others are happy, smiling lemmings singing the praises of their leaders.

2007-08-30T07:31:00.000-07:00

America's economic disaster

David Walker is not running for office. He's not pushing partisan politics. He is head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government. He's the comptroller-general of the US, the nation's accountant-in-chief.

David Walker is sounding an urgent warning: America is headed down a path to financial ruin. Says Walker, "This is about the future of our country, our kids and grand kids. We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed."

While America's politicians debate the wisdom of the war in Iraq, and which party is tougher on terror, and whether or not to cut taxes, what they don't talk about is a dirty little secret that everyone knows. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree that the US is now on a disastrous course, and will hit economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.

There's a good reason politicians don't like to talk about the nation's long-term fiscal prospects. The subject is short on political theatrics and long on complicated economics, scary graphs and very big numbers. It reveals serious problems and offers no easy solutions. Anybody who wants to deal with it seriously would have to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits, bad news that will likely doom any politician.

David Walker is committed to touring the nation through the 2008 elections, talking to anybody who will listen about the fiscal black hole Washington has dug itself. He's dubbed his campaign the "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour". He decries the recklessness of borrowing money from foreign lenders to pay for the operations of the US government. The overwhelming "tsunami" (he calls it) will come when the baby boom generation begins retiring.

Walker's basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation, and could paralyze the US economy. According to some projections, just the interest payments on debt that big would be as much as ALL the taxes the government collects today.

Walker says the US can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. America's financial condition is "worse than advertised" and it has a "broken business model." It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings, and its leadership. And every year that nothing is done about it, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

Nobody denies what David Walker is saying, not even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The presidential candidates shy away from the subject, as if it was simply not there. Who will do anything about it? And when? Watch this 60-Minutes' video and open your eyes to the sober truth:

Now don't take this video to mean Bill Clinton was right and George W Bush is wrong. BOTH are destroying our country. But there are two advantages for Clinton: the majority of his term was held by the opposing party majority in Congress, the majority of Bush' term was held by the same party majority in Congress; and Clinton was president in the 1990s, Bush is president in the 2000s (i.e., Baby-Boomers will start to retire in 2008). If Hillary becomes president (I hope and pray she doesn't!), she won't have the advantages her husband did.

2007-08-29T23:05:00.000-07:00

National debt clock to the micro-second

Now it's getting disgustingly repugnant!!

The Gross National Debt

2007-08-24T20:49:00.000-07:00

Aaron Russo, R.I.P.

I'm sad to tell you that this morning, Aaron Russo lost his fight with cancer. Moment of silence - God rest a patriot's soul! - How sad. May he be honored for doing what he could to restore the Constitution.

The Lone Lantern Society of America and Restore the Republic are two sites closely affiliated with Russo. They are reporting that he had passed away after a long battle with cancer today. Russo was best known in the patriot movement for creating the film America: Freedom to Fascism which exposed the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve as frauds (which I have many posts supporting). Prior to making A:FTF, he made several big budget Hollywood films including The Rose, Trading Places and many others. He also ran for governor in Nevada and for president as a Libertarian in 2004.

Read more about Aaron Russo via his Wikipedia page. There is no doubt that this is a sad day, but we should focus on celebrating his life and the contributions he made to help restore the Constitution and defeat the New World Order. Celebrate Russo's legacy by doing everything you can to fight the coming tyranny, that's what he would have wanted. Our prayers are with Russo's family.

We appreciate you! In his epitaph Russo would prefer, it would be this: "All your freedoms, all the time!” Russo has started millions to see the truth about the battle for liberty, now we will continue the fight.

2007-08-21T14:09:00.000-07:00

Now I know why Ron Paul is different

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich: what do they have in common? According to my research they are all members, are candidates, or are backing the Council On Foreign Relations. Folks this is BAD! The goal of the CFR and its members is to set up an all-powerful One World Government (Wikipedia's "Conspiracy theories" section of the CFR is for real!). Bill Clinton is a member. Bush before him also . . . remember his famous speech referring to a New World Order [4th paragraph from the end]? President Bush is a member. Dick Cheney used to be CFR's director; he was caught on video bragging about hiding it from Wyoming voters while running for Congress. Educate yourself on the CFR; don't be in the dark!

"The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American branch of a society that originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and a one-world rule should be established." -Carroll Quigley, member of CFR, mentor to Bill Clinton.

"The main purpose of the Council On Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." -Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy.

My fellow patriots, is your favorite candidate on this list? Notice who isn't. The one man of great integrity who is being blatantly ignored by the media, except the unowned Internet--Dr. Ron Paul!

"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy [or elect a pro one-world candidate] the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition. -Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy [brackets mine].

Caution: CFR's Corporate Membership will be ignoring, and doing everything possible to discredit Ron Paul. The following Media Sources are CFR corporate members according to CFR's website: ABC News, Time Warner, Inc. (which includes HBO & CNN), Bloomberg, and America Online Incorporated.

UPDATE: Congressman Paul just confirms yesterday morning about the NAFTA superhighway. Just for the record, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is a member of the CFR.

2007-08-13T11:45:00.000-07:00

Americans' birth-right

The men who founded our nation understood that government was necessary to preserve the people's freedoms. But they also knew that government agents could not always be trusted to use their authority justly, and that government remains the single greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the people.

America's Founding Fathers knew that freedom required that the people always retain the ability to take government out of the hands of abusive officials, "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." This was far from just some lofty theory to the Founders. They had witnessed oppressive government firsthand and had seen this principle unfold in dramatic practice as thousands of armed citizens took up their muskets and drove the king's soldiers — their government's soldiers — back to Boston on April 19, 1775. The United States was born out of the fight against tyranny.

Most important, the Framers remembered this when they created a new Constitution. To ensure that government remains in the hands of the people, the Second Amendment guaranteed that the citizen militia would remain sacrosanct.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the least understood of all rights mentioned in the Constitution. Few today have any idea of the true meaning and intent of this provision, and most people are more likely to deride this right either as an archaic and unnecessary remnant of an embarrassing past, or at best merely some benign assurance that "sportsmen" will be able to go hunting. Neither is true.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an important and integral part of what it means to be an American. In fact, it could be said to represent the most important and integral part of being an American. When our ancestors followed the example of half the state governments and included a "right to arms" provision in the Federal Bill of Rights, they unapologetically and irrefutably established a nation of free and autonomous individuals.

By granting legal and moral recognition to the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution — "the law of the land" — Americans made concrete in practice that every single free citizen would remain the final repository of political power. Early American statesmen were following the sage advice of such men as the Scottish philosopher and militia advocate Andrew Fletcher, who argued that "arms are the only true badges of liberty," providing "the distinction of a free man from a slave."

Without arms, the people's rights could too easily become prey to the whim of an ambitious executive, the edicts of a corrupt legislature or the proclamations of false-hearted judges. Under an armed citizenry, this becomes much more difficult. Government must proceed carefully when exercising power, lest a "long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" inspire the people to again water the "tree of liberty . . . with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

In no other culture and under no other government has the importance of an armed citizenry been made so explicit or as carefully guaranteed as it has under the American constitutional order. While both ancient Rome and the British Parliament paid statutory lip service to the value of being armed, only in the United States was being armed recognized as an inviolable right protected by the Constitution. What started with gunfire at Lexington and Concord ended with the words of Tench Coxe, a friend of James Madison: "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [The] unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

James Madison also understood the ultimate, fail-safe role of the citizen militia. In Federalist 46, he dismissed fears of a standing army being used against the people because it "would be opposed [by] a militia. . . with arms in their hands." A few years later he would write what became the Second Amendment, with its promise that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If the average person today wonders about his relationship to his government, the Second Amendment provides ample guidance. It represents the ideal of American political and social life: the individual, self-governing, self-motivated, self-respecting, dignified, free citizen — who takes these virtues so seriously that he will maintain the personal power to back them up.

2007-08-10T10:02:00.000-07:00

The Federal Reserve's financial meltdown

Another wonderful article by Jacob Hornberger:

Ominous Financial Times Ahead
by Jacob G. Hornberger
The out-of-control federal spending to finance President Bush’s imperial adventuring in Iraq might be showing signs of an ominous economic crisis ahead.
As I have been warning for years, the massive federal spending binge that U.S. officials have undertaken, especially since 9/11, would ultimately bring a crashing dollar. As most everyone knows, that is exactly what has been happening to the dollar in the international arena.
But yesterday, the financial situation got a bit more ominous. Fears arising from the U.S. home-loan crisis spread to Europe where both the European Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve had to inject billions of dollars into the European financial system to keep it liquid.
If more funds are necessary to keep the financial system liquid (thereby discouraging runs on banks), then what is all that new, “free” money being injected into the financial system going to do to the value of the dollar? You got it — a bigger dollar crash is looming on the horizon as well.
We can add the federal dollar crisis to the crises in Social Security, Medicare, terrorism, drug war, Iraq, education, immigration, and just about everything else the feds have touched with their programs and interventions.
As I have written before, thanks to the federal government — or federal god as many American statists choose to perceive it — Americans just might be facing a perfect storm of crises, all of which are rooted in federal socialism, interventionism, and empire-building.
Meanwhile, the federals continue spending money as if there were no tomorrow, especially on their imperial adventure in Iraq. Oh well, if Americans do end up experiencing a deep financial and economic crisis, at least they’ll have the solace of knowing that their federal rulers are “rebuilding” Iraq, after destroying it of course.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

It's a no-brainer. If a country's government spends and doesn't tax (i.e., it borrows, or prints the money), the deficit will rise, or inflation consumes. If a country's government spends and tax to pay for it, the people will be poorer. Either way, it is not good for the people. The only way to benefit the people is to STOP SPENDING! Only Ron Paul will limit spending (i.e., bring the troops home, for starters), and thus, will not tax, and, at the same time, will make a balanced budget, and will end the Federal Reserve's monopoly over money, and will bring money backed by precious metal to America, like we did before 1913. Only Paul will do this for us.

2007-08-09T10:05:00.000-07:00

China's "nuclear option"

Even while many U.S. conservatives and neo-conservatives still refrain from taking individual responsibility for the massive death, destruction, mayhem, and chaos their foreign policy has wrought in Iraq, one would think that they would at least take individual responsibility for trading our freedom for security here at home, including the enemy-combatant doctrine, the loss of habeas corpus, the wiretapping, and the monitoring of email and telephone calls.

Unfortunately, not so, once again confirming that holding the concept of individual responsibility up to a conservative or neoconservative is like holding a cross up to a vampire.

The same, of course, holds true for what they have done to America’s monetary system with their out-of-control federal spending to finance their overseas imperial adventures. As most everyone no doubt knows, the dollar has been crashing in international markets, and my hunch is that we haven’t seen anything yet. Of course, many people blame it on the feds because they think that inflation, like terrorism, is unrelated to federal policies.

Ever since the federal spending spree began, The Future of Freedom Foundation has been warning about the monetary dangers arising from out-of-control federal spending. As they have been repeatedly emphasizing, what the feds have been doing to pay for all this federal adventuring is borrow the money rather than raise the taxes to finance it. After all, taxpayers get angry over rising taxes but have no idea that rising prices are a direct result of inflating the currency to pay the bills.

This week, U.S. officials and the American people received a brusque and blunt reminder of the results of U.S. monetary policy (this and this). If U.S. officials don’t stop pressuring China to change its trade policy and its monetary policy, Chinese officials are threatening to dump their entire holdings of U.S. debt instruments. China, whose economy has been booming during the entire time that the U.S. government has been obsessed with building its military-industrial complex, has been using its reserves to purchase massive quantities of U.S. Treasuries, making China the second-largest holder of such securities in the world, after Japan.

Here is what a Chinese official stated in regard to what is being termed the “nuclear option”:

"The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell U.S. dollars once the [yuan] appreciates dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the U.S dollar against other currencies."

As many people will recall, conservatives and neo-conservatives used to crow about how they supposedly brought down the Soviet Union by making the Soviet government spend the nation into bankruptcy. They still claim that they brought down the Soviet Union but they no longer say how. It’s not difficult to understand why. But wouldn’t it be nice if they at least accepted individual responsibility for the debacles they have wrought, both abroad and here?

2007-08-08T09:54:00.000-07:00

Arming the "enemy"

Here is an excellent article by Jacob Hornberger for all of the pro-war neocons out there:

Arming “the Enemy” in the Middle East
by Jacob Hornberger
The number of pro-empire, pro-war advocates who are relying on the “Muslims are coming to get us” rationale to justify the continued occupation of Iraq seems to be dwindling, but I still receive emails from some of them telling me that U.S. forces must continue occupying Iraq to protect us from the Muslim threat to conquer the world.
Yet, notice something interesting: None of the proponents of this rationale is openly protesting the recent decision by President Bush to deliver $20 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Middle Eastern countries that are headed by Muslim regimes.
Yes, I said Muslim regimes and I also said that the U.S. government is delivering massive amounts of weapons to such Muslim regimes. Aren’t these the people that the pro-occupation proponents are saying are waging a war against Christianity and the West? If so, then why are the pro-occupation proponents remaining silent in the face of the president’s decision to arm “the enemy”?
If the “Muslims are coming to get us” crowd really believed their own rhetoric, do you think for a moment they would be sitting on their haunches and just letting the president deliver billions of dollars of U.S. weapons to enemies who were coming to get us? Not on your life! They would be in the streets of Washington, D.C., holding protests and demonstrations. They would be writing letters to the president and the Congress. They would be telling President Bush that we are at war and that it is wrong to be delivering weapons to the enemy. Why, they might even be calling for impeachment. Isn’t it treason to aid the enemy during time of war?
Moreover, think about Iraq itself. The pro-occupation proponents say that U.S. forces must stay there to continue killing the proponents of Islam, who are supposedly committed to “following us home” with an invasion, conquest, and occupation of the U.S. (Never mind that there are no ships, planes, and supplies to accomplish such a feat.)
Yet, notice something important in Iraq: U.S. forces are not warring against all Muslims, only against those who are forming the insurgency in resistance to U.S. rule. The U.S. government continues to support and deliver weapons to Iraqis who are part of the U.S.-installed Iraqi regime — and even helping to train them to use such weapons.
But wait a minute! Aren’t the Iraqis that the U.S. government is arming and training Muslims too? In fact, haven’t many Iraqi officials even aligned themselves with the extremist Muslim regime in Iran? Why aren’t the “Muslims coming to get us” crowd protesting and demonstrating against that? Why aren’t they telling the president to attack and kill them too? Why not bomb everyone in Iraq, or at least all the Muslims, rather than simply those who are resisting the occupation? Because deep down, the pro-occupation proponents know their rationale for supporting the president’s occupation is a crock — just like the WMD, democracy-spreading, and liberation rationales were a crock too.
With the continuing reality of death and destruction coming out of Iraq on a weekly basis for at least the next two years, my hunch is that the “Muslims are coming to get us” rationale will ultimately go the way of the WMD, democracy-spreading, and freedom rationales that were initially used to justify the U.S. government’s imperial intervention in Iraq.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

I couldn't said it better myself!

2007-08-03T10:16:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul

Do you believe I quit my blog? Not yet--I suspended it for a while until the Ron Paul for President campaign is over. I usually vote for candidates in the Libertarian Party, but Paul is different. I usually vote for the aforementioned, but I vote for the best candidate who supports freedom, and Paul is that candidate. Now, Paul is, and is running as, a Republican. But Paul has what no other candidate has--a track record, and it's a consistent record for a free society.

As one of a major parties, Paul can actually enter the debate and fill the people's minds with a message of freedom. You can't do that if you are a minor party. And you know what? The people responded favorably! He won the majority of the debate polls, he is first in all the Internet polls, and if the people actually hear his message, they are hooked. The Ron Paul fan base are the most vocal group of all.

He sparks more webpages, blogposts, videos, and meetup groups than anybody. I have spending my time reading some of these (and participating in the meetup group in OKC), but there isn't enough time of the day reading all of them. But my favorite blog is Daily Paul. You will read that blog for a while, and you see what I mean! Even Libertarian Presidential candidate Steve Kubby said he will endorse Paul for president if he wins the nomination, and urge fellow Libertarians to vote NOTA. Kubby believes what I believe; liberty is more important than us. And I'll bet if enough people start to hear favorable things about Ron Paul and take time to read about him and his message, he could might win the presidency! He's moving up in the polls. But the greatest enemy is the establishment and the mainstream media, and they are a mighty foe. But Paul has the people! It is too early to tell, but I will be watching! The next post is when Paul has lost, or the next presidential election a year from November. I hope and pray it is the latter! In the meantime, here is a video on Paul's canidadicy for you to watch:

Add This to Your Page - Watch more at FreeMe.TV

2007-04-29T11:26:00.000-07:00

"When you outlaw guns..."

"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This jingle is famous, but it is so true. Let's take the Virginia Tech massacre for example, while it is still fresh in our minds.

Why? Because the Virginia Tech killer, or any other violent criminal, does not care about obeying laws against carrying a gun, just like he doesn't care about obeying laws against violating the rights of victims (like murder). But if you ban guns, law-abiding people (by definition, people who DO obey laws) are helpless.

Now, I won't tell you what happened--unless you came under a rock for the past two weeks or more, you know what happened. But I'm going to view it from a different angle, to show you from a whole new light.

A year ago, a bill came before the Virginia General Assembly--HB 1572. The bill states if you have a permit allowing you to carry a weapon, you can carry it on campus. But this bill didn't get through the house committee. It died in the subcommittee stage, the first hurdle of many.

Larry Hincker, a Virginia Tech(!) spokesman, was pleased for the bill's defeat. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus."

I agree with Hincker. But "feeling safe" and "being safe" are two separate things, especially coming from an anti-gun zealot.

A year before HB 1572, a Virginia Tech student was punished for bringing a handgun to class, although he already had a conceal carry permit. Some gun-owners (non-government) questioned Virginia Tech's authority, while Virginia police (government) backed the university.

Now, the main fault for the Virginia Tech massacre lies with the killer, but the Virginia's General Assembly is partly to blame.

And last week, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy proposed a bill--H.R. 297--that will send $1 billion (from taxpayers' wallets) to boost odious background checks, and thus restricting people's right to keep and bear arms.

But different branches of government (police, military, secret service, etc.) will still have their guns. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws, and government (but I repeat myself) will have guns."

That's why I ignore bad laws which puts society, including me, in danger by disarming law-abiding people. I obey the Second Amendment. The Constitution (including the Second Amendment) is "the supreme Law of the Land", and the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison states (at the bottom), "[A] law repugnant to the constitution is void." If I can either ignore unconstitutional gun-laws, or I am vulnerable to violent criminals, I choose the former.

For example, take a look at the Trolley Square shooting in Utah earlier this year. Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer, after having a early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife, violated the shopping mall rules by carrying a handgun with him. That decision saved all but five people their lives, before the killer was fatally shot. In the killer's backpack, he had a 12-gauge shotgun, a .38-caliber revolver, and plenty of ammunition, enough to kill more people than Virginia Tech. What if Hammond had followed the law and left his gun at home?

Take a look at the Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, VA; a hop, skip, and a jump from Virginia Tech. In 2002, a disgruntled former student opened fire in the school, killing three victims in the process, until two students ran to their vehicles, got a 9mm pistol and a .357 Magnum revolver, and subdued the killer. What if only one student had broken the law and carried his gun with him? Would the three fatalities still be alive?

What about the Luby's massacre in Killeen, TX? In 1991, Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at that time which outlawed carrying a concealed weapon. When the killer crashed his truck into the cafeteria, Hupp instinctively reached for her weapon. She would have less than three feet between her and the killer--an easy shot. But the gun wasn't there; it was in the car. That fatal mistake cost her parents and up to 21 others their lives. Later, Hupp said if she would do it again, she would have violated the law and took the gun with her. I can go on and on (e.g., Pearl MS, Kennesaw GA, et al), but you get the picture.

Normally, I rag on Oklahoma's laws, but on gun laws, the Sooner State is better than most. The latest is when Oklahoma amended Title 21 O.S. Section 1289.25, nicknamed now the "Stand Your Ground" law. When reading Subsection I, and then Subsection D, it states that any person "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" and who is at "any other place where he or she has the right to be" has no duty "to require any person using a pistol...to be licensed in any manner." This law complies with the Second Amendment. Look at the law for yourself! But, the law is meaningless if law-abiding Oklahomans won't exercise it.

But, the original and central purpose of the Second Amendment is to serve as a block against tyrannical government. As my last article said, the underlining principle of the Constitution is that the greatest threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people lies not with the "communists" in the past, or "terrorists" now, but lies within our own government. But gun-control advocates will tell you is you don't need guns--you can trust the government.

The Founders endowed us with the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. Again, all we have to do is to know the law and to use our rights. That is the only way to be both safe, and free.

2007-04-09T19:03:00.000-07:00

The real definition of patriotism

Recently, I watched an MSNBC news story about the Army promoting itself on YouTube. In interviewing a retired general, he said the reason why the Army wants to have a favorable image to its viewers is because of a lack of recruiting. When ask why the people aren't interested in joining the Army, the general answered a smaller family and a lack of patriotism. From listening to the general on the latter, I could guess that "patriotism" means to love and to stand by the military.

In all of the 50 states, I find the most agreement with the general in Oklahoma, and within Oklahoma, I find the most agreement in Midwest City. In fact, when I was in college, I was a member of the Naval (Marine Corps) ROTC, and I am still proud to be a Marine.

But the meaning of patriotism is different as told from the Founders and from past presidents. For example, look at Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was the 3rd President of the United States and authored the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Look at Thomas Paine. Paine published Common Sense, a paper, published in 1776, which challenged the authority of the British Crown. Paine said, "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." At that time, both Jefferson and Paine were British citizens.

And look at Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the 26th President of the USA. Roosevelt said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official." I stand to agree with those last three. There is a difference between the country, including the people, and the government, including the military.

There is the public sector and the private sector. The private sector represents the country. The public sector represents the government. Sometimes the government sector engages in conduct that is very harmful to the private sector. The genuine patriot is not the person who loves the government, but rather the person who loves the country and who is willing to stand up against the government in favor of the country.

If you ever want to befuddle one of these people who conflate the government and the country, remind them that the very purpose of the Constitution, with its equal but separate branches of government, those branches are checked and balanced by the other branches, and adding a Bill of Rights before ratification, is to protect the country from the government. Their systems will begin to short-circuit as they try to figure out a response.

I watched a movie this year called Sophie Scholl: The Final Days [I found it at Hollywood]. This movie was in German (with English sub-titles), but it told of the last 5 days of Sophie and her brother Hans' lives. I also read Jacob Hornberger's essay, "The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent" about the same people (but in English), however their full lives.

When the Scholls were young (in the 1930s), they loved their country (Germany) and they loved its government. The leader of Germany was Adolf Hitler, and they enthusiastically joined the Hitler Youth. They believed that Hitler was leading Germany and the German people back to greatness.

Their parents, however, were not so thrilled. Their father told his children that Hitler and the Nazis were leading Germany down a road to disaster. As they went to college, they realized that their father was right. But they still loved their country. So they risked their lives distributing their pamphlets, titled the White Rose. These pamphlets called on Germans to oppose their government, even in the midst of war.

The movie starts when they were finally caught by the Gestapo (though Sophie's eyes). They were quickly brought to trial, where the presiding judge harangued them for hating Germany. They were quickly found guilty (in a secret proceeding, of course) and executed.

You tell me: were Sophie and Hans Scholl "traitors", or were they "patriots"?

2007-03-20T19:09:00.000-07:00

The meaning of a free society

Hi, my name is Thomas Bell, and I will be appearing as a guest columnist for the Sun once or twice per month. I'll be giving you my opinion about different subjects, from my point of view.

I have a different outlook from the liberal v. conservative claptrap. I fall outside of the left v. right political line. My philosophy is simple. I believe in the philosophy of liberty. I believe in the mindset of being free. In other words, I want to live in a free society.

Some of you may ask, "What is a free society?" A free society is a philosophy that holds that people shall have the right to exercise unlimited freedom in their own lives, freedom to live in whatever manner they choose, freedom to pursue their own goals, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others to exercise that same freedom. As long as they don't hurt each other, the people should do anything they want.

In other words, as long as a person doesn't murder, rape, burglarize, defraud, trespass, steal, or inflict any other acts of violence against another person's life, liberty, or property, the government should leave him or her alone. In fact, the only purpose of government is to secure individuals rights and to prosecute people who violate those rights.

A radical idea? It is the same thing that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

Since you have liberty, you have to be responsible. Individual liberty and personal responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin. If you want liberty, you have to take responsibility for your actions, and vice-versa. Since the only role of government in a free society is to secure your rights, you have to be responsible if your decisions and/or actions are unwise.

While most people are just and honorable, some people are evil, and you have to protect yourself from the latter. In a free society, you have the right to use the tools in order for you to protect yourself. If you wait for the police to show, the criminal has won, and you will lose.

What are some other specific applications of libertarian principles to real-world problems?

Education: complete separation between school and state, including repealing of school compulsory-attendance laws. This would mean a completely free market in education, in which parents, not government, would decide the best educational vehicles for their children, and the schools will be more competitive to meet their demands.

Welfare: immediate repeal of all welfare mainly on moral grounds, but also on the terribly destructive aspects of government welfare programs. Stealing is stealing, and it's against God's Eight Commandment, whether it's stealing from others to give to yourself, stealing from the young to give to the old, or stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

Health Care: the crises in health care, especially with respect to ever-rising prices, is due to heavy government involvement. These laws and programs should be repealed in favor of a totally free market in health care.

Foreign Policy: oppose involvement in foreign wars as well as all foreign aid. The foreign policy concept is nonintervention, the same concept as the Framers envisioned. The U.S. government should be limited to protecting the country from invasion, but should stay out of the affairs of other nations. The people involved in trade, however, will go out into the world and interact with the rest of the world's society.

Taxes: and if these government programs don't exist, you won't need to pay any income tax, or any tax (remember God's Commandment against stealing?). Pay for the limited government functions with voluntary charity (2 Corinthians 9:7). Repeal the IRS and the income tax and leave people free to keep the fruits of their earnings and decide for themselves how to dispose of their wealth (e.g., keep it, loan it, donate it, give it away, or destroy it)

We just scratched the surface. With the exception of slavery and several minor exceptions, the philosophy on which the United States was founded through around 125 years was a free society. In 1890 America, the following government programs were virtually nonexistent: income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, economic regulation, occupational licensure, a Federal Reserve System and fiat-paper money, immigration controls, and gun controls. And the nation flourished.

In the 20th century, the American people abandoned their principles of liberty in favor of a socialistic welfare state and the controlled and regulated society. And the rest is history. I want to reverse this trend.

A free society is the most practical, moral, humanitarian, and ethical. The controlled and regulated society is intellectual sloth.

Now, I tackle local, state, and national issues. Some may agree with some issues, while others may disagree with others. But I am consistent: I believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, and I am for those issues that agree with the aforementioned principles, and I am against those issues that agree with the opposite.

However, if I can start a lively debate, especially about liberty, I accomplished my goal.

2007-03-15T11:30:00.000-07:00

Immigration fills the gaps

In looking at the supply-and-demand scale for lower-wage workers, the supply is shrinking, but the demand is rising. So a comprehensive immigration reform is at the front of the table. However, the conservative majority we had in Congress before January voted to keep immigration in check. Thus, the supply side was lacking.

Since January, the momentum had shifted to the left, and so immigration reform is about to change, and not a moment too soon. But today, the anti-immigrant laws still stand in all 50 states.

Take Colorado for example. According to the Rutland Herald, prison inmates in Colorado will replace immigrants on Colorado farms. Why? Because the immigrants are no longer coming to Colorado because of stringent anti-immigrant legislation enacted by the state. I suppose the convicts are the people whom the anti-immigrant crowd feels have had their jobs stolen by illegal aliens.

Isn’t it ironic? Prior to the anti-immigrant legislation, there were two willing participants to employment contracts — the farm owner and the immigrant. Both sides were willing to enter into a labor agreement with each other because from their own individual perspective, they both benefited from the exchange. While we do not know the precise reasons each of them entered into the exchange, we do know that they each gave up something they valued less for something they valued more. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have entered into the exchange.

The farmer valued the work he received from the immigrants more highly than he did the money he was paying them. This is not surprising, given that immigrants are customarily very hard workers. The immigrants valued the money they received from the farmer more highly than they did the time and energy expended in doing the work. They customarily would use the money to support their families back in Mexico.

Now, as a result of the state’s anti-immigration legislation, the workers are going elsewhere in the United States where their labor is more appreciated, causing no small amount of pain for Colorado farmers who now don’t have enough workers to harvest their crops. As Colorado farmer Joe Pisciotta Jr. put it, “It’s very frustrating. I’m definitely going to lose customers. We’ve never had an issue like this. With all of us trying to get enough workers on our farms, I’m worried this is going to turn into farmer against farmer.”

But hey, surely those Colorado convicts, who will be paid at the generous rate of 60 cents a day, will be just as hard-working as those Mexican immigrants, right? And perhaps Colorado officials can persuade federal officials to help out. Isn’t Colorado where Zacharias Moussaoui, Ramzi Yousef, Terry Nichols, and Theodore Kaczynski are incarcerated? I’d bet that they’d love the opportunity to pick crops on those Colorado farms.

Why don't we repeal the anti-immigrant laws Congress had just enacted, both Colorado and nationally. Then, the supply-and-demand scale would be back on balance.

2007-03-12T09:36:00.000-07:00

The 2nd Amendment means individual rights

Last Friday, in a surprise decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals overturned D.C.'s longstanding ban on the ownership of firearms. In Parker v. District of Columbia [.pdf], the court rejects the District's view that the 2nd Amendment was intended only to protect the right of the National Guard to possess weapons, holding instead that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right belonging to all individuals.

Before we go any further, let's take a look at the 2nd Amendment. This Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the states, reads in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are 2 clauses of the 2nd Amendment, the first starting with "A well regulated Militia" (WRM), and the second starting with "the right of the people" (ROP). What clause is a sentence by itself? The answer is ROP. WRM is just a noun and a participle used as an adjective modifying that noun. So the independent superior clause is ROP; the dependent inferior clause is WRM.

But the gun-control crowds want to focus on the first clause, saying that a "militia" means an organized group like the National Guard.

Let's look up "militia" in the dictionary. There are two meanings for "militia": first, it is "a part of the organized arm forces...", and second, it is "the whole body of able-bodied male [sic] citizens...". When looking at the second clause, the second meaning works best.

And looking at the whole Bill of Rights, the Supreme court decided, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the phrase "the people" in the Constitution means the people of the United States, and the phrase "right of the people" means right of the individual; "group right" is an oxymoron. And the last 4 words of the Amendment, who do they refer? Looking at the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, those last 4 words are meant for the government. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights to the people, it restricts government powers from interfering with the unalienable rights of the people. There is a difference.

However, the District's lead attorney, Linda Singer, said that the decision was a "huge setback" because "we've been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence, and this sends us in a different direction."

Exactly which planet has Singer been living on? Washington D.C. has long been one of the leading cities of the world for gun-related murders. All that the ban has accomplished is to prevent peaceful and law-abiding people from defending themselves against violent criminals who don't give a hoot about obeying gun-control laws.

As you see, Washington has the most restrictive gun-laws in the country, and the highest violent-crime rate thereof, while Vermont has the laxest gun-laws in the country, and the lowest violent-crime rate thereof. That's why John Lott's book title is the truth.

And while self-defense against violent criminals is an important reason for the right to keep and bear arms, we should keep in mind the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure against tyranny on the part of the federal government. As Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski put it in his dissenting opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

I hope and pray the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the D.C. Court of Appeals' decision.

2007-03-09T20:44:00.000-08:00

Rearranging the tax system

I am always amused when the other party is in power, and then they try to take a different but better approach in doing your taxes. However, between Democrats and Republicans, Democrats as a whole would make you pay a larger percentage in taxes. Representative Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, wants to do something different, but James Pethokoukis, a senior writer from U.S. News & World Report and author on this column, is not exactly sure. But Pethokoukis can take a guess.

One thing might be more taxpayers could pay the top 35%(?) on their earnings. If (hypothetically) the top 1% pays the top 35% before, then now (hypothetically) the top 1.5% would be required to pay the top rate. I really don't know who pays, or how much.

Or the taxpayers might lose the deductions that they once had before, like lowering the mortgage interest deduction limit.

Bush' plan is to repeal the alternative minimum tax, but shifting around the tax structure so that the taxpayer would make his taxes "revenue neutral".

But Congress will have a different plan.

It is no wonder why the tax code is too burdensome for the average taxpayer to comprehend!

By the way, I am not a taxpayer; I am a nontaxpayer. They are polar opposites as far as the IRS is concerned. On a related note, tax-honesty advocate Edward Brown is offering his home, worth over $1,000,000, for the first person who can show the law requiring Brown (or most Americans) to file a tax return and pay taxes. This offer has been standing for more than two weeks! But as of today, there are no takers. Could it be there is no law???

2007-03-07T19:11:00.000-08:00

Freedom to choose, except for real estate

The Internet is a wonderful tool to allow people to buy or sell merchandise. It reduces transaction costs immensely because they can find each other easily. And if one seller doesn't have what a buyer wants, it only costs a few seconds and a mouse click to find another buyer.

Except for real estate. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 makes it illegal for those who sell or rent housing to discriminate against buyers or renters. The law is so odious that the mere hinting you won't buy or rent to a person or family whose characteristics you don't approve, you will wind up in jail and/or pay a hefty fine.

For example, if a landlord were to advertise that he has a house that's "great for a stable family", that could be interpreted to mean gays are not welcome. Or if an ad pictured people enjoying a pool party, but the photo didn't show anyone from different minority groups, that could be a hidden message that whites are preferred. Anybody who sells or rents real estate must be constantly alerted to be sure he doesn't go afoul of this vague but aggressively enforced law.

Now, what has got the pro-fair housing's feathers in a ruffle is sellers who advertise on the Internet sites. One such site is Craigslist. Sometimes ads run by Craigslist violate laws forbidding seller preference--for example, one by a woman with an apartment to rent specifying that she wants a young, single female tenant. The Fair Housing Act specifically states that no discrimination is allowed, and that woman (and Craigslist) is flagrantly violating that law. And court decisions have thus far held that Internet sites are immune from liability for the speech of those who posted on them use.

The underlining principle that buyers and their lawyers forget is this: is there any harm if we delete the Fair Housing Act? If buyers don't buy real estate on account of some asinine excuse, that is their right. Why don't we give the same freedom to sellers? If a buyer doesn't buy real estate that you are selling, you just move along for another buyer.

Anyway, it is the concept of supply-and-demand. Most housing sellers don't turn away prospective customers. And if, for whatever reason, a landlord wants to rent to tenants with certain characteristics, that is no business of the government.

As for you who are really worried about some sellers who won't sell to certain buyers, just turn on your computer and look for a seller who will sell them. It won't be too difficult, and you will be erecting the valued principle of freedom to choose.

2007-03-01T19:00:00.000-08:00

Before, it was hate crimes; now it is hate titles

Back in the day (around the 90s or something), the government had a new crime in the books, called "hate laws" or "hate speech", when the judge added more money to the fines, and/or more years to the sentence...simply for a thought. Now, it's against the law for someone to address someone else with a certain title. New York City banned the N-word in public conversation. The "offense" has no penalty as of yet, but if the people (mainly blacks) keep using the term, the penalty isn't out of the question.

Now I personally don't like using it, and it isn't a part of my everyday speech. The paper said, and I agree, that the N-word is the most vulgar phrase in the English language. But I also don't use the F-word, or the D-word, or the P-word, or the C-word; I believe that it makes someone look intelligent saying the proper words. But I don't call the law if someone else uses the aforementioned words. Besides, for me, the N-word means a low-life person, usually black, but not quite. My ex-girlfriend used to date a white convict, with a foul mouth and a mean spirit. That man (sic) was the epiphany of the N-word.

There is an old children's saying: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." It is just words. If the N-word (et al) offends you, then leave. If you are big and brave enough, say something offensive back to the guilty person, but don't involve the law. Involving the police makes you look like a "P-word". But, as government (and some people) goes, some people (usually blacks) keep saying it, other people get offended by it, government starts a penalty, the police looks for people to say the word, this police arrest the perpetrator...and America is turning more and more to a police state...for something they said.

2007-02-22T19:45:00.000-08:00

The "value" of public schools

Here is another article by Jacob Hornberger praising public (i.e., government) schools...ironically. The real facts are that public schools are the epiphany of socialism, pure and simple. It's just like the military, or prison. For 12 long years (kind of like a 12-year sentence), in the most impressionable age, the students' mind are shaped and conformed into conformity and obedience to authority, just like the recruits' mind is molded to never question orders given by an officer.

What if an independent, intelligent, free-natured student enters a structured setting like a public school. The student will get board and hate it. Since the schools want to graduate students by the time they turns 18 (or close to it, as the students' birthdays may fall on the calender), the curriculum is set up to the lowest common denominator. That leaves the intelligent students with classes to ace with no effort, and leaves the student board with time on his hands. If the subjects doesn't interest the student, that student comes to hate school, and the 12 years feels like an eternity.

I graduated high-school with one B, the rest were As, and it was a breeze. In my younger, impressionable mind, I thought all school was easy. But entering college, the subjects were harder, and I delayed it and delayed it, until it was too late, and my grades show for it. Now, my daughter loathes school, and I can bet school is a boar for her, too. I know she is smarter than I. And she fits into an independent thinker's mindset that the rigid, compulsive, government control and approved education would clash. High-school is not the problem; it's beyond high-school, especially in her mind she thinks all school is a breeze. I wish that school Hornberger envisioned is for real. But, this is 21st century America, and schools are socialist in nature, and controlled, directly or indirectly by the government. At least maybe I can influence the outcome.

2007-02-21T19:42:00.000-08:00

Money is the blood of our economy

There is a column by U.S. Representative and Republican candidate for President Ron Paul titled, "Monetary Policy is Critically Important", and it describes the philosophy and outcome of money, and it's not too good.

For almost a century (since 1913), Congress delegated the power to "coin money" (an unconstitutional act, by the way) to a group of private banks called the Federal Reserve. The "Federal Reserve" is a misnomer, because it isn't "federal" (like "Federal Express", or a chain of "Federal Pizzas"), and it has no "reserves". And Congress has to borrow money from a private organization, it has to pay interest on the debt. And Congress has to tax its citizens just to pay the interest on the money borrowed from the Federal Reserve, as the Grace Commission discovered.

If Congress has to pay interest to borrow money when the Constitution gives Congress the power to make money interest-free, why don't Congress take that option? The answer is, if you would believe it, Congress is bound to follow the Constitution. Now, the Constitution only gives Congress the power to "coin money" (metal), not to "print money" (paper). But Congress delegates the power to print notes to the Federal Reserve. That "delegation" is also unconstitutional, but they do it anyway. The Constitution gives Congress the power to do certain things, not to delegate it away to someone else. Congress doesn't have the power, only We the People (us) have the ultimate power. But We the People don't guard that power wisely, and there is a price to pay for it.

The principle that the Federal Reserve (and most Americans) used to purchase things is the Federal Reserve notes. Most Americans call these "dollars" or "money". But it is not money--they are notes; they are promises to pay a debt. Most Americans call it money, but it is really fiat-paper money backed by nothing. Because they are just paper, the Federal Reserve can print to its hearts content...and print out of thin air. It costs the bank nothing to print fiat-paper money, but you have to work hard to earn "money". That's why the biggest building in the city are the government and the banks. And since banks print money out of thin air, that money inflates, and that money is worth less and less as time goes by. A dollar in 1913 is worth 2-4 cents today.

Now, the Federal Reserve is not totally private, the government and the Federal Reserve have a relationship. In exchange for always having money if the government ever needs it (which makes bureaucrats happy), the government makes Federal Reserve notes "legal tender". Whenever a creditor (e.g., credit cards, mortgage companies, car loan dealers, etc.) wants to settle a debt with a debtor (e.g., you or me), the creditor by law must accept legal tender money. Else, the debt is wiped clean. If there is no legal tender laws, the creditor can choose which currency to accept. If a creditor will have the option to choose money backed by gold and silver (real money) or money backed by nothing (fiat money), I have no doubt the creditor will pick gold and silver backed money. But if the fiat money is legal tender, the creditor must accept fiat money, and that's what we have now.

Like I said, the Federal Reserve is the most evil institution imaginable, if you wake up and see it for yourself. That is why we must abolish the Federal Reserve, or the Federal Reserve will destroy us.

2007-02-18T19:49:00.000-08:00

Hornberger, me, and the pro-war libertarians

Jacob Hornberger has done it again. His article, "The Critical Dilemma Facing Pro-War Libertarians", is brilliant. His article all boils down to libertarianism on domestic policy--individual liberty, free market, private property (i.e., smaller government) and conservatism on foreign policy--strong military, interventionism, troops based in over 100 countries in the world (i.e., bigger government) conflict with themselves.

In 99.9% of the time, Hornberger and I are alike. In fact, we are alike outside of our philosophies. He was a lawyer who quits the practice to become a writer; I am a writer who wants to be a lawyer. He was born and raised in Laredo, TX; I was born and lived my first six years in Corpus Christi, TX, just 150 miles due east of Laredo. And in college, he went to Virgina Military Institute and graduated to become a reserve Army officer; I was a Navel (Marine Corps) ROTC at the University of Oklahoma.

But as for philosophy, we are the same. We both are principled libertarians, and such, we are clear on the direction of our lives. We want limited, self-government on domestic issues, limited, self-government on foreign issues, limited, self-government on economic issues, limited self-government on social issues...limited, self-government, period.

The only thing we disagree is on the income tax. Hornberger thinks the 16th Amendment gives a direct tax without apportionment, and being an uncompromising libertarian, Hornberger wants to repeal the 16th Amendment by adding another amendment (like the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment). I say that the repealing of the 16th Amendment did the people no good. The Supreme Court decision after the Supreme Court decision after the Supreme Court decision states the same thing; the 16th Amendment gives government no new power of taxation. The only thing the 16th Amendment did was to prohibit the income tax from going into direct taxation, requiring apportionment, and put into indirect taxation, requiring uniformity. Not only I have many Supreme Court cases, but I have the statutes, regulations, as well as the Constitution--i.e., THE LAW. And the law says there is no law for the average American to file a return and pay an income tax. But Hornberger disagrees with me, and he has a right to his opinion.

But for the last paragraph, I agree with Hornberger, including the mixed messages of the pro-war libertarians.

2007-02-15T19:15:00.000-08:00

Mexico want to decriminalize drugs...again

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has seen the light and taken a different path. He now wants to decriminalize small amounts of drugs. Under the proposed legislation, Mexico will pull its resources and go much harder for the drug dealers.

Is it deja-vu all over again?

Do you remember back in May of last year, former (or then) President Vicente Fox started a bill that would legalize a larger amounts of drugs than today's bill, but, after "heavy pressure" by U.S. officials, he vetoed his own bill.

I said it before, and I will say it again: the law of supply and demand trumps any law Congress, Mexican or American, will pass to the contrary. If there is a demand on drugs, there will be a supply. If there is no demand, then drugs will disappear. But there is a demand for drugs, and so the drug-suppliers will want to fulfill the demand. And when users and dealers enter the stage voluntary, there is no person whose rights is being violated--there is no victim, and the prohibitioner's work is much harder.

But, for nearly 40 years, when Richard Nixon made the "War on Drugs" "America's public enemy number one", the public has been duped into believing that drugs are evil, that drugs are dangerous, and we spent over 12 billion dollars to eradicate the problem...with nothing to show for it. In fact, according to government's statistics, marijuana is the biggest cash crop in the United States, with an estimated value that exceeds $35 million. The war on drugs is a complete failure, and innocent victims take the fall.

But, the most important reason opposing the drug war is a moral one. I own my body, not anybody else but me. And thus, I am responsible with my body. If I want to ingest something into my body, I have a right, and a responsibility, with that something, whether or not that something is meat, vegetable, candy, milk, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, or whatever I happened to ingest. And if I have a rash, or an allergic reaction, or an overdose, or anything unexpected, I have to buy an antidote, or go to see a doctor, or anything that makes me feel better. That is called individual liberty and personal responsibility. Individual liberty and personal responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin. If you have one, you must accept the other.

Calderon (I guess) wants you to have those two things...a little. But he knows the true winners in the drug war is the drug agencies and the drug king-pins. The loser is the innocent civilian. Time will tell if Calderon made the right decision.

2007-02-14T19:16:00.000-08:00

Mayor vetoed Nashville's English only bill

Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell has got it right. On Monday, the mayor vetoed a measure that would have made English Nashville's official language.

Now most of you find favor with Nashville bill in question. But Purcell said the bill was mean-spirited, unnecessary, and most of all, unconstitutional.

I applaud Purcell's veto. On being mean-spirited, if that bill becomes law, it will say, "If you don't speak English, Nashville doesn't welcome you here!" It's a slap in the face to immigrants who doesn't speak or speaks little English. It is like saying you should move to Knoxville, or Chattanooga, or Huntsville Alabama when you are learning basic English. When you are proficient enough, Nashville will open your door.

With laws like that, I don't want to move back.

On being unnecessary, that is the absolute truth. Nashville sits in the middle of Tennessee, and I will bet 99.99...% of people of Nashville speaks English, and a vast majority has English as the only language they know. I have never been in Nashville (I drove through it once), but I have a friend who lives in Nashville, and he speaks only English, and he doesn't complain about the foreigners living there. I live in Oklahoma City, and the business I know speaks English. If it doesn't, it will go out of business, and OKC is more foreign than Nashville. In fact, I was born and live 6 years in Corpus Christi, Texas, and I can't speak Spanish. I speak more French than Spanish (although I took two years in high school and one semester in college in French). "Unnecessary" is an understatement.

And on being unconstitutional, I haven't read the Constitution of Tennessee, but I know the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", and I know it very well. With 7 articles and 27 amendments, there is nothing to say about English, or another language to speak, and in Amendment 10, if there isn't specifically in there, it will leave it to the state. And I will bet the Tennessee doesn't have a language in there. Besides, Purcell's legal staff told him the bill violated both the U.S. and state constitution, plus it would be costly to defend in a court of law.

However, the proposed law would require Nashville government offices to publish all documents in English, and I don't know about that. To require private individuals and businesses to speak in English is wrong; it violates their freedom of speech and press, but with government, it will save the taxpayers paper and ink not to draft it into different languages, and that is a plus. But, Nashville would be mean to foreigners, like Purcell said. The best way is to make Nashville's government tiny, so that foreigners would go into the private sector for administrative things, and that business will speak any language it wants.

Mayor Purcell is a wise, wise man. He knows what would happen if the bill becomes law. Too bad he chose his profession.

2007-02-09T14:49:00.000-08:00

Del City v. tattoo parlors

First, the city said the tattoo shop is too close to a school. Then , the city said the parlor's sign is too large. Then, the city made an 8pm curfew for the shop. Round 1.

Phil Calfy, who owns the tattoo business Skin Ritual in Del City, OK, said that city is trying to run him out of town.

Skin Ritual is not the first tattoo shop to feel the wrath of Del City. Two other places closed their doors because they didn't have surety bonds. The state made it a requirement for legalization. The Legislature may lessen the requirement to a liability bond this year.

Of those who don't know, the state of Oklahoma was the only state that made tattooing illegal, until the bill passed in the legislature and signed by the governor last year. But some mayors and councilpersons can't take the change.

In a free society, it treats tattoo parlors as any other business. If a customer wants to have a tattoo, that customer have the right to feel free to choose any parlor he wants. And that parlor has a right to accept or refuse the customer's money for the parlor's service. That is called a unhampered free market.

Some people will say tattooing is a sin. Now, I am a Christian, and I believe that those people are right (Leviticus 19:28). But God doesn't look down on anyone who has a tattoo. Our Lord is a God of love, not a god of spite. And a Christian means literally "like Christ", and thus, we don't criticize a person for having a tattoo either. Do you remember Matthew 7:1?

But Del City doesn't see it that way. It has a bias about tattoo shops. It will let Christie's Toy Box and Fantasy's adult dance club (i.e., stripper bar) stay open until late, but not Skin Ritual. It has to close at 8:00.

I wish the lawyers for Skin Ritual will win the lawsuit. The 8pm curfew for the business was passed in an emergency session without some city officials knowing about it. His attorney said cities can't pass laws more restrictive than the state. I hope she has a case. Del City should mind its own business and let all kinds of businesses be free to operate unmolested. Del City will be better off for it.

2007-02-08T10:22:00.000-08:00

Lt. Watada gets a mistrial, and may walk

Jacob Hornberger, who practiced law for 12 years before he quit the practice to become a libertarian writer, has an interesting, legal opinion about the mistrial on the court-martial of Army 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada:

A mistrial was declared yesterday in the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, the military officer who refused orders to deploy to Iraq. Watada's refusal is based on the principle set forth at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal that soldiers have a moral and legal duty to refuse to obey orders that constitute war crimes. Watada indented at the trial to show that Bush' invasion of Iraq was a war crime (i.e., a war of aggression, one of the war crimes prosecuted at Nuremburg) and, therefore, that Watada had a moral and legal duty to refuse to deploy to Iraq.
The mistrial might well have put an end to the Watada prosecution, based on double-jeopardy grounds.
Once the trial began, the military prosecutor got hoisted on a petard of legal trickery that he tried to foist onto the presiding judge. Since Watada was not disputing that he had in fact refused to deploy to Iraq, he had entered into a stipulation agreeing that the prosecutor would not have to prove that particular fact.
In what has to be one of the most ludicrous arguments in legal history, the prosecutor argued, in classic legal trickery, that by stipulating to that particular fact (that Watada had refused to deploy to Iraq) Watada had admitted his guilt and effectively waived his Nuremburg-style defenses.
It became clear that the presiding judge wasn't overly impressed with the prosecutor's ludicrous legal arguments regarding the stipulation, which in turn prompted the prosecutor to move for a mistrial, which the judge granted. A new trial date is set for March.
There's one big problem, however, for the U.S. military and its prosecutor--the U.S. Constitution, which still applies to U.S. military courts martial--specifically the constitutional bar against double jeopardy. Once the trial started, Watada was placed in legal jeopardy. He didn't agree to a mistrial. By granting the prosecutor's (not Watada's) motion to start over and do it again, a new trial would effectively be placing Watada in legal jeopardy a second time. And that's exactly what Watada's lawyer is now arguing.

Now, I am not a lawyer. However, I have a legal mind, I know basic law, especially constitutional law, and from what I know, Hornberger is dead-on accurate, if the judge is honest. However, the prosecutor will say double jeopardy does not apply in this case, and the judge might accept the prosecutor's argument (the Supreme Court perverted the meaning of the Constitution in Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Miller, Arver v. United States, Sparf v. United States, Kelo v. City of New London, et al). But, in real honest constitutional law, if the defense's motion for a mistrial is granted, double jeopardy does not apply; however, if the prosecutor does, double jeopardy does too.

By the way, the meaning of "double jeopardy" is found in the 5th Amendment: "[No person shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy". That is one angle of his case. Another angle, and I believe a more stronger case, is Watada was following his oath, which means he will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domectic, and he will do this before he will obey the "Decider-in-Chief" or any other officers above him. If the judge interprets the Constitution the way the Framers intended, Watada walks a free man.

2007-02-05T16:26:00.000-08:00

"Taxpayers" owe us $300 billion

The distance between how much revenue the IRS is supposed to collect, and the actual money the IRS collected, is widening. And how much Congress will spend is related to the estimated value of what revenue the IRS was suppose to collect. So it will result in a larger and larger deficits.

So lawmakers found an idea. They made up a word--the "tax gap"--which means the $300 billion "taxpayers owe" the government in taxes which they never paid. Now, only one problem left: finding ways to collect it.

Now, the rest of the LA Times article talks about the different ways to lower or close the tax gap. There's no mention of finding ways for Congress to curb spending; only finding ways to milk the people out of their hard-earned money.

But, there is one interesting dilemma. Does government require the average American to pay the tax in the first place? If the government didn't require the people to pay the tax, the people don't have to pay. And the core of the dilemma is there is no law requiring the average American to pay a tax. There is no law.

The LA Times says, "The government has a much better chance of collecting the money it is owed (sic) if a portion of it is withheld in advance and if the income is reported by two sources--taxpayers and their employers." I agree. But the reason I think it is better not to file is the government only can charge you with "willful failure to file..." (26 USC 7203); the only charge in Title 26 which is a misdemeanor. But, here is the charge: "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall..."

Now, I have three rebuttals on willful failure to file. First, the first three words in this charge are, "Any person required". From looking at my post, I am not required to file, supply, or pay. In fact, I am not required to do anything! Second, the key word is "willful", and the defense is found in the Supreme Court decision on Cheek v. United States [below Held:] In other words, if I have a "good-faith belief" that the law does not require me to file or pay, I can't be guilty of 26 USC 7203.

And finally, if I don't file or pay, the average person assumes I am guilty of a crime. But "failure to file or pay" is not a crime; only "willful failure to file...or pay". There is no crime not to file or pay with a clean conscience. All of this with one charge.

I urge you to read my post in full. It is long, but it is easy to understand. Then you will realise my title is a misnomer. I am not a "taxpayer"; I am a "nontaxpayer" [.pdf]. Which one are you?

UPDATE: If you don't believe me, ask the Wesley Snipes' team. They have the "Mistaken Identity" videos for you to see--part 1 and 2 [less than 20 minutes total]. They believe what's in my post too.

2007-02-01T12:12:00.000-08:00

"Take my liberties, I'm scared to death!"

That title is a pun off of Patrick Henry's famous speech "give me liberty, or give me death!", but that title is a perfect example of Americans' philosophy today. Do you ever wonder why the government does things to purposely frighten Americans, and that leads Americans to giving up our freedoms? Are Americans so scared that they will lose their liberties in order for government to comfort them in the false cloak of security? That reminds me of a 1993 article by columnist Molly Ivins, who died yesterday at the age of 62. Her article said:

"We get scared so bad--about the communist menace or illegal immigration or AIDS or pornography or violent crimes, some damn scary thing--that we hurt ourselves. We take the odd notion that the only way to protect ourselves is to give up some of our freedom--just trim a little, hedge a bit, and we'll all be safe after all. Those who think of freedom in this country as one long, broad path leading ever onward and upward are dead damn wrong. Many a time freedom has been rolled back--and always for the same, sorry reason: fear."

It's an excellent point. Throughout history, fear has caused people to relinquish their freedom--oftentimes "temporarily"--to their own government officials in the hope that those government officials will protect them from what they are scared of.

The "temporary" loss of freedom inevitably turns out to be permanent because once government officials have acquired expanded powers, they hate relinquishing them. Also, once people have surrendered their rights and freedoms out of fear, they inevitably lack the courage and the moral fortitude (and the means) to regain their freedom.

Not only do government officials prey on a frightened citizenry by enlisting their assistance in the infringement of their freedoms, they oftentimes produce the very crises and emergencies that endanger the fear.

For example, look at some of the things that so frighten the American people: losing their Social Security, illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists.

Social Security is a government program that is based on taxing young people to give the money to old people. There never was a fund that people's money got deposited into. As old people are coming to realize the truth, they are shaking in their boots at the thought of losing their dole. A government-caused "crises".

Illegal aliens frighten the American people for a multitude of reasons, including losing their jobs to them. But the reason there is a "crisis" is because the government plans and controls the free movement of people across the borders. That's what happens when government intervenes in the free market--distortions and perversions occur, which then gives rise to "crisis", which then cause the citizens to support ever-increasing assaults on their own freedoms.

Drug dealers scare Americans too. Yet the reason for the unsavory drug lords and drug gangs and all the related violence is the drug war itself, not the drugs. The drug war produces the crisis, which then frightens people into supporting ever-growing infringements on their freedom, including warrantless drug raids conducted by militarized SWAT teams.

Terrorism is the great frightener of our times. Yet, terrorism against Americans is rooted in U.S. foreign policy--that is, the bad things that the federal government has done--and is doing--to people overseas. Government policies produce the conditions for the "crisis", and then government uses the resulting fear within the citizenry to induce them to support "temporary" suspensions of their freedom.

It's just like Jim Bovard and his latest book, Attention Deficit Democracy. It's the people produced among themselves (from the government) the condition called Battered Citizen Syndrome.

Isn't it ironic that the most powerful government in the world has the most frightened citizenry in the world? Perhaps it's not a coincidence.

2007-01-31T19:26:00.000-08:00

Maher Arar received an apology from Canada, but not from the USA

Maher Arar is a Canadian software engineer. In 2002, during a stop in New York, he was detained by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was questioned, then he was shipped to Syria where he was tortured for about a year, until his eventual release and return to Canada. All of this for nothing.

After seeing what had happened, Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper gave Arar a formal apology. The Prime Minister even gave Arar $10.5 million for his ordeal plus $1 million for his legal cost. However, the American government said nothing. It even keeps his name on a terror watch list.

Our government has nothing to charge Arar with. But our government is too proud to apologize. Senator Patrick Leahy called the torture of Arar a "black mark" on the United States, and I couldn't agree with the Senator more.

The senator spoke at length about the matter: "We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated. We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."

So, which it, President Bush? Do you take it like a man, admit you are wrong, and apologize? Or you let America be its arrogant self and just say quiet? The government has been silent on keeping Arar on that list. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured that Arar will not be tortured again. But it was dismissed by Leahy. "Assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything?" I'm afraid that our country is headed down a dark, dark course, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

2007-01-28T17:22:00.000-08:00

Maine says "no" to the REAL ID

The vast majority of what I write is depressing. But every so often, a kernel of liberty shined through which gives people like me some hope. This story is one example. The State of Maine rejected a federally mandated REAL ID Act. The REAL ID will take effect next year. A joint resolution rejecting REAL ID earned passage through the Maine House and Senate last week by an overall vote of 171 to 4. It asks the US Congress to repeal the law.

According to CNET News.com:

The vote represents a setback for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Republicans in Washington, D.C., which have argued that nationalized ID cards for all Americans would help in the fight against terrorists.
"I have faith that the Democrats in Congress will hear this from many states and will find a way to repeal or amend this in the coming months," House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview after the vote. "It's not only a huge federal mandate, but it's a huge mandate from the federal government asking us to do something we don't have any interest in doing."

But she repeats herself.... Anyway, amending--no; repealing--yes. There are already similar bills pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, Washington; 8 other states total. Montana, in particular, is the strongest. The legislature held a meeting on a measure that says, "The state of Montana will not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005." The state instructs its motor vehicle department "not to implement the provisions."

The federal government has shown itself completely incompetent to manage and properly use the powers and tools it already has. Amending itself into another variety is a disaster. Perhaps if Congress spent more time having the federal government do less, it would stand a better chance of doing a few things reasonably well. Besides, the bill will cost Maine $185 million to implement, $185 million to invade privacy, and not doing a thing positive. Anyway, the federal officials slid this bill into a spending bill, because by itself, the bill had no chance of passing. And because the bill links driver's licenses to a national database, it could provide a windfall of information for identity thieves.

Maine already has refused to participate in the REAL ID. Soon, many more states will follow. It is just a matter of time before the bill is finished. According to Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Product, "This is the beginning of the end of REAL ID."

2007-01-22T14:51:00.000-08:00

I favor free-market "monopolies"

What are monopolies that formed in a free market? Are they really "monopolies" in the true sense of the word? Gregory Bresiger tells us no (Part 1 and Part 2). Monopolies formed during in that system are not really monopolies.

Major businesses, like Microsoft or Wal-Mart, without government control will have to continue to be friendly to their customers in order for businesses to repeat their loyalty. If the major business wants to raise their prices too much for the same products, then other businesses will sprout up all around them and steal business with competitive prices, no matter how long or how settled the major business is. If a new business has a new, favorable product, or a new, favorable service, again they draw customers from the major business, and that business has to better itself in order to retain the market base. This concept is called free-enterprise.

However, state-controlled monopolies (the true monopolies) have the power of the state to make it illegal for other businesses which offer the same product or service for their customers to exist. Those customers have no choice but to accept what the monopoly gives to them. Unlike major businesses, monopolies don't have to compete with anybody. You tell me: what business offers better products and better services for lower prices?

Take it from my experience. I frequently go to Wal-Mart, and I use Microsoft Windows on my computer. Wal-Mart gives me lower prices than other retail stores, like Ventures, Kmart, or Target. I shop those other three when Wal-Mart doesn't have the product I'm looking for, or the product is better made or is lower in price than Wal-Mart, and I use these on occasion, but on average, I go to Wal-Mart more frequently. If Wal-Mart raises its prices, or lower its products, I, and many people, will switch to a different store. But, in real life, Ventures opened for business, then closed, and Kmart open in the same place, and then closed, while Wal-Mart moved to a bigger, better place in order to have more business.

However, I have one water company, one electric company, and one post office. I don't know if the price of this service is the best price I can get? If the businesses raise the prices, I either pay, or go without water, electricity, and first-class mail. If the bills go up, I pay a higher price, no ifs, ands, or buts. The government has price caps on services, but the best way is different companies to compete for my services. And one company charges lower prices, or better service, or both, than the others, that company will have a "monopoly". The free market is the best system to have.

2007-01-20T12:49:00.000-08:00

The case for abolishing the FCC

It's time to abolish the Federal Communications Commission.

The reason is simple. The venerable FCC, created in 1934, is no longer necessary. In fact, it wasn't even necessary when it was started.

Its justification for existence was weak 70 years ago, but advances in technology since then have eliminated whatever arguments remained. Central planning didn't work for the Soviet Union, and it's not working for us. The FCC is now an agency that does more harm than good.

Consider some examples of bureaucratic malfeasance that the FCC, with the complicity of the U.S. Congress, has committed. The FCC rejected long-distance telephone service competition in 1968, banned Americans from buying their own non-Bell telephones in 1956, dragged its feet in the 1970s when considering whether video telephones would be allowed, and did not grant modern cellular telephone licenses until 1981--about four decades after Bell Labs invented the technology. Along the way, the FCC has preserved monopolistic practices that would have otherwise been illegal under antitrust law.

These technologically backward decisions have cost Americans tens of billions of dollars.

More recently, the FCC has experienced a string of embarrassing losses, when its grand telecommunications plans were repeatedly vetoed by the courts. A majority of the commissioners want to force local phone companies to pay government-mandated rates when long-distance providers like AT&T and MCI use their phone lines. A federal appeals court shot down that scheme and gave the Bush administration until June 15 to appeal to the Supreme Court. There's already talk about higher telephone becoming a campaign issue.

Meanwhile, the FCC is hard at work, trying to figure out how to muzzle Howard Stern and make a national example of Janet Jackson's right breast. The FCC's answer is more control over the airwaves. Commissioners are planning how to order voice-over-Internet Protocol (VolP) companies to comply with arguably unlawful wiretapping request from the FBI. In a sop to Hollywood, the FCC has decided that any device capable of receiving digital television signals must follow a complicated set of "broadcast flag" regulations. After those rules take effect in mid-2005, they put some PC tuner card makers out of business.

These signs warn of an agency overreaching. If the FCC had been in charge of overseeing the Internet, we'd likely be waiting for the Mosaic Web browser to receive preliminary approval from the Wireline Competition Bureau. Instead, the Internet has transformed itself from a research curiosity into a mainstay of the world's economy--in less time than it took the FCC to approve the first cell phone license.

Even ardent supporters of the FCC should admit that there's less justification for its existence after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed some barriers to competition. Local phone customers don't need to worry about the Bell's monopolistic practices, because they effectively aren't monopolies any more. Cable customers don't need to worry much about monopolistic practices because of satellite TV. Eventually, fiber connections will transport every kind of data.

With all that said, it's time for the FCC to go.

2007-01-18T19:36:00.000-08:00

Ed and Elaine Brown are going to jail for knowing the truth

Around 1996, Ed and Elaine Brown first realised the truth about the income tax. They know, like me, there is no law requiring them to pay. They questioned the IRS many times about the income tax, but the IRS refused to respond. 11 years later, they are going to prison.

That is, Elaine is. On Friday, neither showed up. But later, Elaine finally showed. As I write this, Ed has barricaded himself inside his home and preparing himself for a fight.

The couple, who were representing themselves, said they did not dispute the prosecutor's contention that they had opted out of paying taxes, but they said they believe they have not broken the law by doing so.

"My husband and I challenged the application of the tax law to us," Elaine Brown said in her opening statement. "We cannot find any statute that requires us to pay."

That is what they believe when they questioned the IRS. In at least one of the letters described in testimony, the Browns acknowledged that they might be inviting criminal prosecution, but in their comments yesterday, they made it clear that they do not believe they have broken the law.

Can you say "good-faith belief" in Cheek v. United States?

But, it all boils down the judge doesn't allow the Browns to get a fair trial. Ed himself said the trial was a kangaroo court. The judge was somewhat allowing them to bring up their defense, but he won't allow to attack the law itself. That is exactly what happened to Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff. In Schiff's trial, the judge specifically states, "I will not have the law in my courtroom!" Say what??? A crime is an action which violates the law; if there is now law, there is no crime! What an idiot!! Besides, the jury DOES has the power to try the facts AND the law, in spite of what the judge might tell you otherwise! The Browns made a mistake by trusting the judge. From that mistake, Elaine is going to jail...at her age, for life, and Ed puts his life on the line by barricaded himself in his house. All of this because the judge rail-roaded the jury into a guilty verdict.

2007-01-08T19:00:00.000-08:00

Major city, no plan

Houston has nearly 2 million people, making it the 4th largest city in America. With all that size, it has to plan the layout for what business goes where, what residence goes where, etc., in order to lay out a structured, perfectly planned city. But not Houston. Houston is the only major American city without a zoning code.

Since Houston has no formal zoning plan, it has an unregulated, unplanned real estate market. In other words, Houston is the epiphany of the free market at work.

And the people of Houston want it that way. The last time a zoning referendum appeared on the local ballot, it went down in flames: 47% for, 53% against.

So, what's the result? Some would say, "If there is no zoning plan, it will be a sporadic lumps of population everywhere, and the land area per population would be astronomical!" But, according to infoplease's profiles of the 50 largest American cities, Houston looks normal. Now, because it's large, there are a multiple of suburbs, but the City of Houston itself, it looks like any other city. In fact, I live in Midwest City, a suburb of Oklahoma City (population a fourth of Houston), and Oklahoma City has a larger area than Houston!

And because of a free-market approach, home-ownership seems the most affordable. Take Houston with its polar-opposite--Portland, OR. According to the Houston Chronicle, Portland is held as the "Mecca of highly prescriptive and restrictive urban planning" in the country.

As such, land prices are more expensive in Portland than in Houston. According to Coldwell Banker, when you buy a 2,200 square foot, four-bedroom home, the price in Portland is $357,000, and the price in Houston is $155,000.

And Houston has a vast diversity in its architecture. A driving tour of Houston is a great to explore the city's colorful history. Look around Houston--really look--and you start to see the picture. You think, "Hmm...why is that gas station next to a turn-of-the-century Italianate mansion?" Then again, perhaps the burning question should be, "What's this turn-of-the-century Italianate mansion doing here in the first place?"

It goes to show you: when you apply the free market to anything (e.g., real estate, in this case), you get the best quality with lower prices than any other system. And Houston is the proof.

2007-01-03T19:03:00.000-08:00

Melting pennies and nickels is now illegal

The American currency (US dollars/Federal Reserve notes) is the most sound money in the world! ...Hey, you; quit laughing. But, it's laughable. Since 1971, when Richard Nixon separated the money from gold (or any precious metal), there is no limit on what the Federal Reserve can print. And they print, and print, and print, and the money inflates.

Inflation means there is more money in the market, and thus, the value of the dollar goes down. For example, the only thing you can buy, hypothetically, is bails of hay. There are 1 million bails of hay, and 1 million dollars in circulation. That means, in the free market, a bail of hay is worth $1.

Let's say there is a storm approching, and you have lots of hay with nowhere to store it. You decided to sell 10,000 bails for $10,000. You hunker down with your $10,000 to ride the storm out.

During that night, the Federal Reserve prints a million more dollars. That makes 2 million dollars in circulation. But, there is the same million bails of hay. When you attempted to buy some hay, now a bail of hay cost $2. Twice as much for the same bail of hay--the only difference is now the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply by twice as much.

Now, there is evidence in the real world. The metal value in nickels and pennies exceeds the face value. That means some smart businessman will hoard pennies and nickels, melt them down, and sell the metal for a profit.

To prevent this, the U.S. mint has enacted a ban on melting pennies and nickels. If they don't, there will be a shortage of nickels and pennies from the "greedy capitalists". But, the real reason why the metal value exceeds the face value is the Federal Reserve prints fiat-paper money without end, and the money inflates, and the value of the money (including coins) goes down. It's another classic case where a government-induced "crises" results in more attacks on the economic liberty of the American people. But the average person wants to thank the government for protecting him/her.

In earlier times, people used gold and silver coins as tender. When Nixon closed the gold window, all we have is fiat money, and inflation occurred. When that happens, gold and silver coins were scarce, and none today. And no wonder; I have an American Eagle 1-Troy oz. gold coin, and the face value is $50. But, a 1-Troy oz. of gold is around $625! I would have to be a fool to spend it at its stated amount! And that's what happens (but to a small degree) when metal value exceeds face value. And you can thank Nixon (and presidents and Congress after him) for devaluing our currency. Thanks!

2006-12-30T09:08:00.000-08:00

Saddam is no more

Late last night/earlier this morning, Saddam Hussein has met his maker. He was hanged in Baghdad. Saddam had been sentenced to death for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate him in the northern Iraqi city of Dujail in 1982. Mission Accomplished!! Now let's go home.

2006-12-26T15:44:00.000-08:00

The U.S. military reached another milestone

As of today, the American deaths in Iraq exceeds the American deaths on 9/11. According to the AP, "The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States". And the American death count in Iraq keeps growing and growing.

However, the American deaths in Iraq is minuscule as compared to the Iraqi death count there. Now, there is a difference of opinion about the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq. But according to former General Tommy Franks, "We don't do body counts." The lowest count is from George W. Bush--30,000. The highest count is from Johns Hopkins University--655,000. Pretty wide count margin, indeed! But, let's take the conservative count: the Iraqi deaths are 10 times more than the American deaths.

And to think; the Iraqis never attack the United States, or even threaten to do so. That means the U.S. is the aggressor, and Iraq is the defender: there is no way getting around it. And the war keeps going, and going, and going. I said this before, but it bears repeating: I love my country, but I don't trust its government. And listen Nancy Pelosi, Bush is nothing more than a war criminal, and at least he can do is get impeached.

2006-12-22T19:24:00.000-08:00

The United States is insolvent

America is headed down the crapper. That's what Dr. Chris Martenson of Financial Sense University said. And it is not good.

I take issue on what Martenson said. Although my outlook isn't any better, I have a different philosophy.

The United States has what Martenson missed: the Federal Reserve. Although Martenson did mention this in the latter letter, he didn't mention its name. The Federal Reserve is a semi-private, semi-government system who makes the country's money. The private side, the Federal Reserve is a cartel of private, for-profit banks who works for the owners, not the people. The government side, the government makes Federal Reserve notes (FRN) "legal tender" and crimes will occur when using the notes illegally (e.g., counterfeiting). The banks and the government officials have a system.

When the bureaucrats spend more than the government takes in through taxes, the Federal Reserve borrows the rest, and the government has to pay the Federal Reserve back, with interest. When government can't pay, that is a debt--the national debt. All the income tax will do is to pay interest on the national debt, as the Grace Commission reported.

When the Federal Reserve floods the market with money, inflation occurs, and the value of the dollar is lowered. When foreign markets find out the U.S. dollars is worth less and less, they will finally dump the the FRN and go to a different money (e.g., euros). When that happens, the dollar will collapse, like the Soviet Union in the late '80s/early '90s.

However, there is a chance that the amero, a North American currency, will replace the dollar. Like the dollar, the amero is nothing more than a worthless fiat-paper money, and this will ultimately end up like the dollar. The only difference is the U.S. dollar is strictly for America, while the amero covers North (and maybe South) America. This is one step closer to a New World Order. Like I said, the future is not looking too good, if we don't do a 180-degree turn, and fast--or get out completely.

2006-12-07T10:51:00.000-08:00

The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

The town council of Cherry, Pennsylvania is considering enacting a law asking all of its residents to own guns and train themselves on how to use them.

This, of course, was the original idea behind the 2nd Amendment. The United States was designed to be a society in which "the militia" was not a governmental unit such as a National Guard but rather one in which well-armed and well-trained citizens could protect themselves not only from violent criminals and foreign invaders but also from the tyranny from their own federal officials--a society in which the federals would be prohibited from interfering with this critically important prerequisite to a free society.

Of course, the gun-control crowd would argue that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, is an outmoded relic of the horse-and-buggy era.

Meanwhile, given that today is the anniversary date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we would be remiss if we didn't remember that during World War II the U.S. government rounded up thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent and place them in U.S. concentration camps for the duration of the war.

Why is this important today? Because that power to round up citizens and put them in concentration camps--say, Americans of Muslim faith--still exists. The Supreme Court decision (Korematsu v. U.S.) that upheld the power of the federals to do this, while largely condemnded in legal circles, has never been overturned. It is still the law of the land.

Don't forget also the federal position today, as ludicrous as it is, is this: we are at war, just as Americans were at war after Pearl Harbor--only this time against "the terrorists" rather than the Japanese--and this war will last indefinitely.

Don't forget also the Padilla doctrine, in which the federals now wield the power--today--to send military units across the land, arresting people off the streets as "enemy combatants", torture them, and hold them in isolation for years incommunicado and denied trial and due process of law.

Now, add the Padilla power to the Korematsu power and you might start to get a sense of how different and dangerous a society in which we now live, as compared to our American ancestors, who never would have permitted an omnipotent federal government with Soviet-like powers over the citizenry.

While the people of Cherry, Pennsylvania, might be thinking about protecting themselves from burglars by asking everyone to arm themselves, we should never forget the true underlining purpose of the 2nd Amendment: its purpose is not to enable Americans to shoot deer or burglars, but instead to ensure that U.S. officials think twice about becoming oppressive here at home.

2006-11-11T09:20:00.000-08:00

Honor your oath

Today is Veterans Day. We create this day for the members of the arm forces. I served in the military. I was (or am) a Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine!).

Before serving in the military, the soldier/officer must take an oath. There are two oaths; one for enlistment and the other for commissioned officers. Both have two oaths in them. The enlistment oath required the soldier to "support and defend the Constitution" and "obey the orders of the President...and...officers appointed over me". The commissioned officer's oath required the officer to "support and defend the Constitution" and "discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter".

If the orders of the president or the duties of this office comply with the Constitution, it's a no-brainer: you would follow either, or both. But what if the second oath above conflicts with the Constitution? Which oath do you want to follow? In other words, which oath takes precedence?

In the beginning of Article II of the Constitution, it states, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President". In other words, the Constitution created the office of the President. Like parents and their child, if something created something else, the creator has the power and control over the created. That is consistent with the last clause of Article II, Section 1. The President, before entering office, takes an oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It is plainly to see that the Constitution takes precedence over the president, and the president, being the Commander in Chief, is above any other officers. Now, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, but if you are in the military, I highly encouraged you to read it in full as well as have a copy of the Constitution with you for you to refer. It is your orders.

So what in the Constitution does it tell the military? One thing, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, the Constitution states, "The Congress shall have Power...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." The president says the war on terrorism will be indefinitely--with more troops needed indefinitely. That means, if the soldiers will honor their oath, they would quit.

Now, the next clause states, "The Congress shall have Power...To provide and maintain a Navy", and the Marines are part of the Navy. But before the Armies clause, the Constitution states (in part), "The Congress shall have Power...To declare War". The Constitution delegates the president to be the Commander in Chief "when called into the actual Service", but the Constitution delegates Congress the power to declare war. In other words, in wartime, the president follows Congress; the president can't lead the troops into battle when Congress hasn't declared war.

Congress hasn't declared war since World War 2. Do you see what I mean?

Now, the past is the past. But, in the future, if the orders call you into battle, refuse to go unless Congress formally has a declaration of war. You'll be ridiculed. You may be facing jailtime. But you'll won't be dead fighting an illegal, unconstitutional war. Be true and honor your oath. It's the right and honorable thing to do.

2006-11-10T21:12:00.000-08:00

It's all the same

It's old news by now, but the Democrats won both the Senate and the House last Tuesday. Sheldon Richman wrote about what was in the voters' mind when the majority voted for the Democratic Party.

But the reality is both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (with a few exceptions) are one and the same. They both have the same philosophy of passing more laws, restricting the freedom of Americans, and grow the government bigger. George Bush (41) grew the government bigger than Ronald Reagan left it, Bill Clinton grew the government bigger than George Bush left it, and George W. Bush grew the government bigger than Bill Clinton left it.

Thomas Jefferson knew this even in his time. In his immortal words, he said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." And in the 20th century, the Republicans and Democrats are more overlapping as time goes by to be the party of government control.

Since both branches of Congress changed to Democratic control, I have a prediction: Between 2006 and 2008, government tends to slows down, like Clinton and the Republican Congress. However, since Bush is really a liberal at heart, and he is "a uniter, not a divider", government slows down slightly. In 2008, the people elect Hillary Clinton as president. Since now the Democrats have control of Congress and the White House, it's the same-old crappy business as usual, but with different targets.

The majority of the people can see the destruction of America. So seeing that, the Republicans will now say, "We have a new plan. We can see the error of our ways. So we will have a new 'Contract with America'. This contract is based on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and smaller government (i.e., the libertarian planks). If you will vote for us, all of this will be yours."

And the people (with the memory of about a year) will fall for it. And the cycle keeps going, and going, and going.

Can't the people see that the only way out of this mess, the only ray of light on a cloudy day, is the libertarian philosophy of a free society. Libertarianism is the key to our happiness and our prosperity for the future.

2006-10-31T19:25:00.000-08:00

The Read the Bills Act

The REAL ID Act is a cruel, cruel law. This act, by itself, failed to pass the Senate. That is why Rep. James Sensenbrenner tacks it on to a war spending and tsunami bill, which passed both Houses easily. This REAL ID will require every American to get a national ID with national characters which will be scanned through a national database, with additional requirements made solely by the Secretary of Homeland Security...can you say, "Your papers, please!"

Now, there is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This act is not so cruel as the REAL ID Act, but it is meaningless. Gambling, like drugs and prostitution, is a victimless crime. Besides, there are legal Indian casinos, horse tracks, and even government-run lotteries. So by itself, this act would be hard to pass. That is what Sen. Bill Frist foresaw. So he shoved this bill to a port security bill, which again passed both Houses easily when Congress was trying to finish so they can start campaigning for re-election.

This first law hurts every American. This last law hurts American businesses and American poker players. Both are dishonest laws pass in a dishonest way. And I know the next dishonest law is on the way.

Putting these two bills into a "must-pass" bills is deceiving. They knew the bills will pass with very little deliberation and examination. There must be a cure to this system, and DownsizeDC has it. It is called "Read the Bills Act". It says that every congressperson must, by penalty of perjury, read (or have read) the entire law, plus amendments, before it can be passed. And it has a seven-day grace period before it can be voted. In that way, the laws Congress will write will be shorter and simpler, and Congress will be honest. No more REAL ID Act, and no more Internet Gambling Act.

DownsizeDC also has a "Write the Laws Act" , where only Congress alone can write laws, not be lazy and delegate to someone else who will write laws for them (e.g., the Federal Reserve). In the near future, DownsizeDC will introduce the "One Subject at a Time Act" (the title speaks for itself; "One Subject at a Time" also will definitely cure those two deseases mention above). Now, I have little confidence in asking Congress to do anything (I rather would do it myself), but if that is the case, I want DownsizeDC to back me up.

2006-10-27T18:24:00.000-07:00

A few words from a principled libertarian

According to the Sun, David Boaz and David Kirby propose when talking to the exit polls to include: "Do you consider yourself to be fiscally conservative and social liberal, also known as libertarian?" Although it may be true, I reject that premise. It is looking it through a "conservative v. liberal" paradigm. It is talking about conservative v. liberal, left v. right, red state v. blue state.

Tell me, what is a "conservative"? What is a "liberal"? Is there any difference between the two?

From looking at the 2008 presidential candidates, it is hard to tell. There is little difference between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. There is little difference between John McCain and John Kerry. In fact, the greatest difference between Clinton and Giuliani is the sexes, and between McCain and Kerry is about 4-5 inches.

On May 27, 2004, I wrote an article titled, "Is a Bush-Clinton the key?" In my column, I jokingly said the best way George W. Bush could guarantee re-election is to dump Dick Cheney and select Bill Clinton for his vice-president. Both Bush and Clinton shared the exact same philosophical vision for the role of government in society. While Bush is a bigger spender than Clinton, that's because he had the same party Congress.

We need a new paradigm. We should draw a map with a new directions. We will go "up v. down", "self-government v. government control", "white v. black" (or "yellow v. brown", or whatever). On the government control side, there are Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, et al). Parties that would fit are the Socialists, Communists, and Fascists. Both liberals and conservatives are at the middle, with personal traits going more towards government control with conservatives, and economic traits going more towards government control with liberals.

But, they both are going towards government control with all traits as time goes by.

As for self-government, that would be our Founders: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, et al. In the 21st century, although some would feel different philosophy than others, the people that most wants to live in self-government is libertarians.

Libertarianism is a philosophy that says all people should be free to do anything that they want, in life, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal freedoms of others to do the same. Thus, as long as they do not murder, rape, assault, burglarize, defraud, trespass, steal, or inflict any other acts of violence on another person's life, liberty, or property, libertarians hold that the government should leave them alone. Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. In fact, libertarians believe that the only role of government is to protect individuals unalienable rights.

I hope you know a little more about what it means to be a libertarian, especially a principled libertarian. That is the key to living in a free society.

2006-10-19T11:25:00.000-07:00

Wesley Snipes indicted

You tell me this is good news or bad news. On Tuesday, Wesley Snipes was indicted on 8 counts of tax "fraud" and not filing tax forms. If he is found guilty on all counts, Snipes could face 16 years behind prison.

Now, I am no attorney, but I am interested in the law, especially tax law. I ask that question in the beginning because there are positive things and negative about Snipes being indicted. U.S. Attorney Paul Perez charged Snipes with one count of 18 USC 371, one count of 18 USC 287, and six counts of 26 USC 7203.

Now, I am not familiar with charges from Title 18, but it has to do with Snipes amending a tax return to tax less (or no) money on the same income.

"Snipes", according to the Los Angeles Times, "began dubious (sic) tax refunds, including a $7.4-million claim for the 1997 tax year. Snipes originally claim an income of $19.2 million that year, authorities alleged, but in an amended return said his income was zero."

I have two questions (actually one question and one comment). The question is what kind of income does the paper refer--gross income or taxable income? I can guess (from looking at the law) that $19.2 million is his "gross income", and zero is his "taxable income". And looking at 26 USC 1 and 26 USC 3, you pay a tax on your taxable income only.

The comment is if you already file a tax return and pay taxes, let it be. You can get into trouble correcting it in the future. If you know now the truth, start with today.

But I'm familiar with 26 USC (or IRC) 7203, titled "Willful failure to file...". In fact, I have a specific defense on the charge of IRC 7203. If Snipes doesn't file (and he doesn't amend his past tax returns), all the government can charge him is IRC 7203. Also, Snipes got involved with Eddie Ray Kahn, owner of American Rights Litigators and its successor, Guilding Light of God Ministries. Kahn uses the "861 argument" which says only foreign sources of income are taxed. Remember, I gave you a version of the 861 argument in my post last March, and I believe in it wholeheartedly (i.e., the law itself tells the REAL truth). The defense of willfulness is found in the Supreme Court decision, Cheek v. United States.

Now, I am poor, but Snipes is rich. He can have any attorney he wants, including multiple attorneys. If it was me, I will choose Jeffrey Dickstein, Larry BeCraft, and/or Robert Bernhoft. Dickstein and Bernhoft represented Joseph Banister in the Banister tax trial in 2005, and BeCraft represented Vernice Kuglin in the Kuglin tax trial in 2003. By the way, both won their cases.

And in case, Snipes should watch the movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. This is the ENTIRE movie (1:45 to 2 hours long). But it's broken down into 4 segments: if the movie should run in it's entirely, I will replace it here. UPDATE: It's here! Wait for "Buffering..." to end, and wait until 10 seconds for the movie to start. Like I said, the movie lasts less than 2 hours, but taxes last the first hour.

But, as I am writing this, Snipes is no where to be found. Maybe he realizes the chances of winning at trial. The charges under Title 18, I can't help you. The charges under Title 26, I can help you. Title 18 is "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE"; Title 26 is "INTERNAL REVENUE CODE". If both Titles are distinct, that means Title 26 is not a crime, is it not? If he is found guilty of only charges under Title 18, he will face a maximum sentence of 10 years. And the jury is bias against rich people "getting away" by "not paying taxes". And running away is not good. But which way the trial goes, the major media is watching closely.

I wish Wesley Snipes all the luck, especially when he battles the government on taxes.

2006-10-17T19:35:00.000-07:00

Freedom to fly

A week from last Friday, it was the continuous school shootings, and the only thing the people can do is to have more government control on guns and gun violence, if that. A week later, a small plane crashed into an apartment building, killing New York Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle and his instructor. In order to make the sky above New York safer, the government must have more government control on planes and over the skies.

Haven't we covered this before?

In both cases--and in every case--there is only one answer: freedom. In the first case, it's the freedom to keep and bear arms that will keep the children safe from harm, as I told you before.

But you say, in the plane-crash scenario, "If we use more government control on private airplanes, we would surely be safer for the pilots and passengers." Maybe, but at what cost? Before Lidle's plane, I don't remember any small plane crashing into any building. The last plane crash in New York I know of is TWA Flight 800. That flight, in 1996, killed all 230 passengers and crew barely after it flew from JFK International Airport. After that crash, they didn't say to ban all flights. Blaming all of the problems on one plane is absurd.

Why don't we let the pilots have the freedom to fly without any restrictions. As you already may know, flying is the safest way to travel. But, if we have flying in freedom, let the pilots have the ultimate responsibility for knowing what to do behind the joystick. The airparks have flying classes with instructors to instruct the student-pilots. But I drove a car without classes when I was 13, and I was doing fine. Now, I wouldn't fly a plane, but it is because there is no person I know that would teach me how to fly. In other words, I don't want to crash! If I was ready and I was confident enough (e.g., finishing the school), then I would fly. But having a pilot's license before I can fly is hogwash. Having a driver's license before I can drive is the same hogwash. Learning how to drive is good enough, and learning how to fly is good enough, too. Remember, it is you flying the plane, and you have to be responsible to know what to do. If you don't, remember this; it is only you who falls.

2006-10-17T07:52:00.000-07:00

The death of liberty

This morning, with the crowd cheering him on, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. When this bill becomes law, this will mean:

No more speedy and public trials (all this president, and future presidents, can do is to secretly lock you away without charges for the remainder of the war [i.e., forever]).
No more trials by jury.
No more habeas corpus.
The President alone can decide whether or not he wants to name you an "enemy combatant".
No more lawyers
No more free speech.
No more the right to assemble.
No more the right to keep and bear arms.
No more privacy.
No more security.
Cruel and unusual punishments (i.e., torture) are okay.
The 9th and 10th Amendments are just "paper tigers".
And so on, and so on, ad nauseam.

And make no mistake; the President can label both an alien and a citizen alike an "enemy combatant" (e.g., Jose Padilla), even though the bureaucrats will lie to you and say otherwise. If you don't believe me, watch the sobering message from Keith Olbermann. Like Senator Padme Amidala said in Star Wars III, when the republic transformed itself into an empire, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." God help us, because our elected officials won't. Both/either God, and/or the people themselves.

2006-10-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

The right to petition

Last week, Bob Schulz and We the People Foundation argued their landmark case in front of the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. This landmark case is the case for the right to petition.

The right to petition, found in the 1st Amendment, reads in full: "Congress shall make no law...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is the only right that confronts the people with their government directly. WTP have 4 specific petitions: the federal income tax petition, the money and banking petition, the war powers petition, and the privacy petition. But in 217 years when we first operated under the Constitution, there is no court case which gives the word "petition" its definition. It will definitely go to the Supreme Court after this trial.

The people argued two things. Within the meaning of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, the government must respond when given petitions for a "redress of grievances", and if the government doesn't respond, the people have the right to enforce by withholding their money until the government finally responds to the people's petitions.

However, the district court ruled otherwise. As you may remember, Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled the government doesn't have to answer, respond, or listen to the people's petitions, a right listed in the 1st Amendment. Judge Sullivan was featured in a 15-minute promo for America: Freedom To Fascism [push play].

As WTP said, it is impossible to know what the appeals court will decide. But, the organization will issue an educational guess. The WTP states:

First, we believe the Court will issue an explicit finding that the defense of "sovereign immunity" is no jurisdictional bar to suits asserting constitutional claims. We believe we have established this fundamental constitutional principle beyond question in this case, and that only such an explicit finding will adequately deter the Justice Department from renewing that defense in the future.
Given that the well-entrenched doctrine of sovereign immunity has, to date barred many lawsuits against the Government, this judicial clarification in itself, could be of extraordinary significance for the Law and those that seek redress where constitutional injuries have been inflicted.
Second, we believe the Court will define the word "Petition" as found in the First Amendment. Only the Court can define the meaning of the word. We believe we have provided the Court with a sufficient context of historical and constitutional background so it can properly declare the contours of the Right as it was intended by our Founders.
Third, we believe the Court will rule that the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances includes the Right to a Response from the Government, i.e., that the government is obligated to respond to our Petitions for Redress of Grievances, which the Court will hold are Petitions for Redress.
Fourth, we believe the Court may hesitate on ruling that the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances includes the Right of Enforcement should the Government fail to respond. During questioning, Chief Judge [Douglas] Ginsburg expressed a concern over the "fisc" (public treasury). Therefore, despite the compelling evidence, the Court may leave for the United States Supreme Court, on appeal, to decide the question of whether we have the Right to retain our money if the Government refuses to respond to our Petitions for Redress.

I hope the people will be victorious. However, whether the judges sides with the government or the people, this case is headed to the Supreme Court.

2006-10-11T19:31:00.000-07:00

The death of habeas corpus

The principle of habeas corpus is a demand that free people make toward state power. If free people are going to respect a state's power to lock people up, then that state must respect a free people's demand to see the causes and the evidence for any arrest. In other words, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

So it is chilling to read the section on habeas corpus Matters included in the recently passed Military Commissions Act of 2006 (passed both by House and Senate by a 2-1 margin):

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

What this section says that in the eyes of the United States, aliens are not to be granted the privileges of a free people. And this makes the United States a threat to free people everywhere. Besides, if justices would feel independent from the President, it is obvious that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unconstitutional.

There are so-called "conservatives" who say that the United States does not owe the right (sic) of habeas corpus to aliens. They argue that habeas corpus is a "Constitutional Right" and therefore a "right" that belongs exclusively to the people of the people of the United States.

But the "right"of habeas corpus is not a right; it is a privilege (i.e., Art I, Sec 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution) and was not invented by the United States Constitution. It cannot be trademarked as territorial property, made by, or exclusively for citizens for the USA. Habeas corpus was written into the U.S. Constitution because it was already in the 18th century a time-honored principle for free people everywhere.

A state that revokes its own obligations to habeas corpus is a state that declares itself infallible. And an infallible state is either exceptionally wise or exceptionally dangerous. But if the American people believe that their leadership is exceptionally wise, shouldn't they revoke habeas corpus for themselves, first?

It's scandalous enough that Congress would revoke habeas corpus, but when Congress does it just a month before it goes up for re-election, the timing suggests that we have become a nation of vicious people who would cheer the unfreedom of others in the name of freedom for themselves.

In the Military Commissions Act of 2006 we find a mirror to show us what we have become in the name of the twin towers massacre of 9/11. Just a little ways down the page from the sentence that revokes habeas corpus for alien combatants is another sentence that makes the new rules retroactive to Sep. 11, 2001.

But I hear some readers asking, "What's wrong with locking up a terrorist and throwing away the key?" To which I answer, "Maybe nothing." But when a state gets to declare in advance who the terrorist is and never is obligated to respect that person's right to due process, then we have made a state which can declare its own infallibility. And what free people can applaud the idea of an infallible state that can lock people up and throw away the key.

In our coming elections to the Congress of the United States, we will choose between those who voted for an infallible state and those who voted against it. And in our choices at the ballot box, we will tell the rest of the world whether the people of the United States will stand with them or against them when it comes to support the traditions of free people wherever they happen to be born.

P.S.: Keith Olbermann published a funny but factual video about habeas corpus. Watch!

2006-10-06T20:30:00.000-07:00

A pattern and a solution to the school shootings

You can look at it, and re-look at it, and re-look at it again, and it makes no sense what happened at the pattern of the recent school shootings in America. It takes a twisted mind which I cannot understand to sexually molest girls at one school, and tie-up and murder girls at another. It makes no sense to me at all.

But I am sure it will happen in the future. So what will we going to do about it then?

Some groups claim we should crack down hard on guns. We should restrict the enterways and exitways to one lane, we could give police with assault guns patrolling in every corner, and do a lock-down drill just in case a parent forgot to check by a security check-point and the school have to do the drill for real.

That, in the previous case, is the wrong thing to do. Do you want your children to live that way in America--America, the so-called "free" country?

The correct way to do it, if they will do it at all, is to arm the teachers, principles, administrators, janitors, and every adult who works in the school. Don't arm them if they don't want do, but give them the option. In fact, arm everybody who wants to be armed regardless on who works in the school or not. Now, there are two simple and basic facts in society: 1) most Americans are good, honest, and law-abiding, but: 2) there is evil in this world, and a closer look will expose an interesting truth: all schools in question are "gun free". When any business is gun free, honest and law-abiding Americans disarm. Criminals, on the other hand, don't. There criminals! "Gun-control" laws really mean "victim-disarmament" laws. The unfortunate and unintended consequence of the federal law banning all guns from schools is that they, in essence, create "defense-free" zones for criminals.

The Founders were right. They know the people have an unalienable right to protect themselves, their family and friends, their property, and their liberty, so the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment. That way, they have a right to defend and the same time be free. In fact, one Wisconsin State Representative is doing exactly the same as I proposed.

It is time for Americans to learn how to defend themselves again. Attacks like these will only increase until the average American is willing to fight back, and arm oneself with the proper equipment to handle the situation.

2006-10-05T06:59:00.000-07:00

Foley hits the trifecta

According to Sheldon Richman's Blog:

It's official now: U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who quit Congress after getting caught sending sexually explicit messages to teenaged male congressional pages, is an alcoholic, mentally ill, and a victim of sexual abuse by a clergyman. In other words, he's hit the psychiatric trifecta. He's now in rehab. But he's not offering any of this as an excuse for his inappropriate conduct. He just thought we'd like to know.

Thanks for the useless information, Sheldon!

2006-10-04T19:58:00.000-07:00

State of Denial

Although I didn't read Bob Woodward new book, State of Denial, I've read many reviews. The book deals about the incompetency of George W. Bush and his "team" in dealing with the Iraq war. It is implying that if someone else was in charge of the war, of if Bush would handle it differently, things would be just fine.

The war with Iraq is/was a failure, both morally and efficiency, it doesn't matter who is in charge.

Let's face the facts: whether or not Saddam Hussein was a tyrant (I don't know, and I simply don't care), Iraq didn't attack the United States, or even threatened to do so. But Bush told the American troops to go ahead and attack Iraq. That makes America the aggressor and Iraq the defender--the facts don't lie. Bush (or Cheney?) told the American people the Iraqis will view the troops as "liberators", not "occupiers", they will lay the ground that the troops will walk with rose petals, and the oil will pay for all of this.

All three were lies.

The Bush team said Saddam had WMDs (the "smoking gun will turn into a mushroom cloud" malarkey). They said Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and Saddam and Osama bin Laden were friends. They said the war with Iraq will last only a short time with a few casualties.

Again, all three were lies.

The best course is to leave Iraq and go home. The Bush team says, "If you won't fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, you will fight in New York and Washington." Need I say more about the amount of truth in any of Bush' statements? Between 9/11 and today, the likeable ratings of the USA to the world are shot. The best course to save lives and dignity is to quit. Anything else is a "State of Denial".

2006-10-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

The public school nightmare

Here is an article by John Taylor Gatto titled, "The Public School Nightmare: Why fix a system designed to destroy individual thought?", and this article is trying to say the same thing as I. This article is distributed by Diablo Valley School (DVS). DVS is a private school located in Concord, CA, and it uses an interesting but different curriculum: real life. Students at DVS learn life's most valuable skills: self-confidence, concentration, problem-solving, decision-making, academics, personal responsibility, and respect for others. By making choices and learning to live with the consequences, students experience the challenges, responsibilities, and freedoms of real life while in a caring and supportive environment. DVS is a school where play is serious work and serious projects are fun. It sure beats the same-old, boring, public school mantra.

The exact same truth when you compare public v. private education (or home schooling) is found in Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families by Sheldon Richman. Both teach that private schools use the free market and competition, while public schools use socialism and communism. So private schools raises children to be creative and independent thinkers, while public schools raises children to suppress thought and be a "good little citizens", obedient to the state.

Back in the early half of the 19th century, American education was the product of the free market. In fact, although America public schooling originated in Massachusetts in the 1850s, it did not become firmly entrenched as a system in the U.S. until the early 1900s. The structure of American education began in 1806 in Germany, when Napoleon's soldiers beat the Prussian's soldiers at the battle of Jena. Because of that, in 1819, modern forced schooling began in Prussia, with the purpose of producing obedient soldiers. Prussian schools had the ability to remove the mind to think for itself.

During the latter half of the 19th century, many young American men came to Prussia and brought home the degrees to the USA. First, the public education was started in Massachusetts. Over the next 50 years, school after school dropped the free market to a socialist monopoly, led by Horace Mann.

It is important to understand that the underlying principle of the Prussian public schools is that the government is the true parent of the children--the government is their daddy. The state is sovereign over the family.

100 years later, the government is still the protector, and the people are still sheep. It is this ardent devotion to "order", to the preservation of the status quo, to the love of control under the name of freedom, to the life of the lie--has its core in public education. But this can change. We need a new paradigm of education. As Gatto says, "Trust the people [and be responsible for their actions], give them choices, and the school nightmare will vanish in a generation."

2006-09-25T13:03:00.000-07:00

Killing innocent Iraqis spawns more terrorist

The mass media finally has got it right! According to the New York Times yesterday, a report from the classified National Intelligence Estimate states:

A stark assessment of terrorist trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sep. 11 attacks.

One intelligence official put it bluntly: "[T]he Iraq has made the overall terrorism problem worse." Now, the major news television reports the same thing from that document. That report will make President George W. Bush cringe with embarrassment.

However, someone who knows the libertarian philosophy well, and especially someone who reads articles by The Future of Freedom Foundation, knows the truth from the beginning. I know; I was there.

I first heard about libertarianism from FFF. As their mission states, the people at FFF offers an unyielding, uncompromising case for a free paradigm. Although I grew independent, I believe that I enjoy and read FFF the most, and read it every day. But in the end of March, 2002, I first read in the Midwest City Sun a column by Sheldon Richman titled, "Do Americans Really Want Freedom?". In this column, Richman shows a different point-of-view that I haven't seen before, but it is interesting. The paper refers to the website, and the website has every column since the beginning, and I began to read every one.

In December 2001, around 3-months after 9/11, there is a story by Jacob Hornberger (my favorite writer) titled, "A Foreign-Policy Primer for Children: The Fable of the Hornets". It is a make-believe children's story, but it forcasts the outcome of the wake of 9/11. And you know what? Hornberger predicts it on the money. And in 5 years after, the mass media finally sees it, too. In fact (except for the Tax Honesty Movement [.pdf], and the success of the Liberty Dollar and the movie, America: Freedom To Fascism), the people at FFF predict accurately many different things. Maybe if the media refers to Hornberger, or the rest of FFF, or intelligent libertarians in general to guide them, the future would be a whole lot brighter.

2006-09-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

Dawson College massacre

A week ago today, 25-year-old gunman Kimveer Gill walked into Dawson College and began shooting, killing Anastasia DeSousa, an 18-year-old student at the Montreal school, plus himself, and injuring 20 others. In the wake of the shooting, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to tighten the laws than before the massacre. "The current laws did not prevent this incident," said Harper, "and as a government we are seeking more effective laws for the future."

That was the wrong answer to the problem. Tougher gun laws won't make the killings like this any rarer. The correct answer is to repeal gun-control laws, and let peaceful, law-abiding people carry a weapon carte blanche.

We'll face the facts: criminals don't matter whether or not you have a relax or a stringent gun law on the books. They're criminals! They're outlaws, and outlaws mean they don't obey the law. What are the chances the criminal will say to himself, "I want to commit murder or rape with a gun, but since it's against the law to carry a gun, I can't do it." Answer: zero! Gun-laws laws only disarm the peaceful and law-abiding, that's it.

In John Lott's famous book, More Guns, Less Crime, he makes a convincing case that if gun-laws are relaxed, the crime goes down, and if the gun-laws are more strict, the crime goes up. For example, Vermont has the least-restrictive laws in the country (Vermont doesn't have a gun carry laws), and Vermont has the second-fewest violent crimes per capita in the states (only North Dakoda, a "gun-friendly" state, has fewer). On the other side, Washington D.C. has the most-restrictive laws in America (in Washington, you have to disassemble your weapon inside your home!), and DC has the highest violent crimes per capita in the states.

People carrying a concealed gun have the surprise over their attacker. For example, consider 56-year-old Margaret Johnson. She is a New York resident who was being robbed at her home, and she was on a wheelchair. She was able to defend herself with a concealed .357 Magnum which she used to shoot her surprised attacker.

Even if a killer wants to die, like Gill, an armed populace will grant his wishes before he shoots down 21 or so innocent bystanders.

The bottom line: gun-control laws only disarm the law-abiding, while it will do nothing for the law-breakers. Gun-control laws are a violent criminal's best friend. Repeal them.

2006-09-19T10:35:00.000-07:00

Give me life?

Donald Boudreaux wrote in his FFF September 19 blog:

Justifying greater government intrusion into our lives, Arnold Ahlert asserts that "the first and foremost 'right' is the right to live".
I'm thankful that Americans of the founding generation thought differently. These were people, remember, who were inspired by Patrick Henry's demand to "give me liberty or give me death!"

I agree totally with Boudreaux, and Henry!

2006-09-17T19:34:00.000-07:00

Constitution Day

September 17 is Constitution Day. Today, in 1787, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention held their final meeting. Only one item of business occupied the agenda that day: to sign the Constitution of the United States of America.

219 years later, Jim Bovard ask what would be like if we celebrate Constitution Day, Dubya-style:

This is Constitution Day. The National Archives is holding a celebration in which children can stop by and sign a "faux Constitution". George [W.] Bush issued a statement earlier this week proclaiming:
America is grateful to those who have worked to defend the Constitution and promote its ideals. During this observance, we also recognize the profound impact our Constitution has on the every lives of our citizens [I am not a "citizen"; I prefer "sovereign"], and we call upon all Americans to help uphold its values of a free and just society.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 17, 2006, as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day [see above], and September 17 through September 23, 2006, as Constitution Week. I encourage Federal, State, and local officials, as well as leaders of civic, social, and educational organizations, to conduct ceremonies and programs that celebrate our Constitution and reaffirm our rights and responsibilities as citizens [see above; Dubya found it from the same trunk as he found the word "democracy"!] of our great Nation.
Bush is right (except for the "citizen" thing). The Constitution is vital. It is also vital for Americans to find important contemporary ways to celebrate its anniversary.
In the Age of Bush, here are a few ideas for properly commemorating the event:
1) Wiretap your neighbor. If he discovers it and complains, ask him whose side he is on and what does he have to hide. Send the tapes of all conversations to the local FBI.
2) Capture and torture an illegal immigrant. If he confesses, turn him in. If he doesn't confess, try new methods to extract the truth.
3) Notify your mortgage company that you appended a secret "signing statement" when you sign the mortgage. Thus, you are relieved of any duty to continue monthly payments.
What are other appropriate Bush-style ways to celebrate the anniversary of the Constitution this week?

Now, Bovard has been doing this "tongue-and-cheek". However, Jacob Hornberger posted a column two weeks ago tomorrow, and it ties perfectly with Constitution Day. It is titled, "Liberty, Power, and the Constitution". Hornberger teaches the Constitution (he is a lawyer), but from a different angle, and he ties the events of today with the Constitution. After you read the first few paragraphs, I can add to this not only does the First Amendment doesn't give people the freedom of speech, the entire Bill of Rights doesn't give people any rights at all. Read the column, and then you will know how important the Constitution is for the freedom and liberty against those who want to take our freedom and liberty away (like the 14th Amendment; i.e. "citizens"), especially our federal officials.

2006-09-15T19:50:00.000-07:00

U.S. Mint claims use of Liberty Dollars as currency is a "federal crime"

Yesterday, the US Mint announced that using Liberty Dollars, private currency backed by gold and silver, as money is a federal crime. Despite comments over the years by the Treasury Department, the Secret Service, and the Federal Reserve claiming there is nothing wrong with minting Liberty Dollars, the Mint states:

Under 18 U.S.C. Section 486, it is a Federal crime to pass, or attempt to pass, any coins of gold and silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law. According to the NORFED website, "Liberty merchants" are encouraged to accept NORFED "Liberty Dollars" medallions and offer them as change in sales transactions of merchandise or services.

It looks incriminating to me! Let's go to 18 USC 486. It sure looks the same as the US Mint. But looking at it closely, I see the words, "except as authorized by law". What did it mean when it used the term "law"? Does it mean the Constitution? The Constitution, in Article VI, Clause 2, is "the supreme Law of the Land". Let's start from there.

The US Mint says, "[U]nder the Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 5), Congress has the exclusive power to coin money of the United States and to regulate its value." But, in looking at Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, there is no "exclusive" anywhere. If that word was there, the Federal Reserve (a private company) would be unconstitutional (the Federal Reserve IS unconstitutional, but not from this). It only says Congress has the power to coin money, but that anyone else can do it too.

But there is another part of the Constitution that has to do with money, which the US Mint doesn't refer. It is Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. It reads (in part):

No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

This means that any state can accept any currency they want, but they can't accept "legal tender" except gold and silver. The phrase "legal tender" is a legal term which means money that must be accepted by a creditor when offered by its debtor. The creditor may accept any money he wants, but he must accept legal tender when offered as payment, or the debt is wiped clean. In other words, to make Federal Reserve notes (FRN: fiat-paper money, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government; i.e., nothing) to be a "legal tender" (in the Constitution, only gold and silver can be legal tender) is unconstitutional. But we accept FRN as the preferred currency of the USA.

However, NORFED answered back:

We privately mint currency that is backed by gold and silver, not the United States Government. The designs and verbiage on our specie and certificate are original and are not copies of any US Mint currency.
The Liberty Dollar began in 1998 and has been in circulation throughout the US for eight years. We have over 2500 Liberty Associates, 75 Regional Currency Offices, and thousands of Liberty Merchants accepting the Liberty Dollar. We have never been notified nor had suit brought by the DOJ.

Claudia Dickens, spokeswoman for the US Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, said,

"There's nothing illegal about this. As long as it doesn't say legal tender, there's nothing wrong with it"

Andrew Williams, a spokesman for the Federal Reserve in Washington D.C., said,

"There is no law that says goods and services must be paid for with Federal Reserve notes. Parties entering into a transaction can establish any medium of exchange that is agreed upon."

Art Rolnick, Director of Research for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said,

"If these (NORFED) people want to issue their own money, so be it."

And there you have it. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." According to the US Mint, there's three down, and one to go!

UPDATE: After careful reaserch, I was mistaken. "Legal tender" is not the same as "tender", as I once believe. The definition of "legal tender" is above. The definition of "tender" is money (or something of value) to satisfy a debt or obligation. In Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (in question), that means states will only accept gold and silver to pay your debts. The federal government (not the state governments) will make money (i.e., ArticleI, Section 8, Clause 5), but the states will only accept gold and silver as tender. If you have obligations to the state government (e.g., taxes, tickets, fees, etc.), then states must fulfill your obligations only though gold and silver coins. Today, every state will only accept Federal Reserve notes in payment, so that makes them unconstitutional.

2006-09-11T13:10:00.000-07:00

9/11; five years later

Amidst in all of the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, no U.S. officials (and hardly any mainstream commentators) are asking this critical question: what did the 9/11 victims die for? Most of the commentators will simply focus on the horrors of the attacks themselves and the tragedy of the deaths. Yet, as discomforting as the question is, it must be asked and answered if we are ever going to bring back a sense of normality to our nation.

The people who died on 9/11 died because of U.S. government policies in the Middle East. That's it. They didn't die for freedom. They didn't die as a result of a random act of violence. They died in terrorist attacks that were in relation for what U.S. government officials had done previously to people in the Middle East.

After all, don't forget that this wasn't the first attack on the World Trade Center. The terrorist previously attacked the WTC in 1993. Why? Again, in retaliation for U.S. policies in the Middle East.

What were those policies?

For one, there was the Persian Gulf intervention, where U.S. officials interfered in the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, killing countless Iraqis in the process, after having supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran by giving him those infamous WMD.

That was followed by the brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

The sanctions were accompanied by the callous attitudes of U.S. officials to the brutal sanctions, not only in terms of the mocking attitudes by which they enforced the sanctions but also in their indifference to the deaths of the Iraqi children, as reflected by UN Ambassador Albright's statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were "worth it".

Their was the unconditional foreign aid provided to Israel as well as the corrupt Arab regimes in the Middle East.

And, most of all, there was the stationing of U.S. troops indefinitely in Islamic holy lands in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, as well as the rest of the Middle East.

That's what the 1993 attack on the WTC was all about. It was what the terrorist attack on the USS Cole and the U.S embassies in Yemen and Tanzania were all about. It was what the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and on the Pentagon were all about.

The U.S. government's attitude is: "We've got the right to do whatever we want to with the people of the Middle East, and they must learn to accept this." But, as we have learned time and time again, not everyone in the Middle East agrees. That's why those people died on 9/11.

2006-09-10T18:16:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia covers A:FTF, but with a pro-tax paradigm

Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", made an entry about Aaron Russo's new movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. It's surrounded by websites that covered Russo's movie, like Ludwig von Mises Institute and Michael Rivero's WhatReallyHappened.com. Now, Mises got it exactly right. Mises says the film is focused on the Federal Reserve. WhatReallyHappened is focused on the income tax. Both gave A:FTF excellent reviews. Wikipedia, like WhatReallyHappened, is focused on the tax. However, since Wikipedia is pro-tax, pro-government, pro-welfare mentality mindset, Wikipedia is anti-A:FTF, and it shows.

Wikipedia, in covering this movie, uses only 5 different angles to see this movie, and the best angle is "neutral". In the first part (the best part), it gives the documentary a background. It states who wrote it, when the movie will screen at Cannes, when the movie will be showing in America, and what the movie is all about--a neutral background.

But after, the film became negative.

The second part, it shows what the federal income tax issues, as well as interviews in the film. The first thing in the film is the notorious "tax protester argument". The Wikipedia "TPA" page, it states, "Tax protester arguments are a number of 'heterodox' theories that deny that a person has a legal obligation to pay a tax for which the government has determined that person is liable." This is true, if the law itself is a "heterodox theory".

And the first interview is Irwin Schiff. Wikipedia says about Schiff, "Irwin Schiff is a prominent member of the group which refers to itself as the 'tax honesty movement', and which had been referred to by the Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies as the tax protester movement." From the quotation marks around "tax honesty movement", Wikipedia implies that "honesty" is a joke. Besides, if you link on "tax honesty movement" from Wikipedia's "Irwin Schiff" page, you will get the "tax protester" page. However, when you type on the address bar Wikipedia's "tax honesty movement" from scratch, you will find Wikipedia's "Tax honesty movement" page, but that page is left blank.

Dave Champion posted the "Tax Honesty Movement" page on Wikipedia at the beginning of this year, but later, BD Abramson (?) wants to take that page off. 3 weeks later, it is off. You can listen to Champion's radio show if you want (it's the beginning to around 6:30). Champion's entry is 5 sentences long (less than a page) with references to "tax protester" twice, and it talks about Original Intent and American Radio (his businesses), but it doesn't talk about his other business Nontaxpayer.org. Why is that? The Tax Honesty Movement's message is this: after searching the Constitution, statutes, regulations, court decisions--in other words, the law, for many months or years, there is no doubt that there is no law that requires a person like me to file a tax form and pay taxes. If one does, then show the law. Champion thinks that the "pro-tax protester" group was behind the "Tax Honesty" page taken down. I maybe wrong, but I think Wikipedia was the culprit. I really don't know. However, Dave Champion's entry to Wikipedia is one page, and the infamous "tax protester (argument)" is right behind the Tax Honesty Movement, twice. "Tax protester" has a link; "Tax Honesty" doesn't.

And finally, behind the IRS opinion, is what Russo believes this movie is all about. His biography said, "The film is an expose of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay an unapportioned tax on their labor." But a foot note, it says, "See tax protester arguments about taxation of labor or income from labor." All rebuttal court cases except three came from the Tax Courts, and Tax Courts are not Criminal Courts. In White v. United States, they refer to Section 6702. If you don't file, you can't be charged with Section 6702. In United States v. Buras, all the court said that they reject the claim, and in Carter v. Commissioner, the court said the case per se was "frivolous"(I thought I was on defense?). And it drifted away from the core but simple and basic question. Question: is there a law or laws (i.e, 26 USC __) that requires the vast majority of Americans to file and pay taxes? A truthful answer: There is no law. In all that--case dismissed!

Sorry, Wikipedia.

2006-09-08T19:05:00.000-07:00

Defining "freedom"

George W. Bush, when speaking about the "war on terror", says, "All these people who sacrificed their life or limbs sacrificed in the name of freedom." What does he really mean when he uses the word "freedom"? When I think of "freedom", I think freedom of people have sole dominion over their lives, living their lives in complete sovereignty over themselves and their justly acquired property. That's what I think about when I think about freedom.

However, I have two stipulations with true freedom. Number one: if you want freedom for yourself, you have to extend freedom to everyone else, even if that freedom makes you uncomfortable or uneasy. For example, if your neighbor owns pit-bulls, or rottweilers, and large, aggressive dogs make you nervous (they don't; in fact, I own both kinds of dogs, but hypothetically speaking), then only you can do is carry a gun. Your neighbor has the freedom to own whatever dogs he wants. If s/he owns or have a rental agreement which allows dogs, then you being nervous is irrelevant.

Which makes for number two: individual liberty and personal responsibility are two sides of the same coin. In other words, if you want freedom, you have to be responsible, and vise versa. If you neighbor has large dogs, then s/he has to be responsible to put up a fence, tie the dogs up, or whatever your neighbor can do to keep the dogs inside of the property. If your neighbor's dog jumps the fence, or crawled underneath to your property, you will have carte blanch on what to do. You can shoot the dog immediately, shoot the dog if or when it attacked you, hide inside and call the dogcatcher, or do nothing (i.e., pet the dog, fetch the stick, or other playful thing with the neighbor's dog). If it was a truly free society, each individual properties would be sacrosanct.

But the elected officials perverted and skewed the meaning of freedom to mean the exact opposite. In Orwellien paradigm, they twist "freedom" to mean "slavery", and "slavery" to mean "freedom". Their favorite topic is to equate freedom with "democracy". They say democracy and freedom, freedom and democracy, on and on, without end, so before long the people see "freedom" and "democracy" to mean the exactly the same thing.

But our Founders loathe democracy. Democracy means simply "majority rule". To the Founders, it means "tyranny of the majority". Thomas Jefferson once said about democracy, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." I will bet that democracy is not freedom to the lamb! The word "democracy" is nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights. But if you want to find the government the Founders wanted, look in Article IV, Section 4.

If our rulers mislead us about something as basic as freedom, we have to be very skeptical about anything they say. The Founders are geniuses when we wrote the three equal but separate branches of government, checks and balances, and adding a Bill of Rights before ratification. They knew so well that the underlying principle of the Constitution is the greatest threat to our liberty and prosperity lies within our own government.

2006-09-05T16:12:00.000-07:00

Our federal daddy

For over 125 years, the American people elected a president. During that time, the powers of the president was extremely limited. The American people did not permit the passage, for example, of income taxation laws, drug laws, immigration laws, and welfare laws. They also refused to permit a large standing military force. And they did not allow their government to engage in foreign wars. Thus, when our ancestors went to the polls every four years, they knew that regardless of whoever was elected, the president would have extremely limited powers over their lives and fortunes.

But for the last several decades, Americans have elected much more than a president. They have, simultaneously, elected a daddy--a federal daddy. Thus, modern-day Americans have a larger stake in presidential elections. For a presidential daddy is a much more important position than simply that of a president.

Our ancestors believed that a person should be free to take actions what others considered were harmful toward himself. As long as a person's conduct did not entail violence, fraud, or some type of direct interference against someone else's life, liberty, or property, the job of the president (and other governmental officials) was to protect the exercise of the conduct. Sometimes the choices made were unpopular or despicable. But the American people believed that what mattered was the right to choose. Thus, they refused to permit the passage, for example, of drug, censorship, and gambling laws.

20th (and 21st) century Americans took an opposite view. They did not want freedom of choice because they did not trust themselves or their fellow citizens with it. Thus, Americans empowered their daddy (and other government officials) to punish other adult citizens for doing bad things to themselves. "Johnny--Bad! Bad! You know you're not supposed to be putting bad things into your mouth!" And Johnny is a 40-year-old CEO. "Billy--Bad! Bad! You know you're not supposed to be looking at naughty pictures!" And Billy is a 55-year-old lawyer. "Mary--Bad! Bad! You know you're not supposed to be losing your money at poker!" And Mary is a 60-year-old doctor.

The principle is the same with welfare laws. Our ancestors believed that a person should be free to do whatever he wants with his own money. Thus, past Americans rejected Social Security, Medicare, public schools, subsidies, and other laws which took money from some to give to others. The idea was that a grown-up would decide for himself how to dispose with his own money. Private charities would provide for someone in need.

Modern-day Americans moved in an opposite direction. They said, "We cannot be trusted with freedom because we might not make the right decisions. We need a daddy to take control of our money and to force us to be good and responsible."

Thus, the welfare state was adopted in the United States in the 1930s. It is a way of life in which our elected daddy has control over our earnings; kind of like our allowance set by our daddy.

Moreover, no longer do American grown-ups have responsibility for deciding what to do with their incomes. For our daddy has been given control over these decisions. For example, American adults might not take care of the disadvantaged, so our daddy gives a portion of our allowances to the poor and needy. And if we are caught lying to our daddy about how much money we make each year, he said to us, "Bad! Bad! Go to your room for a few years!"

Our daddy also relieved us of the responsibility of choosing our friends. For he tells us whom to like and whom to dislike. For example, daddy tells us we should dislike Fidel Castro. Of course, we have a difficult time understanding why we should dislike him. After all, Fidel's policies are the same as daddy's: public housing and medial care for the poor and elderly, public schooling for everyone, forced retirement for everyone, and high taxation (Now, Cuba is more communistic than the USA, but that is measured in degrees--however, the policies are the same). But daddy says we should dislike Fidel, and that's good enough for us. Daddy knows best.

Of course, we are still wondering about Saddam Hussein. In the 80s, daddy gave lots of our allowance money to Saddam to help him out, and to furnish him with WMDs. Some of us wondered about supporting a man who had engaged in terribly bad conduct towards others. But we don't question daddy. Daddy knows best.

One day, daddy got upset at Saddam. And he said to us, "Saddam and I are no longer friends. I hate him. He's an 'Adolf Hitler' (never a 'Joseph Stalin'; although Stalin killed 4 times as many innocent victims as Hitler, 'Uncle Joe' was a close friend of America's first presidential daddy, Franklin D. Roosevelt). We cannot survive if Saddam continues to be president of Iraq."

So, we lost another friend. We immediately began hating Saddam. Saddam had to go. Our survival depended on it, as daddy said. Daddy knows best.

But Saddam didn't go! He stayed for over 10 years. We killed 200,000 of his citizens (what better way to punish a ruler than to kill some of his taxpayers). But Saddam stayed. And what does our daddy say about this? Well, it turns out that we can live with Saddam after all. Apparently, our survival does not depend on ousting him from office. Daddy knows best.

10 years later, daddy announced, "We will invade Iraq!" Iraq never attacked the USA, and even threatened to attack. That makes America the aggressor. Daddy said Saddam had WMD (from the USA), but there is no weapons found. Daddy said there is a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but there is no link found (by the way, where is Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda anyway?; our daddy doesn't care about the only REAL threat against our country). And 9 months later, we captured Saddam! But, the war keeps going. And we keep on fighting, and dying--for nothing. We do it only because daddy wants us to. Daddy knows best.

The United States is a nation of children. American grown-ups view themselves and their relationship to their government in the same way they viewed their lives in public schools: they are little kids who depend on the principal to guide them, make their decisions for them, make them good, punish then when they are bad, and follow instructions. They are expected to do as they are told and never question the principal.

And we are a nation of people who now have been on the welfare-state dole for 7 decades (2-3 generations). The weakness of the American child-adult is best exemplified by the reaction to the idea of dismantling our welfare: "how would be survive without our dole--our welfare, Social Security, subsidies, public schools, SBA loans, and protect us from overseas competition?"

The same attitude holds true in foreign affairs. "How would we survive without our warfare empire? We need our daddy to protect our overseas interests and to decide who our foreign friends should be. You don't expect us to do it alone, do you?"

Modern-day Americans have exchanged the liberty won by our ancestors for the apparent security of America's welfare-warfare empire. But security does not come from empire, and empires ultimately crumble. A nation of weak, childlike grown-ups is a nation headed toward suicide. And talk of "getting tough overseas" and maintaining "military superiority" is false bravado. The crushing taxation, regulation, and control that comes with empires--and a lack of will to fight by weak, infantile adults--ultimately makes empires ripe for the plucking.

What would be the results if we ended America's welfare-warfare empire? The same results freedom brought to America for over 125 years. First, a nation of strong, responsible, and caring adults. Second, a strong and prosperous economic base that would provide the long-term security defense needed for military defense. Third, freedom would bring fierce fighters--citizen-soldiers, men and women alike--who would have the incentive, on a moment's notice, to take up arms to protect their own freedom, as well as that of their families and friends.

The solution for America is to retake the paradigm of freedom and limited government of our ancestors. We need once again to elect a president--not a daddy.

2006-09-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

The Federal Reserve rebellion

In yesterday's post, I asked what if the current President Bush was assassinated. Today, I ask what if Venezuela only took silver instead of Federal Reserve notes for its oil. David Bond asks that question. Between you and me, the latter would be way more disastrous for the United States than the first.

Now, the first sentence reads, "The following is a true story. It all started happening day after tomorrow:" Now, the two sentences together are a contradiction in terms. If that story started (at the time when he wrote it) in the future, how can it be proven to be true? And that article's date was August 28, exactly one week ago today, and thus, the story started last Wednesday. On Thursday, Free Market News Network ran a 12-minute eRadio program with the same guest about the same topic. But the host started with the phrase "what would happen...?". Today, the financial indicators look normal. So, the supposedly "true story" is really a hypothetical fiction.

But what if the hypothesis were true. This is a real possibility, and the US economy would be in a shockwave. When Venezuela doesn't accept FRN, what if Iran follows suit? And/or Iraq? And/or Mexico? Bond predicts, if only Venezuela does it, silver will rocket to $20/Toz and oil would rise to $100/bbl. Bond wouldn't say about gold, but since gold and silver rise about the same rate, gold would be around $1000/Toz. And all prices would rise accordingly.

But, I will say it again: this is a REAL possibility! And it don't look good for the future of America. The Federal Reserve is pure evil, and it's its fiat paper money which started this mess in the first place. If we don't switch from an inflationary, worthless money, the federal government will be headed for a fall, whether or not Bond's hypothesis will be true. All that matters is the time. If you want to be pro-active, be like Aaron Russo and squash the Federal Reserve . I also want to abolish all "legal tender" laws, and let the free market decide what money do the people want. The government plays no role in money creation and the economy in general.

If what I am proposing came true, the money would be a sound, stable, inflation-proof money, backed in full by precious metal.

2006-09-03T17:12:00.000-07:00

Death of a President

The movie, Death of a President, written and directed by Gabriel Range, shows President Bush being assassinated, and the whirlwind of a response after. The article also shows the American people's reaction to this movie and and especially the people's reaction to the assassination of a sitting President, even when the reaction is "make-believe".

Now, I didn't see the movie. The movie will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival later in September before being shown on Channel 4's satellite channel More4 in October. More4 is (maybe) a British cable and/or satellite channel that (definitely) I don't have, so I could be inaccurate about this film. But I have based my opinion on many reviews and opinions, both in print, on radio, and on TV.

But what would be like if Bush was gunned down during his presidency? The film predicts Muslims are targeted as guilty even though there is no evidence to back the claim. The first one who the police are leading towards is a man who is born in Syria.

However, the reaction to the film is the focal point. This article is from London, but it is the same reaction in America. The boisterous commentators are the Republicans. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly...you name it: they all have an opinion about degrading this movie. Democrats are not so vocal, but Democrats and Republicans agree about the film.

When the left and the right agree on something, it is nearly always omnipotent government statists, and the self-government libertarians are left out in the dust. Death of a President agrees with the norm. A libertarian always sides with the Constitution, and Amendment 1 says, in part, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". That doesn't mean a few laws on speech. That doesn't mean no laws on speech, except speech made by "terrorist", "Islamic fascists", or "really bad people in general". That means NO LAWS ON SPEECH, PERIOD! Michael Badnarik agrees with me when he jokes he wish the Framer's put a period after the first five words in the First Amendment..nothing more. It would make him happy (and me, too!).

But Death of a President is nothing but a movie, and a movie is mass-communication (i.e., mass-speech), whether or not that communication is disturbing (if you think Death of a President is disturbing, wait until you get a load of watching America: Freedom to Fascism!). Unlike liberals and conservatives, libertarian believe in the intelligence and wisdom of the American people, and the actor who plays the President is alive today. We see murder on the movies and TV all the time. Do you copy the murders? I saw a movie that showed a bank being robbed, but I didn't copy the robbery. In an unlikely chance that the person was so inspired (and so deranged) by this movie, he will be waiting to finish off the president like the film said, the Secret Service will arrest that person, charge him, and if the jury finds him guilty, lock him away for a long, long time. But don't blame the action on the film. This film--any film--is about freedom of expression, and that expression is protected by the First Amendment. The Framers had it right on living in a truly free society, including watching any movie that the people want.

2006-09-01T20:09:00.000-07:00

Vigilante justice, or just justice

Jonathon Edington, when hearing from his wife that his 2-year-old daughter was molested by Barry James, climbed through his window and stabbed him in the chest nearly a dozen times. Edington was charged with murder and burglary and was released on $1 million bail.

I read the article, and from what I read, Edington, age 29, was a fine, outstanding young person. He was a computer geek, but harmless. He has no criminal record, just a husband who loves his daughter.

James, age 58, however, was a psycho. Police spoke to Edington, complaining that he can see James through the window. Police captain Gary MacNamara said, "Either [James] was partly clothed or revealed parts of his anatomy that were inappropriate."

James served two days in jail for drunk driving charge, and he is trouble with the other neighbors. When Edington found out about his daughter, he snapped.

I still believe that the trial in front of an impartial jury is the best form of justice known to mankind. Now, I don't have all the evidence to find Edington guilty or not guilty, but the jury has all the evidence for sure. If I was a part of Edington's jury (or anyone else's jury), I would be a Fully Informed and Educated Juror, who understands the jury's power to judge the facts, the law, the moral intent of the defendant, and the justice of the law; rather than only judge the facts alone, and the judge judges the rest, in spite of what the judge says. In Lysander Spooner's famous book, "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" , he will show "what the Common Law trial by jury really is." This book, written in the 1800s, is as vital and significant as when he wrote it--and perhaps more important to today's reader because of changes made within the court system (but not the legal system) in the past century. This is a very short book, but it covers a very important and neglected part of the limitation of government power: the trial by jury.

In the book's first three paragraphs, Spooner said it best:

For more than six hundred years [make it eight hundred years]--that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215--there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the fact, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; BUT THAT IT IS ALSO THEIR RIGHT, AND THEIR PRIMARY AND PARAMOUNT DUTY, TO JUDGE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE LAW, AND TO HOLD ALL LAWS INVALID, THAT ARE, IN THEIR OPINION, UNJUST OR OPPRESSIVE, AND ALL PERSONS GUILTLESS IN VIOLATING, OR RESISTING THE EXECUTION OF, SUCH LAWS.
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty"--a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government--they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
But for their right to judge of the law, AND THE JUSTICE OF THE LAW, juries would be no protection to an accused person, EVEN AS TO MATTERS OF FACT; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, AND ALSO WHAT FORCE OR WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

Enough said! Now, I will say it again: the facts in this case are not presented, and I will have an open mind until the case is closed. But if I was Edington's juror, and the evidence was presented to me as I have read them; even if the state proves Edington did it beyond a reasonable doubt, my verdict would be "not guilty", and worse, if all other jurors found him guilty, there would be a mistrial; and best, Edington would walk a free man. That is the power of one educated and informed juror.

2006-08-31T19:13:00.000-07:00

National Popular Vote

A bill, passed by California Senate and Assembly, was presented to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign into law. If he signed it, California would be the first to destroy the Electoral College as we know it and put the final nail on the coffin on state's rights.

AB 2948, a bill endorsed by National Popular Vote committee, would mean all electoral votes in each respective state would go for the winning candidate by popular vote, regardless of what the state itself chose. The legislation is pending in five other states (Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and New York).

For example, in 2004, George W. Bush won the presidency by popular vote. In that scenario, if Arnold would sign AB 2948, California's 55 electoral votes would go for Bush, while California itself would go for John Kerry. In 2000, Al Gore won by popular vote. If Texas had a "national popular vote" law, Texas' 32 electoral votes (in 2000) would go to Gore, while Texas itself will go to Bush, and Bush is from Texas.

And it's constitutional. Some constitutional provisions, Congress, President, and Justices will just ignore (e.g., the PATRIOT Act, et al), while they took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" against all enemies--including (and especially) themselves! But the Constitution has some loop-holes. In Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, it reads, "Each State shall appoint, in such Matter as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors", so every state has carte blanch on what it can do with its respective electors. I guess California will do away its sovereignty and follow the crowd.

This website says, "[T]his [current] system was not established by the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, or (sic) federal law." Can you say, "in such matter as the legislature thereof may direct?" In the beginning, the Founders elected a president (and vice president) by electors appointed by the state legislatures. That way, the president was removed from the political quagmire of campaigning. That system elected presidents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Now, we have evolved (or devolved) into the Primarys, where the candidate who gets the majority votes of the people (with a few exceptions) gets all the electors in that respective state. The electors themselves do nothing. That system elected presidents like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, and there is campaign propaganda galore. Now, if the National Popular Vote gets its way, America will do away with electors entirely and decide by national majority vote strictly by the people. The American people know the 5 characters of The Simpsons better than the 5 rights listed in the First Amendment. The American people know the 7 dwarfs better than the 9 Supreme Court Justices. And to think: we trust the American people to pick our president? The Founders had it right from the beginning.

But eventually, the National Popular Vote will prevail. When that happens, America will finely have a pure democracy, and thus it's the beginning of the end. I say we are at the end of the rope (dependence going into bondage). God help us.

2006-08-30T19:08:00.000-07:00

Hornberger has the answer to New Orleans

In yesterday's post, I was talking about government ineffectiveness in both avoiding a hurricane (and most of all the breaching of its levees) during and rebuilding the aftermath one year after. Today, Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, has a solution, and he agrees with me (sort of) on one solution (solution #2). In his commentary, Hornberger said:

Leftist commentators are lamenting and criticizing the Bush administration's failure to "rebuild" New Orleans and are even comparing the failure to its failure to "rebuild" Iraq.
It is truly amazing to see that no matter how many times socialism fails, socialist never lose their hope that just one time socialism will finely succeed. And no matter the failure, they always have faith that if only "their" plan--or some other central plan--had been tried, the scheme would have worked.
And that's what they're saying about New Orleans. If only Bush had appointed a more competent person to oversee the rebuilding, all would be well today. If only Bush had sent more federal money sooner, all would be well today. If only there was not so much bureaucratic red tape, all would be well today.
That's precisely the mindset that guided the liberals (in the corrupt, big-government, socialist sense of the term) ever since the New Deal era. No matter which socialist failure--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, etc.--it was all just a matter of having put the "wrong" people in charge and not throwing enough taxpayer money at the problem.
Attention socialist: no matter how much taxpayer money had been spent in New Orleans, no matter which central plan had been adopted, no matter which bureaucrats had been put in charge, it still would have been a failure. Why? Because as we have learned all over the world, time and time again, socialism can never succeed because, as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek showed, socialism is inherently defective.
So, what would have been the best solution for New Orleans? The federal, state, and local governments should have adopted the following policies:
1. No government grants, subsidies, or loans.
2. Exempt all residents of New Orleans from federal, state, and local taxes.
3. Suspend all building regulations and permit requirements.
4. Suspend all controls on economic activity, including minimum-wage laws and occupational-licensure laws.
The implementation of those policies would have given rise to an immediate outburst of positive economic activity that would still be revitalizing New Orleans today. In fact, if those policies had been adopted, President Bush and other officials would not have to be begging people to move back to New Orleans because countless Americans would be rushing to move there.
But of course, liberals (and, well, for that matter, many conservatives) would hate that solution because it entails individual liberty, free markets, and limited government rather than collectivism, control and regulation, socialistic central planning, and omnipotent government.

I agree totally with Hornberger, except not only he wants government to "exempt" the people from income taxes, it's the law! If we whittle away the size of government to only protecting the people's rights (as found in the Declaration of Independence [4th bold-face print from the top]), and let the free market do its job, New Orleans would be a whole lot better than its pre-Katrina days, and a fraction of the time. ...I can only dream.

2006-08-29T19:27:00.000-07:00

New Orleans, then and now

One year ago this morning, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Buras, LA, with winds reaching 125 mph as a Category 3 storm. Although power failures prevented accurate measurement of wind speed in New Orleans, it is likely that much of the city experienced sustained winds of Category 1 to Category 2 strength.

Later that morning, the levees completely failed, including the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (in 20 places), the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, and the Industrial Canal. Those failures dumped water on the Big Easy, and all hell broke loose. The levee failure killed over 1800 people and stranded many more. Today, nothing has changed.

The main stream media blames the disaster in New Orleans on Katrina. That is a lie. The major fault on this catastrophe lies from the failure of the levees, and the levees is owned by the government. The fault immediately after Katrina past through today (and beyond) was solely by the government. Standing in Jackson Square on September 15, 2005 (around 2 weeks after it happened), George W. Bush stated in the Address to the Nation, "This government will learn the lessons of Hurricane Katrina" and promised to "get the work done quickly." A year later, here's a look at the current state of New Orleans:

Less than half of the city's pre-storm population of 460,000 has returned, putting the population at roughly what it was in 1880.
Nearly a third of the trash has yet to be picked up.
Six of the nine hospitals remain closed.
A 40 percent hike in rental rates, disproportionately affecting black and low-income families.
A 300 percent increase in the suicide rate.

Eighty-four percent of Orleans residents rate the government's recovery efforts negatively, and 66 percent believe the recovery money has been "mostly wasted".

At the same time, nearly all New Orleans residents pay taxes without question. Do you see a disconnect here? There are government ineffectualness in the past, and I am 100% convinced there will be government incompetence in the future. I would rather quit paying taxes to pay for the government's fiascos and do it myself, or find a competent private business to assist me.

But, the vast majority of the people of New Orleans are dependent and rely on the State to do everything. Not only does the people want the government official to be their representative, they want the government official to be their "daddy"; in other words, they want their officials to nurture and take care of their adult-children. So they reap what they sow.

2006-08-24T10:47:00.000-07:00

Democratic President Cleveland v. Democratic President Clinton

While America is fixated with a 6-year old beauty pageant contestant whose murder was 10 years ago, I will find you a back page story that you may find interesting, that ties in with the philosophy on my blog (i.e., the philosophy of living in a free society).

Now to something interesting. To relieve the suffering in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, Congress passed an appropriations bill, but it was vetoed by the president. In his veto message, the president stated: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encouraged the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

The year was 1887, and the president was Democrat Grover Cleveland.

How times have changed! Over a century later (1998, like today), Texas suffered under another scorching heat wave. A different president, but the same party as Cleveland, had a different result. President Bill Clinton announced that he was rushing $100 million to Texas. "In times of crises," Clinton said, "we have an obligation to act."

President Cleveland understood that charity had nothing to do with compulsion. The essence of human liberty was the right to help one's neighbor--or not. If a person was not free to reject his neighbor (and his God), then he could not truly be considered free. And Cleveland knew that if compassion was to mean anything, it had to come only from the willing heart of the individual. Thus, for the government to force someone to share with his neighbor was considered a denigration of both liberty and morality.

President Clinton, on the other hand, believes that sending hundreds of millions of dollars of government tax revenues to Texans was an act of charity and compassion by the American people. In other words, kindness among Americans is now reflected by the willingness of the IRS to seize their incomes and of government officials to send their money to the needy.

And under Clinton's reasoning, every American--including those who would otherwise refuse to help--is converted into a good and moral person through the collective force of the democratic welfare government. Why, even the most selfish among us might be carried by his income-tax returns and the federal register all the way to Heaven!

Ultimately, the issue of government assistance to the needy is a moral one. Is it moral for the government to seize one person's money in order to give it to another? Is it moral for government to force someone to be good and caring?

But it is a psychological problem as well. Today, all too many Americans unfortunately have lost faith in themselves and in their fellow citizens. They honestly believe that kindness and compassion would disappear in America if government would leave the charity business alone and left morality and ethics to the voluntary choices of the American individual. Dependence on the socialistic welfare state has caused people to forget the strong sense of self-reliance, self-esteem, and voluntary charity that characterized our ancestors.

Modern-day political debate in America should not center on whether there should be more or less government spending to help the needy. The debate should instead center on the role of government in a free society. The debate should revolve around which president took the correct approach to suffering in Texas: Grover Cleveland, who said no to federal aid, or Bill Clinton, who said yes.

2006-08-10T09:51:00.000-07:00

Joe Lieberman and the Clintons

When I referred you my post titled, "The trouble with conservatives" , I said conservatives are nothing more than hypocrites. Well, add to that liberals. Before the Connecticut primary run-offs, both Bill and Hillary Clinton backed Joe Lieberman for Senator. In fact, President Clinton toured with Lieberman, defending his support of the war. Hillary is a pro-war hawk, also.

But after Lieberman's loss to Ted Lamont, the Clintons turn tail and backed Lamont, who is anti-war. The first day after Lieberman lost, Senator Clinton, campaigning mainly for herself, was barraged by questions about her likeness to Lieberman. The real reason is now Lamont is registered as a Democrat, and Lieberman has no choice but to register as an independent. It doesn't matter if the candidate is for the war, against the war, interventionist, isolationist, non-interventionist, gun-freedom, gun-control, tax cuts, repeal the tax cuts...in other words, the Democratic Party is a joke! And it is the same with the Republican Party, too (do you remember Rudy Giuliani?)

Now, I am a principled libertarian; which means I stand on basic moral concepts, all day, all the time, without exception. The principles I believe in are individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, and I vote for the candidates who closely resemble those 3 beliefs (I am against the war, non-interventionist, 2nd Amendment without compromise, and tax elimination). If a Democratic candidate is nearer to those 3 principles than the rest, I vote for the Democrat. If a Republican candidate represents those 3 beliefs closer than the rest, I vote for the Republican. It is the same with Libertarian, Green, Reform; whatever (although the Libertarian candidate will vote for my beliefs more often than not).

But, after the Connecticut Primary Run-Off, a part of me is drawn to vote for Lieberman. When you're at an election, vote for any candidate you'll want...except a Republican or a Democrat. But Lieberman says he is a "devoted Democrat" , and he is standfast for the war...like the Clintons. But the Clintons believe your party is more important than your country. What a creep. However, I don't live in Connecticut anyway, so this post is mute.

2006-08-07T19:04:00.000-07:00

One week later

I don't know whether America: Freedom To Fascism (A:FTF) would be a smash, or a thud. After one week of showing the film, I have no doubt. According to Nielsen EDI ratings, as for highest money making film per box office, A:FTF was #2 (Miami Vice was #1).

The ratings were powerful, but some "friends of the government" thought A:FTF drifted into "conspiracy theory". The vast majority of the reviewers said it was great, like the New York Theatre Wire and VHeadline.com, while some reviews are bad, like the Greenwich Village Gazette. In fact, many, many film critics reviewed the film.

As for the Gazette, those 2 "lies" in the beginning are the God-honest TRUTH. First, the Gazette said, "[T]he 16th Amendment [income tax] to the Constitution was never actually ratified, which it most certainly was". I only have two words for the Gazette: Bill Benson. However, it then said, "[T]he case is mostly that there's no EXACT law [requiring me to pay income taxes], or so [Russo] says". Guess what? There is no law, PERIOD! Second, the Gazette said, "[A]nd that the Congress didn't have the right to establish the Federal Reserve system.

As to the second, The Supreme Court under John Marshall said that the Congress had the power to do so in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it said that in regards to the Second Bank of the United States [SBOTUS]". First of all, 1819 was nearly a hundred years before the Federal Reserve was created (1913), and the SBOTUS money was backed by gold and silver. Second, let's refer to the Preamble to the Constitution. It reads (in part), "We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In other words, the people are above the Constitution.

In Sections 1 of Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, it states the Constitution will "vest" certain powers to certain branches of government. In other words, the Constitution is over the government. Therefore, the people are over the government (although many bureaucrats think it is backwards). The powers of the government belongs to the people, not the government. And the government is not authorized to delegate powers to someone else.

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, it states (in part), "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof", and in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, it states (in part), "No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". But in 1913, Congress delegate the money power to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve prints fiat paper money (backed by nothing). The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional to the bone, no ifs, ands, or buts; it doesn't matter what the meaning of "is" is.

And to throw salt into the wound, with the national debt soaring, Ronald Reagan did a study (called "Private Sector Survey on Cost Control"), and Industrialist Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson formed the Grace Commission. Two years later, after many investigations, the report was published about what they saw. It said, "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or nor collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer the payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from the Government." Back when this report was published, the federal debt was $1-2 trillion; now, it is over $8 trillion. Gheeze!

Russo thinks like me. He start a petition, too, to shut down the Federal Reserve. However, the first petition received barely over 100 signatures. In less than a month, Russo's petition received over 8,200 signatures! When A:FTF will play nationwide, the petition will explode!

But all that matters is the crowds, and the crowds are all for this movie. However, after seeing the film, Russo will take a month off to polish it up. I believe since he had surgery in Germany, he didn't have time to edit like he wanted to. So last Thursday is the end for now. In September, he will start again.

2006-08-02T10:23:00.000-07:00

The minimum wage

In a 230-180 vote, the House of Representatives voted to increase the minimum wage, a type of law that any reputable economist will tell you does nothing more than condemn people to unemployment. The minimum-wage bill (H.R. 5970) will go before the Senate on Friday.

After all, look at the logic. No employer is required to hire anyone. It's his business. He could go out-of-business if he wants. The law simply says that if he does, he is required to pay that employee the minimum wage or above. If that employer wants to hire an employee, the employer is going to hire someone who he believes will be worth more to him than it costs to hire that person. Thus, if the law requires someone to pay $7.25 an hour, no employer is going to hire anyone whose labor he values at less than $7.25/hour.

On the other hand, that employee is free to leave his employer if another employer offers a job with better benefits (better pay, better hours, better working conditions, etc.). It is simply supply-and-demand.

So what happens to all the workers whose labor is valued in the marketplace at less than $7.25/hour? They're locked out of the labor market by a $7.25/hour minimum-wage law. So, how do they survive? Through burglaries, robberies, muggings, or taxpayer-provided welfare.

Yet, the congressmen who voted in favor of the minimum-wage increase would undoubtedly cry, "We did it to help the poor!" Do you see the dilemma?

With reasoning like this, why are the American people so willing to entrust their lives, fortune, and well-being, as well as that of their children, to these people?

UPDATE: The Senate didn't have the 60 votes to override the filibuster on this bill. It made a majority, but not the 3/5 needed for passage (56Y-42N). Now, why don't we eliminate the minimum wage altogether, and let the employer and the employee voluntary determine the price. Then, only the bureaucrats at the unemployment line will be out of a job.

2006-07-29T14:00:00.000-07:00

Social Security's ship is sunk!

The pseudo-libertarian think tank Cato Institute issued its report, called "What Is Their Plan for Social Security". Now I called Cato "pseudo-libertarian" because it has the same beliefs as a principled libertarian, like me, but when it comes to putting it on the line for its beliefs, it leaves me lacking.

For example, in this article, the 2nd paragraph reads, "The facts are simple: Social Security will begin running a deficit in just 11 years [in 2017]. Of course, in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay benefits until 2040. That's not much comfort for today's 33-year olds, who will face an automatic 26 percent cut in benefits unless the program is reformed before they retire. But even that figure is misleading, because the Trust Fund contains no actual assets. The government bonds it holds are simply a form of IOU [worth nothing], a measure of how much money the government owes the system. It says nothing about where the government will get the money to pay back those IOUs." Good so far.

But, in the following paragraph, it says, "Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the Trust Fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2040." Say again? Government has no money for the so-called "Trust Fund", so the money will be exhausted by 2017. Government doesn't acquire any money. Government doesn't produce any money. And government doesn't redeem the bonds for money. There is only one way government to get the money, and that is through the taxpayers; e.g., you and me, in the form of raising taxes or cutting benefits. There is no other way possible.

The more accurate scenario is from an article by CNN Money Magazine. The magazine correctly predicts that Social Security will go bankrupt in the beginning of 2018. If you want Social Security to last past 2018, then you will either have to raise taxes (although as time goes by, more and more people find out the truth about the income tax and decide not to pay), cut benefits, raise even more debt, and/or print even more money (and devalue it to nothing). Any way you choose, its a bad situation. Now, CNN Money Magazine is not Republican, it's not Democrat, it's not Libertarian, it's not Green; it gives the truth about our money objectively.

And the Cato article tells us at the end to do? Ask your elected officials. Come on now, give me a break! The government either won't answer or give a vague answer if they don't like the question. In fact, the Supreme Court didn't give a interpretation of what the last ten words of the 1st Amendment actually means. It has many interpretations of what is the meaning of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble. But not one interpretation of the meaning of the right to petition. District Judge Emmet Sullivan tells the people you can ask anything you want, but your elected officials won't answer if they don't want to. Bob Schulz and We The People organization are climbing through the courts, asking them to interpret the petition clause.

But Cato tells you to ask your elected officials. It is working good so far (!?). I say forget about our elected bureaucrats; I will do this myself. Now, every time I give in taxes to Social Security, or anything else, in the past, it's a lost cause. Forget about it. But in the future, if you are older than 55, you can leave it the same. If you are between 50-55, it is up to you. But if you are younger than 50, you can legally quit paying taxes, including Social Security taxes. If you are an employee, your employer won't have to pay a payroll tax for you. That will make them happy. However, you will not get Social Security (a plus in my book). You can start investing in Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio until you get to retirement age. And you will be richer in the process.

2006-07-26T12:58:00.000-07:00

Oh well...

...I guess Dubya ignored the polls and Reagan's advice and experience in my last post.

2006-07-25T19:13:00.000-07:00

Finally!

According to a SurvayUSA poll, 84% of Americans say the government should keep out of the current Middle East conflict. 52% of responents should back off on talks about a ceasefire.

It is about time!

Since 9/11 (in '01), I consistently say that the one who attacked us was al-Qaeda, and we'll use military force on only al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda alone. Not Iraq, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria, not Lebanon, but only al-Qaeda. The fanciful "War on Terror" is a joke. In October '01, we invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda, and I'm all for this.

But this was in 2001. In 2006, we invaded Iraq, and we attempted to invade Iran. Both didn't threaten the U.S.A., or even to try to threaten us. As I write this, there are over 2500 Americans dead and almost 20,000 Americans wounded in Iraq. And we failed to get public enemy #1; Osama. The likability of America to the rest of the world is an all-time low. In 2006, or even before, we could take our losses and head home. And by means we wouldn't start a war with someone else! A majority of the American people finally agrees with me.

It reminds me of 1983. Ronald Reagan sent in the Marines to Beirut to secure it. When he sent the troops in, he said he would never turn tail and run. But on October 23, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck smashed through two sentry posts and a gate, and detonated his explosives, killing 241 American servicemen. After the Marines were killed, Reagan had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the presidency, he wrote this:

"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did nor create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."

Hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, 20 years is too long to remember for George W. Bush.

2006-07-21T20:12:00.000-07:00

Marriott International, Inc.

A new policy had been implemented on Marriott International Hotels. This policy is a ban on smoking in all of Marriott's hotel rooms.

I'll bet you think I will be against the smoking ban. If it is from the government, I will say you are correct. Smoking bans from the government infringed the people's individual liberty and private property.

But Marriott did this all on its own. It did this simply on account of a business decision by the corporation; no government help was involved.

This changes everything. The private property I'm talking about in the 2nd paragraph is Marriott's. Because the corporation owns the property, it can do whatever it wants to with its own property.

And thus, the customers of Mariott are free to stay at Marriott or choose another hotel if Marriott's policy agree or don't agree with them.

It is the free-market at its best. Contrary to popular opinion, people don't need government to be their daddy and to protect them from businesses who allow people to smoke.

It's Marriott's businesses and property, not the government. Do you allow the government to dictate whether or not to allow people who smoke in your home? I own my home, and thus, I make the rules in my home. People are free to stay or leave my home. It is the same with you or with Marriott's property. That's what private property is all about.

This is not only what freedom is all about, it's also what being a grown-up is all about: be free but responsible for your actions. Like I said, you can't have liberty without responsibility, and vice versa.

Marriott's decision reminds me of a paradigm of America in the past; a society based on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government, where the people were sovereign, as compared to America today; a society based on a paternalistic omnipotent government whose mission in life is to take care over its adult-children by its assaults on private property and its infringements on individual freedom.