The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, March 27, 2004

Your Innocence Is No Protection

by Harry Browne

When the politicians violate the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act or some other guaranteed-to-bring-peace-and-
security-to-the-world scheme, they always reassure us by saying:

"If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to fear."

If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection at all against government agencies with the power to do what they think best -- or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing to do whatever he can get away with.

* Tell a businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn't discriminate.

* Tell a home owner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken -- or contrived -- drug raid.

* Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a "taxpayer compliance" audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties.

It is the innocent who suffer most from government's intrusions. How many times have we seen the following pattern?

1. The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern of the Month.

2. A tough, new, take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place.

3. After the dust settles, the initial "problem" continues unabated, because the guilty continue to slip through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and hazards -- more mandatory reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War on (fill in the blank).

4. And, needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed.

Being innocent doesn't allow you to ignore the government's demands for reports -- or to say "No, thanks" when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home -- or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you.

When coercion is used to solve social problems, we all suffer. The coercion fails to achieve its stated aims, but it is wondrously effective at harming the innocent.

Even worse, every year a few million innocent people suffer special burdens -- greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights has allowed the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them -- even though they've committed no crimes.

I hope you never become one of them.

Not Even Ministers Are Safe
For example, suppose you're a 75-year-old minister living in Boston. You've worked all your life to console those who
are poor in money or spirit.

One afternoon 13 men with sledgehammers break down the door and charge into your apartment. They're wearing helmets, battle fatigues, and boots -- and they're armed with shotguns and pistols.

They force you to the floor, pin your legs and arms, and handcuff you. They scare you so badly you suffer a heart attack -- and within 45 minutes you're dead.

Who were these criminals?

They weren't "criminals." They were members of a SWAT team searching for drugs and guns. There wasn't anything illegal in your apartment, as you could have told them if they had stopped long enough to ask you.

But they didn't stop and they didn't ask. They didn't have to. They _knew_ you were a bad guy, and they weren't going
to allow you to escape or to flush your drug inventory down the toilet.

Six weeks after you die, it is revealed that the SWAT team raided the wrong apartment. You have been completely exonerated. But, unfortunately, the government can't bring you back to life.

Not one of the SWAT team members -- or the prosecutor who okayed the raid -- was prosecuted or suffered any career
damage for causing the death. Compare that with a pot smoker who is hurting no one but might have to spend several years in prison if he gets caught.

This isn't fiction. It is the story of the Reverend Acelynne Williams, and how he died on March 26, 1994.{1}

Fatal Attractions
And the tale isn't extraordinary. Donald Scott was shot to death when a task force of 27 men smashed into his house in
Malibu, California, on October 2, 1992. They claimed Mr. Scott was growing marijuana -- although their only evidence
turned out to be a false report from an anonymous informant.{2}

Similar stories can be told of other people who were shot without warning, whose homes were torn apart, or who went
to prison for resisting arrest -- people like Harry Davis of Fort Washington, Maryland; Charlotte Waters of Los Angeles; David Gordon of Bridgeport, Connecticut; Xavier Bennett, Jr., of Atlanta; Kenneth Baulch of Garland, Texas; Robin Pratt of Everett, Washington; William Grass of Kentucky; Albert Lewin of Boston; Manuel Ramirez of Stockton, California; Charles DiGristine of Titusville, Florida; and Donald Carlson of San Diego. {3}

All of them were innocent. But all of them had plenty to fear from government. And now their families will always fear government as much as any Soviet citizen did.

By ignoring the Bill of Rights, acting on anonymous tips and intruding without warrants, government agents have put all of us in jeopardy -- the innocent as much as the guilty.

Maybe you haven't been hurt yet by a government agent acting on a malicious report or on his own ambition. So far, a mean-minded office rival or business competitor hasn't stooped to giving a false tip about you to the police or the IRS.

Be thankful. And hope it doesn't happen next year. You might not be given time to prove your innocence.

The Bill of Rights Is for the Innocent
The outrages I've mentioned violate the Bill of Rights.

Because our school system doesn't teach much about Constitutional safeguards, many people think the Bill of Rights is just a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for criminals. And they wonder why we should protect the rights of killers and thieves.

But the Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect criminals. It was designed to protect you:

* To make sure a zealous prosecutor can't take you to court over and over again on the same charge -- searching for a
jury that will convict you.

* To make sure the police can't break into your home unannounced on the mere chance that you might have some drugs or illegal weapons stashed in your closet.

* To make sure politicians can't confiscate your home or other property to fulfill some dream of social reform.

* To make sure you don't have to answer questions put to you by the police -- so a ruthless policeman can't twist your words out of context or browbeat you into confessing something you didn't do.

* To make sure your attorney can cross-examine any accuser or any witness against you.

Of course these safeguards protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But brushing them aside gives government
employees the power to do as they wish -- to harass whomever _they_ think is guilty.

Why There's So Much Violent Crime
And these safeguards, which are respected less and less every year, haven't been letting the guilty off.

Crime rates haven't skyrocketed because of criminals using the Bill of Rights to their advantage.

Crime is soaring. . .

* Because the government's War on Drugs has transformed a minor social problem into an immensely profitable enterprise for those willing to defy the law;

* Because many of the government's schools have become cesspools;

* Because the government packs the prisons with non-violent offenders, making it necessary to release the thugs early;

* Because the government diverts law-enforcement resources to fighting victimless crimes -- as well as to affirmative
action, gun control, and other social reforms -- leaving too little with which to protect your life and property; and

* Because government schools teach young people that inequality of wealth is unjust -- providing a moral justification for taking from someone more "fortunate" than oneself.

The government has inspired or abetted a thousand criminals for each one it has freed on a legal technicality.

Why the Bill of Rights Is Important
When Constitutional safeguards are honored, they rescue innocent people far more often than they let the guilty
slip away.

In fact, _new laws that violate the Bill of Rights usually hurt the innocent more than the guilty_.

The truly guilty make it their business to be aware of the new law and take steps not to be caught. But the innocent, secure in the knowledge that their innocence will protect them, suddenly find their property confiscated through asset forfeiture -- or their liberty destroyed by zealous police or prosecutors trying to pad their conviction records.

And when the Bill of Rights is ignored and an innocent person is convicted, the truly guilty are left free to continue committing violence. That's why the Bill of Rights must apply to all people -- citizens or aliens, innocent or presumed guilty, nice guys or thugs.

Unfortunately, the Constitutional safeguards are ignored more and more by Congress, the police, federal officials, and the courts. Disregarding the Bill of Rights has done nothing to reduce the crime rate, but it has put your life and mine in jeopardy.

As a result, we have neither physical protection from the guilty nor legal protection for the innocent.

Until the Bill of Rights is a living document again, I hope the government doesn't think you're suspicious or covet your property for one of its programs.

Your innocence probably won't protect you.

Harry Browne is the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. This article was adapted from a passage in "Why Government Doesn't Work," the complete text of which is now available for downloading at

{1} This story in recounted in detail in Reason magazine, May 1995, page 48.
{2} The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 1993, page A11.
{3} These stories are recounted in Lost Rights by James Bovard.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Gun Goes On Three-State Killing Spree!

"The brilliant satirical Web site."
--The New York Post
March 24, 2004


Rampage Bolsters Defense Theory That Gun Acted Alone
A shotgun belonging to former NBA star Jayson Williams escaped from Mr. Williams's manslaughter trial in Somerville, N.J. today and went on what law-enforcement officials called “a senseless three-state killing spree.

The shotgun's startling escape from the courtroom occurred just as one of Mr.Williams's defense lawyers was arguing that a design flaw had caused the gun to fire on its own in the shooting of Mr. Williams's chauffeur, Costas Gus Christofi.

The Browning 12-gauge, double-barrel gun fired two shots, wounding Judge Edward Coleman and a Hunterdon County bailiff before making its hasty exit, witnesses confirmed.

Mr. Williams's firearm then carjacked a limo that had been waiting outside and went on its wanton three-state killing rampage.

Law enforcement officials said that as of this afternoon, Mr. Williams's shotgun had slain four in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut and was last seen driving west on Interstate 287.

While deploring the shotgun's latest acts of senseless violence, Mr. Williams's attorneys privately conceded that the gun's thrill-kill spree probably bolstered their argument that Mr. Williams's weapon had acted alone in the shooting of Mr. Christofi.

And in Los Angeles today, lawyers for actor Robert Blake and record producer Phil Spector argued that their client's murder charges should be dropped because their guns may have acted alone or possibly in concert with Jayson Williams's gun.

It is becoming increasingly clear that people don't kill people, guns kill people, a lawyer for Mr. Spector said.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Friday, March 26, 2004

Important Government Announcement

The government announced today that it is changing its emblem to a condom because it more clearly reflects the government's political stance.

A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of **icks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being screwed.

"Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature placed in our power. Three millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone: it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." --Patrick Henry

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Nowhere To Hide

Aaron: As my friend Dale likes to say..."Everything's a felony."


Nowhere To Hide
Thoughts On The Meritorious Breaking Of Laws

Fred on Everything

March 22, 2004

How much do we really want people to obey laws?

The question hasn't mattered greatly in the past since there was often no way to enforce laws beyond a certain point. You could enforce speeding laws in front of a school with nearly perfect effectiveness, and you could occasionally catch people speeding on rural roads. Yet compliance was largely discretionary. The lack of inescapable surveillance meant that at three a.m. on the Interstate, a driver could crank it up to eighty-five and be left alone. Obedience was not exactly optional, but at times when obedience didn't really matter you didn't really have to obey.

The rapid increase in surveillance of everybody and everything is taking, or so it seems to me, a new and unwholesome turn. We move toward a world in which many laws can be enforced strictly and unfailingly, everywhere and at all times. To continue the example of speeding, the technology exists now to catch every hypervelocitous driver whatsoever on any road we choose. It could be done in several ways. For example, there exist little transponders called radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs) that transmit a serial number when they pass by a reader. They are about the size of a grain of rice, cost a few cents, and don't need batteries. Requiring them on cars (they're just like license plates, the argument will run) would allow readers along roads to calculate the speed of every car. Easy.

This isn't a column about the technology itself, so for the moment let's stipulate that the combination of data bases, cameras, networks, and so on can, or could if put to the use, make it impossible to break large categories of laws without being caught. I'm not making this up. I follow the technology closely in my guise as a tech columnist for the Washington Times. The level of surveillance I'm talking about is absolutely possible, right now, and is being put in place in bits and pieces. What would be the pros and cons?

Certain kinds of major crime could be eliminated almost completely. Theft of automobiles would become exceedingly difficult if readers on street corners, perhaps built into stoplights, checked every passing car against a list of stolen vehicles. The idea is appealing. Few of us favor having our cars expropriated.

But it's the little laws that are worrisome. Today we have cameras that photograph the license plates of cars that run stoplights. Nobody seems to like them except the governments that get the revenue from fines. The same technology could catch people who roll stop signs. Speeding, walking on the grass, urinating in a dark alley could all be automated out of existence. Do we want to live in a world in which we really have to obey all the laws all the time?

A problem with strict enforcement of laws by unlimited surveillance is that it will inevitably be misused. For example, the British have cameras that automatically read the license plates of every car passing on a highway. (This is not particularly high technology.) At first the purpose was said to be the detection of serious crimes, such as car theft. Other possible uses were soon put forward: Finding people who hadn't paid their insurance, or who had outstanding tickets, or who owed wife-support. What starts with a noble purpose soon becomes a means of nannying everyone.

Automated surveillance goes beyond what most people think of as surveillance. Recently a fellow in England came up with software called ChatNannies. Its intended purpose is the apprehension of pedophiles, which few will dare oppose. It is truly clever. It automatically logs on to large numbers of chat rooms on the internet and proceeds to 'chat' like a real child. ('Hey, you see Lord of the Rings?') It knows kid culture and convincingly simulates being a child. When someone begins to respond, it analyses the responses trying to determine whether the chatter is a pedophile trying to ensnare a kid.

Am I alone in thinking that the idea is both eerie and disturbing? Children in thousands of kid-chat rooms will have to wonder whether they are talking to another kid or to the government. Inevitably the technology will be used for other and less agreeable things. Mr. Bush and his War on Terrorism come to mind. While fooling adults would be harder than fooling children, the telegraphic nature of conversation in chat rooms makes it not all that difficult.

You chat with what you believe to be a person about the chemistry of nerve gas. (Why not? The subject is interesting and the chemistry well known.) A remote computer flags you as a possible terrorist. You don't know that it has happened, any more than you know when the government is screening your email.

The scope for automated control of behavior is great. Toyota recently unveiled a car that requires you to insert your driver's license to start it. It then checks your driving record and if, for example, you have a record for speeding, it limits the horsepower that the engine will deliver. (Toyota says it has no plans to put this atrocity into production. Then why
build the demonstrator?)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather live in a world with less enforcement of laws and more freedom to choose. Years back, this worked. In a society in which reasonable responsibility was culturally mandated, people took laws as guidelines. There were far fewer laws in the first place. The United States is now a country in which personal responsibility is attacked as elitist and electronic control of behavior seems set to become a substitute.

The Watchful State isn't really here in force yet, but it is aborning. All the pieces exist. We may find that laws that made sense when they weren't enforced very well become a smothering blanket when backed up by mindless software with police powers. A nation with no slop in the legal gears will be, I suspect, a nation of robots.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

--George Washington
Smash The State! mailing list home

Extropian Principles... the Future, Now

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Thursday, March 25, 2004

Interesting Paradigm of Our Times

From somewhere on the 'Net:

A most interesting paradigm of our times............

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

>From bondage to spiritual faith;
>From faith to great courage;
>From courage to liberty;
>From liberty to abundance;
>From abundance to complacency;
>From complacency to apathy;
>From apathy to dependence;
>From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won: by Gore, 127 million; by Bush, 143 million;

Square miles of land won: by Gore, 580,000; by Bush, 2,427,000;

States won: by Gore, 19; by Bush, 29;

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won: by Gore, 13.2; by Bush, 2.1.

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was (mostly) the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country, Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the " governmental dependency" phase.

Editor: I think we're closer to the "bondage" stage, myself...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Peter Jennings Documentary on Ecstasy to Air April 1st, 2004

Peter Jennings Documentary on Ecstasy to Air April 1st, 2004
(this is not an April's fools joke)

On Thursday, April 1st at 10PM Eastern/Pacific time (9PM Central and
Mountain time), ABC is broadcasting Peter Jennings' documentary about
the history, science and current status of "Ecstasy" (the chemical -
MDMA). This hour-long documentary will be factual, balanced and incisive.

The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies - MAPS, has
worked closely with the show's producers from its beginning. Rick Doblin
(MAPS founder and president) and Alexander T. Shulgin Ph.D.
(pharmacologist and chemist and author of the book PIKAL - A Chemical
Love Story), and many others are interviewed. The recent approval of
MAPS' MDMA Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) study will be mentioned
at the end of the show.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Nation Building

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Justice is Soived

Yesterday I went to the Sandy Justice Court to support my friend Fran, who was to be in traffic court (so we thought). Turns out we were wrong, having ASS-U-ME-d that justice would be served quickly and blindly... but no, this is America, land of the pay-ups and home of the bureaucrats... So Fran goes into a little side room while Dale and I sit in the lobby watching people pass by and guessing as to what tools and implements are hidden in the various pouches on the cops' Batman-like utility belts.

Well, it turns out this was a "meeting" between Fran and one of the prosecutors (probably some Assistant District Attorney). She basically attempted to, in so many words, convince him that he should just pay up the $40 and be on his way. You can read Fran's account of that on his blog:

Of course "security" at these courts is very high - there were at least eight cops by my count, many of them no doubt "witnesses" to the "crimes" being "tried" that day.

Interestingly, I had to go to the main courthouse downtown (Salt Lake City's courthouse) a couple of weeks ago. I had to pick up one piece of paper, which cost me a whopping twenty-five cents, so that I could remove a false mark from my wife's credit report.

The cusp of this story is that my wife and I were denied pre-approval on a home loan thanks to a "pending case" on our credit report. I checked the details and found that this case had been filed by the Utah State Tax Commission and then dismissed and that neither myself nor my wife had been notified that we had a case against us for any reason. Probably some paperwork screwup at the USTC. Nevertheless, it not only blocked our pre-approval, but it caused us no end of stress wondering what this "case" could be and forced me to spend two hours of my day to chase things down. Not to mention we have zero recourse with the Tax Commission...

First, I entered the courthouse (after driving around the block twice to figure out where the @#$#@ you're supposed to park in this grand, new building they've erected). Then I went inside and into the lobby.

It's a big circular thing bereft of anything but pillars and glass walls. The glass is probably bulletproof, by the way, so it must have cost a fortune to put that much glass (these panels were, like, twelve feet high) in a semi-circle around the lobby. No chairs, no anything. Not even a public restroom. Just a high-security entrance into the rest of the building manned by three or four sheriff's deputies and a huge metal detector. Great.

So I approach the deputy to ask where I can pick up some paperwork and where the bathroom is. He immediately points to my belt and says, "is that a knife? You cannot enter with a knife." He's meaning my Leatherman tool, by the way. I didn't happen to be carrying any swords, grenades, throwing daggers, spearguns, explosives, or even bricks... Of course, from a security standpoint, I could MacGyver something using the tools on that Leatherman...

I explained I wasn't going to court or anything, I was just there to get a quick piece of paper (I should have known that "quick" is a relative term to government employees...). He said I couldn't enter with the "knife" and would have to take it back to my vehicle or find someone to hold it for me outside.


So I got back in the elevator and went all the way back to my truck, stowed the "knife" under the seat (so it wouldn't get stolen...I know if I were a thief, that parking lot would be prime pickins), considered pissing on the undercover cop car parked three stalls away...figured there were probably cameras in the joint and held it, and hiked back to the elevator.

So I go through security as they scrutinize my long hair, send my wallet through their metal detector (luckily, my cards still work), rifle my keys in case they might become improvised "weapons," and let me on through. Had they known my name or who I am, I probably wouldn't have made it past the "is that a knife?" part... Lucky for me (and them), they didn't ask, so I slipped through their meager defenses [note the dripping sarcasm here].

So I wander the hall for a minute after getting vague hand-waving directions from a cop walking through the security that the restrooms are "that way." I find 'em, enter, scope it out for cameras (none apparent), lean into the urinal and return some to the city water system, and then wash up and leave.

Then, after wandering in circles for a bit, I figure out where the "civil/divorce" office is and go in there. There are about ten windows for clerks (two of them for "traffic only") and three clerks on duty (one of them is "traffic only"). There's a line waiting to speak to one of these two clerks. Great.

Half hour in line and I get to a clerk's window. She has cool hair. I tell her so. She tells me about her grandparents (that she apparently lives with, pretty typical public employee I guess) and then frowns when she finally finds my "paperwork" in the "system" (meaning on her computer screen) and sees me listed with a wife. Bummer for her I'm taken, I guess. She prints off the sheet and asks for twenty-five cents for the "copy."

I ask her if that can be paid in installments. I've got a dime right now.

She looks at me quizically like I'm serious.

I roll my eyes and hand her the quarter. She smiles and I get my paperwork and leave.

On the way out, I have to pass through the "security checkpoint" again. Or so I thought, anyway.

I moved to walk through the metal detector again (the only obvious exit) and the same deputy who took so much interest in my "knife" puts up his hand to stop me. "The exit is over there," he points around the "checkpoint" to a glass door which looks exactly like the glass panel it's set in.

"Oh. It should be more clearly marked," I nod as I head towards it.

"What was that?" He asked me, giving me that "gimme an excuse to arrest your punk ass" look cops are so good at.

I looked at him with my best "I kill people, don't beg to be next," look and said, "I said it should be more clearly marked. Maybe a sign right here or something. That'd help with the confusion some people are no doubt having."

I kept moving towards the door and pushed it open before he replied.

I have this thing with cops. Wherever I go, I get extra scrutiny from them. I think they know two things instinctively about me: I'm probably doing or recently have done something they don't like and I'm a smartass who has "problems with authority." Of course, the generally instinctive fear of the Norsemen most people of any European or North African race seem to have probably doesn't help.

So... all of this goes to show how our current "justice" system works. Were I a middle-eastern-style terorrist whose sole mission is to blow up some shit and get plastered all over the nightly news for the "cause," I'd choose targets like the World Trade Center, Tiger Stadium, The Olympics, and so forth. You know, the "big money" spots that really exemplify our "evil capitalist society" and all that. Sock it to the Great Satan and whatnot.

On the other hand, were I a domestic terrorist who wanted to change my own nation's way of thinking or governing and wanted to point out the tyranny of it all...I'd target courthouses, tax collection points, and other government uber-bureaucracies instead. After all, that would point out not the "evil capitalist empire" - as I probably don't care about that - but would handily point out the "evil tyrannical empire" instead.

So all these "security measures" aren't to keep some Jihad-screaming psychopath out of the building. They're to keep regular people like us (fed up with the bullshit system) from commiting acts of civil unrest.

That should tell you who they are REALLY afraid of here.

For the most part, cops tend to view all citizens they don't know (i.e. most of us) as suspect. It's part of their culture and way of thinking about things. Everyone is a potential criminal in their eyes. Ask any cop about this and they'll deny it, of course, but watch them in'll see the proof.

The cop who isn't this way is a rare breed and one of the truly old school peace officers: from back in the day when a policeman kept the peace, knew his neighbors, and was someone you knew (thanks to the uniform) you could always count on to give good directions, happy advice on where to eat, and so forth. Look at the cops now. Their uniform equipment has tripled (at least) and they look more para-military as time goes on...many of them, instead of wearing the traditional blue of peace, wear the black of the night raider...

Next time you're driving around town, walking down the street, and so forth...consider what you're seeing around you. Look at the police officers, government workers, the way people react to both, etc. Consider all of this and ask yourself if this is "living free" and if it's really the "American way"...

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Monday, March 22, 2004

Republicans Praise New Deal Socialism

March 22, 2004

Most liberty-loving Americans consider Franklin D. Roosevelt the single worst president of the 20th century, even with stiff competition from the likes of Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson. FDR was perhaps the most openly socialist leader ever to occupy the White House, and his policies reflected a firm belief that government should control business and redistribute wealth. His New Deal programs dramatically increased both the size and scope of the federal government, fundamentally changing (for the worse) the nation’s perception of the proper role for government in our society. Contrary to popular myth, Roosevelt helped cause the Great Depression through his monetary policies and public works boondoggles. All Americans are less free and less prosperous today as the result of Roosevelt’s presidency.

So why were congressional Republicans busy praising the man last week?

A resolution honoring Roosevelt and his "legacy" passed overwhelmingly in the US House of Representatives Wednesday. The resolution expressly praised his New Deal programs, applauded his administration's "productive partnership with private appointing top businessmen to run the production agencies" and repeated the lie that somehow he led America out of the Depression. The resolution ends with the preposterous assertion that "a grateful Nation and world are better off because of President Roosevelt's inimitable leadership."

The resolution was introduced by a Democrat, but Republican leaders of the House tightly control procedural rules that determine what legislation reaches the floor. The bill could not have seen the light of day without their approval. To read the resolution, go to .

Only five House Republicans had the integrity to vote against the resolution, while six others voted "present." Nearly 200 Republicans joined the unanimous and enthusiastic Democrats in voting to honor FDR's terrible legacy.

This vote provides yet another example that the mainstream Republican party has abandoned any last vestiges of principle and ideology. The big-government neocon faction of the GOP finds much to admire in FDR, but rank-and-file Republicans still believe in lower taxes, less regulation, and more personal liberty -- not socialism. Voters who rejoiced when the GOP took control of both Congress and the White House could not have imagined their heroes would proceed to spend, borrow, expand, and regulate even more than Clinton did! The national GOP has lost all credibility as the party of limited government, and Americans who love liberty should not be fooled by big-government socialists simply because they have an "R" next to their name.

You can see how your representative voted, as well as express your opinion about his or her vote by going to .

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Sunday, March 21, 2004

Presidential Prayer Team

Editor's Note: This was posted to an email forum and I am not sure of the original author's identity.

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Genesis 24: 3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

The Presidential Prayer Team implores, "…pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Got comments? Email me, dammit!


Got comments? Email me, dammit!