The Militant Libertarian

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

Saturday, March 21, 2009

"Modern Militian Movement" Report Written with ADL Assistance

The Modern Militia Movement" - the report written by Missouri law enforcement which lists support for Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr for president as a sign of involvement in the militia movement - is very troubling. While the report has drawn much criticism, little attention has been paid to where Missouri law enforcement got their information from. My immediate suspicion was that the report was written with the help of either the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. Minimal Internet detective work has shown that my suspicion was correct, and that the report was written with the assistance of the latter group.

While the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith purports to be a Jewish civil rights organization, in reality the ADL is a left-wing advocacy group which conducts extensive surveillance on individuals and groups across the political spectrum. The San Francisco district attorney accused the ADL of conducting a national "spy network" after a 1993 raid on the organization's San Francisco offices uncovered computer files [including stolen confidential police documents containing personal information] on 9,876 individuals and more than 950 groups. Noam Chomsky decried the ADL's "Stalinist-style mentality and behavior" after a detailed 150-page report on his activities was leaked to him by someone within the group. While the ADL denies engaging in illegal activities, they boast of their "nationwide fact-finding infrastructure." According to their web site, they specialize in gathering, analyzing and disseminating intelligence on extremism to law enforcement agencies in order for them to combat "serious threats".

Read the rest at this link.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Government Works Perfectly

by Michael Cloud

"Government is broken," claim some.

"Government spending is out of control," argue others.

"Government has exceeded its limits," say critics.

"Government is misgoverned; government programs are badly managed," say reformers.

"Government is NOT doing what it's supposed to be doing - and it IS doing what it's NOT supposed to," say others.

They are wrong.

Government works perfectly. Today's Big Government does exactly what its design dictates and allows. Government is functioning according to its nature.

Cobra venom works perfectly. It does what it's designed to do.

Hand grenades and land mines work perfectly. They do what they're designed to do.

It is the nature of Big Government to produce the results it produces. It is the nature of Big Government economic and social programs to produce the results they produce.

Whatever government can do, it will do.

Why does government raise taxes? Because it can.

Why does government deficit spend? Because it can.

Why do many corporations lobby politicians for special privileges? Because they can.

Why do many politicians legislate special privileges for these corporations?
Because they can.

Why do government officials do what they do? Because they can.

Why does government keep getting bigger? Because it can.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," wrote Thomas Jefferson. (1788) It is the nature of government to grow. Perfectly.

Big Government does what it does because Big Government is what it is.

Cause and effect. "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action," wrote Ayn Rand. Cause and effect work perfectly. So does government cause and effect.

Government policies, programs, and actions do NOT produce the results their supporters want. They produce the results their nature dictates and allows. Cause and effect.

You grow what you sow. If you sow wheat seed, you'll grow wheat. Not barley. Not corn. Wanting different crops has no effect. Changing who sows wheat has no effect. Different sowers with the same seeds will produce the same crops.

Why does Big Government regularly and repeatedly increase spending, raise taxes, expand its power and authority, and infringe on our lives, liberty, and property? Because it can.

Why doesn't small government? Because it can't.

Because we give small government just barely enough resources to defend our lives, liberty, and property - and we regularly prune it back. This small government will also work perfectly. But it will be a small perfection.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Government Monopoly on Guns

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Friday, March 20, 2009

Tea Party Day Celebration

On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls. The TEA party rally will begin at 12 noon.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything from the AFA, this is a great idea and I think everyone should participate!

Go check it out at

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Everday Conspiracies with Alex Jones

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Pork - Explained

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Job Security (Debt Clock)

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Switzerland Breaks With Tradition on Tax Evasion


The Swiss government said Friday it would cooperate on cases of international tax evasion, breaking with a long-standing tradition of protecting wealthy foreigners accused of hiding billions of dollars in the Alpine nation.

The government insisted it would hold onto its cherished banking secrecy rules, but said other countries could now expect Swiss cooperation in cases where they provide compelling evidence of tax evasion.

"We want assistance to be restricted to individual cases to prevent fishing expeditions," President Hans-Rudolf Merz told a news conference, referring to the practice of seeking information about many individuals in the hope of discovering a few tax evaders.

A number of countries are hoping to avoid being blacklisted by world powers when they meet in April to discuss stepping up their fight against tax cheats.

Austria and Luxembourg also said Friday they would step up cooperation on tax probes. But the greatest pressure has been on Switzerland, which is embroiled in a dispute with the United States over wealthy Americans that have stashed money in its biggest bank, UBS AG.

Swiss authorities have provided the U.S. with the bank details of up to 300 wealthy Americans suspected of tax fraud, but refuse to identify about 50,000 more U.S. account holders Washington wants.

The bank, and the government, have said further cooperation would violate Swiss law, which makes an unclear distinction between the serious crime of tax fraud and the minor offense of tax evasion.

Merz said the country — which already works with other countries to fight terror financing and return dictator cash — will now adopt standards set by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for countries working together against tax evasion. Switzerland had refused to commit to the standards since they were written in 2000 for fear of compromising banking secrecy rules.

"Banking secrecy does not protect tax crimes," Merz said. The change, he added, "will increase the acceptance of the (Swiss) financial center and give customers greater confidence" and safeguard jobs in a sector that employs tens of thousands of people in Switzerland.

He said, however, that Switzerland will maintain banking confidentiality for clients unless foreign governments produce concrete evidence of tax evasion. Switzerland's new cooperation will come into force after agreements with other governments that provide Swiss banks with new financial opportunities, he added.

Merz's announcement came a day after Switzerland's tiny neighbor Liechtenstein bowed to outside pressure by adopting the standards in a similar attempt to shed its label as a tax haven where foreigners can safely hide their money. Several others tax havens — including Andorra, Bermuda and the islands of Jersey and Guernsey in the English Channel — also have signaled over the past month that they would open their books to foreign tax inspectors.

Switzerland has been struggling to come up with a strategy for preserving banking secrecy while satisfying the demands of the United States, France, Germany and other foreign governments looking to crack down on tax evaders. The confidentiality of bank accounts is a sacred cow in the country, comparable to its long-standing neutrality, and has helped the country become one of the world's richest.

Swiss bank vaults hold an estimated $2 trillion of foreign money.

The Swiss Bankers Association said it supported the decision, but now wants "an end to all improper international criticism of Switzerland and its legal system, and also an end to threats to put Switzerland on a so-called 'black list.'"

The industry group said it expects all agreements to refrain from retroactively punishing banks or clients for old infractions.

Shares in UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group rose on the announcement and were both up over 5 percent for the day.

The Swiss government also said Friday it would take part in a U.S. civil case against UBS, which is being accused of facilitating massive tax evasion by wealthy Americans. The Swiss will protect their "sovereign interests," according to a statement.

The UBS case represents the most serious crisis in the Swiss banking community since the uproar in the 1990s over Jewish accounts left unclaimed after World War II. After reacting slowly, Swiss banks eventually agreed on a $1.25 billion out-of-court settlement with the descendants of Holocaust survivors.

Switzerland passed its banking secrecy laws in 1934 during a worldwide depression and under the threat of espionage by France and Nazi Germany, which aggressively courted Swiss bank employees to divulge the names and data of customers. Strict penalties were imposed for violating bank confidentiality.

Still, secrecy standards have eroded.

Switzerland has retooled the rules over the past two decades to make it easier for poor countries to reclaim assets stashed in Swiss banks by their former dictators, and has become a world leader in returning potentate cash.

And after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the neutral country took a key role to freeze assets and investigate suspected financiers of global terrorism.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Universal Healthcare in Massachusetts Failing After Only 3 Years

From: The Virginian Rebel's Blog

Who would have thought that by making healthcare free, it would actually get more expensive? Even the uberliberal New York Times has to point out that healthcare spending per person is 33% higher in Massachusetts than the national average. Could we maybe try a free market in healthcare?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Adam Kokesh, Washington D.C.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Individualism and Self Defense

by Michael Gaddy

There are present in America today a very large number of citizens who believe protection of themselves and their loved ones from violent physical attack, robbery, rape and general mayhem is the sole responsibility of others. Most of these ignorant folks believe that employees of the state should be responsible for protection of the individual in our society. This view is elitist and based on false assumptions.

Depending on others for personal protection masks the belief by many that they are of a higher station in life; that those of a lower social level and therefore inferior in stature and value should be responsible for their personal protection. They believe their lives and property to be more important than the lives of members of law enforcement and the military.

Many are unaware that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the police have no obligation to protect the individual in society. The court ruled as late as June 27th 2005, in Castle Rock v Gonzales, that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection for herself, or her children, even though she had obtained a restraining order against her husband Simon. Simon Gonzales subsequently abducted their three children, murdered them, and was killed by police after shooting into the police station window. Ms. Gonzales called the police after the children were abducted, but, the police, believing Simon Gonzales to be non-violent, did nothing. Perhaps, had the police enforced the restraining order, the children would be alive today?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled the police have no obligation to defend the individual. Beginning with South V. Maryland in 1856 and several subsequent rulings on the subject, the court has ruled, "…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Emphasis added. Yet, the state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection. Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

The court has ruled that any "protection" provided by law enforcement will be of a collective nature rather than an individual one. Therefore, as individuals, we must come to grips with the reality of protecting our loved ones, and ourselves, with little to no dependence on those in law enforcement. For that reason, we must never allow the state to remove from our possession the tools required for that critical task.

Even on the collective level, law enforcement has proved to be relatively ineffectual in protecting those who pay their salaries. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Rader and Coral Eugene Watts managed to take the lives of at least 177 innocent people without ever firing a shot. The police were only able to investigate after the fact in these cases. I’m sure that was of little consolation whatsoever to the victims, or their families.

So ineffectual are the members of law enforcement and the military, they have repeatedly been unable to protect those whose lives are in their hands 24 hours a day. John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar al-Sadat and many others in history are proof positive the state cannot protect those they are tasked with protecting.

Depending on the military for personal protection would definitely be a misplaced trust. Need I say more than 9/11? Billions and billions for defense of the country and, according to the questionable government account of what was basically an act of mass murder, 19 men with box cutters brought down the icons of the American financial network and the headquarters of the U.S. Military, killing thousands in the process. All this was accomplished at the reported cost of a few hundred thousand dollars.

Rumors abound concerning the military being used by the state to seize firearms and control American citizens should there be civil unrest or natural disaster. The actions of the National Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans are certainly indicative of what we can expect from the military as relates to personal protection. If anyone still maintains any doubt the military will be deployed to American streets in the event of civil unrest or national emergency, check this out.

The military has morphed from the "protection of our country" paradigm to one of the enforcement arm for the state. In fact, the military has failed miserably in abiding by its prime directive: "upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic." Arguably, the military has become the tool of the Constitution’s domestic enemies.

Effective personal protection can only be obtained through the efforts of the individual. Private firearms ownership, proper training, perfect practice, and the mindset to use them all are vital. To believe otherwise is elitist, ignorant of reality, and could eventually prove fatal.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Obama: Food safety system a health 'hazard'

From Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – The nation's food safety system is a "hazard to public health" and overdue for an overhaul, President Barack Obama said Saturday as he filled the top job at the Food and Drug Administration.

Obama used his weekly radio and video address to announce the nomination of former New York City Health Commissioner Margaret Hamburg as agency commissioner and the selection of Baltimore's health commissioner, Joshua Sharfstein as her deputy. Consumer groups applauded the picks.

The president also is creating a special advisory group to coordinate food safety laws and recommend how to update them. Many of these laws have not changed since they were written early in the last century, he said.

Obama said too many agencies are responsible for food safety, making it difficult to share information and stop problems from falling through the cracks.

The FDA does not have enough money or workers to conduct annual inspections at more than a fraction of the 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses in the country, Obama said.

"That is a hazard to public health. It is unacceptable. And it will change under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg," he pledged.

Mili-Lib comment: Ya, right, sure like all the other "changes" you've brought about, Obama? HA! I bet this Hamburg chick is from Wall Street too, like all your other cronies. Has anyone in the Obama administration ever had a REAL job?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

House conservatives seek Patriot Act extension

by Jared Allen, The Hill

More than a dozen of the GOP’s most conservative members on Thursday introduced a bill to reauthorize controversial Patriot Act provisions set to expire later this year.

The group of House Republicans – who include Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Judiciary Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) – want to extend for an additional 10 years the ability of national security agencies to conduct “roving” wiretaps, have access to library patron information and greatly expand the reach of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Those provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire this year.

“If there’s one thing we can predict about terrorism it’s that it’s unpredictable,” said Smith, the lead sponsor of the Safe and Secure America Act of 2009. “That’s why law enforcement and intelligence officials must remain vigilant.”

“The national security provisions we’re seeking to reauthorize are proven and effective,” Smith continued. “They have helped investigators track down terrorists and prevent attacks.”

Those provisions in particular drew the ire of liberals and privacy groups who said they trampled on Americans' civil liberties.

But the GOP members who introduced the reauthorization bill shot back that the threat of domestic terrorism is still as real as it was eight years ago.

“Critics of these provisions claim that the terrorist threat has diminished since 2001,” Smith said. “But such claims ignore the deadly attacks in London, Madrid, Mumbai and Yemen. If we want to keep Americans — both here and abroad — safe and secure from future terrorist attacks, we need to extend these provisions.”

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not sign on as an original cosponsor.

“I’ve not seen the proposal,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “But the Patriot Act is a part of helping to keep America safe and we’ve got to do everything we can in this time of economic crisis to protect our citizens from those who’d want to harm us.”

Those House Republicans who joined some GOP leaders to introduce the bill include: Judiciary Committee Members: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.); Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.); Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.); Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.); Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa); Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.); Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio); Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.); and Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.); and GOP Reps. John Sullivan (R-Okla.); Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.); Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.); Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.); and Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.).

Mili-Lib Note: Once more, it's proven that when they say "conservative," they really mean "fascist."

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Constitution Revolution 2012

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Obama Plans to Dump Wounded Vets Off And Forget Them

Have you served in the military? Are you serving now? Be prepared to pay for your own medical care, whether you're wounded in battle or not. Obama doesn't give a flying fuck about you, veteran, so I hope you're able to afford to care for yourself after the cabal is done using you for their wars of colonialism for corporate gain and dumps you off like a used snot rag. WAKE UP! WAKE UP AMERICAN SOLDIERS! IT'S TIME TO WALK AWAY FROM THESE CORPORATE ASSHOLES WHO USE YOU TO ENRICH THEMSELVES! COME HOME AND HELP US PUT THESE SONS OF BITCHES OUT OF BUSINESS!

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Monday, March 16, 2009

"Aristotle the Hun" is the pen name of an attorney in California who's been working to get the Supreme Court to hear his case against Obama regarding Obama's citizenship status. This is the same attorney that carried the case through the courts and was systematically ignored by the Obama campaign last year.

Well, apparently there might be a hearing now, as Justice Roberts has agreed to look at the case to consider it for the docket.

Read more about this at the Hun's blog where the news originally broke:

Read more about it here.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd

by Mark R. Crovelli

The question of whether or not we ought to have draconian laws prohibiting drunk driving in this country hinges on another critical, yet all-too-often neglected question: Do drunk-driving laws actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving and thus make our roads and highways safer? If we answer this question in the affirmative, and determine to our satisfaction that drunk-driving laws do actually reduce drunk driving and make our roads safer, then we might be justified in thinking that the laws are useful and protect the public. If, on the other hand, we determine that drunk-driving laws do not actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving or make our roads safer, then we would do well to ask ourselves whether we need these laws at all. What would be the use, after all, of fining, imprisoning and terrorizing American drivers, if this ruthless police action does not have the effect of making our roads safer places?

It is my contention in this article that drunk-driving laws do not actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving. Hence, it is absolutely absurd for the state to waste billions of dollars each year hunting down drunk-drivers, trying them in courts, fining them astronomical amounts of money, and incarcerating them, when the state could effectively make America’s roads and highways just as safe by loosening up state licensing laws for taxi cabs and limousines.

In order for me to be able to make my case, I must first make some initial observations about drunk driving. First, it is important to note that when a man gets behind the wheel of an automobile while drunk he is taking a risk. His decision to drive drunk might result in him getting into a gruesome accident that takes his own life, the life of another driver, or other persons adjacent to him, or an accident that injures or seriously maims himself or other people. Should any of these scenarios actually occur, the drunk driver faces serious penalties – he could die in the accident, become permanently crippled or disfigured, or face charges for vehicular assault or murder if he hurts other people. These potential penalties for drunk driving exist even in the absence of stiff drunk-driving laws enacted by the state. In other words, even if there were no laws prohibiting drunk driving in this country, people who chose to drive drunk, and caused serious injury to others, would still face serious legal consequences for their actions – in addition to the possible injuries and death that they might cause themselves.

The case for ruthless laws punishing drunk driving rests on the assumption that these inherent and omnipresent penalties for drunk driving, (like death, disfigurement or a life sentence in prison), will not act as an effective deterrent. Drunk drivers, it is held, will discount the possibility of getting into a fiery crash that will kill them or send them to prison, (because of their "impaired judgment," to use the preferred nomenclature), which means that the state must step in and create additional penalties for drunk driving that will discourage the act even further. The state, then, swoops in with harsh penalties for driving while drunk or alcohol impaired, in the hope, (it is claimed, at least), of making our roads and highways safer by reducing the number of impaired drivers on the road.

(I should note in passing that the state’s claims to be trying to make our roads safer by outlawing and persecuting drunk drivers should be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. Approximately 1 million Americans are killed every 25 years on America’s socialized road system, and the state has done virtually nothing in the way of reforming these death traps – besides focusing its attention on drunk drivers. The socialist planners of America’s roads apparently only care if drunk drivers kill people, and don’t care a whit if drivers are killed through their own negligence, mismanagement and typical socialistic incompetence [PDF].)

It all sounds so reasonable: because of their "impaired judgment," drunk drivers discount the danger of dying or hurting other people, so the state must implement harsh laws that discourage drunk driving even more. The problem with this idea, however, is that the state’s penalties for drunk driving are extremely lenient when compared to what could possibly occur as a natural consequence of drunk driving – like, death, disfigurement or a lifetime in prison. As such, it is naïve at best to think that the state’s relatively mild form of punishment could possibly dissuade a man from driving drunk, when not even the risk of death was able to discourage him from doing so.

In other words, what the state and other logic-eschewing groups would like for us to believe is the following:

1. When a man is drunk, his "impaired judgment" makes him discount the possibility of getting into a horrible accident that might kill or injure him or someone else. As a result of discounting this risk, he is likely to go ahead and drive drunk anyway.

2. This same drunken man, who thinks he can cheat death on the highway, will suddenly see the light, shut off his engine, and walk home if the state merely threatens him with a stint in jail if he drives.

If we look at these propositions without letting emotion cloud our judgment, is it not obvious that if a man thinks he can drive home and avoid killing himself or hurting other people (because of his "impaired judgment"), he is likely to think the very same thing about avoiding the relatively mild punishments of the police? What could possibly make us think that threatening a man with a lighter punishment than could result as a natural consequence of his actions will dissuade him from doing something, when the threat of the more severe natural punishments does not? Is this not similar to what occurs when the police attempt to deter "base jumping" in national parks by threatening to fine those who jump? If a man thinks he can avoid the natural and severe potential punishment of jumping off a cliff, (i.e., squashing himself on the rocks thousands of feet below), what could possibly make us think that the threat of a $500 fine will stop him?

My argument can be summed up with the following proposition:

If a man is intoxicated to the extent that he is a danger to himself and other drivers, and he believes that he is capable of avoiding killing himself or injuring others on the road, then he is just as likely to believe that he can avoid getting caught by the police.

It is true, I will concede, that the state’s drunk-driving laws probably do dissuade a few people from driving with alcohol in their veins. Some people probably are dissuaded from driving home from a restaurant after consuming two or three glasses of wine, and some college students probably designate a driver so that they do not all have to drive home from the party drunk. Big deal. Dissuading these people from driving while drunk could be accomplished just as effectively and without creating a police state by eliminating all licensing laws on taxi cabs and limousines in the United States, which would drastically reduce the cost and increase the supply of sober transportation for Americans. If taxis and limousines were as cheap in the United States as they are in Mexico, for example, do you really think that Americans would choose to drive while intoxicated in the same numbers as they presently do? If mom and dad could take a cheap taxi to the restaurant and both drink three or four glasses of wine, and make it home safely, don’t you think that they would choose to do so? Wouldn’t they prefer this to having mom sit through another dinner sans vin as the "designated driver," while dad inhales whiskey sours? And don’t you think college students would prefer to catch a ride to the party safely in a cheap limousine – with a bar inside – than for all of them to drive separately and dangerously after drinking? Finally, don’t you think that the serious alcoholic would prefer to catch a cheap and safe ride to his local tavern and back home safely, rather than waking up in county jail? That he doesn’t do so already has something to do with the fact that to catch a ride in a taxi will likely cost him more than his bar tab will.

There is thus no need to waste billions of dollars hunting down people who have had a few glasses of wine with dinner, trying them in court, and then sentencing them to jail – especially when these laws will have no effect on those people who are truly dangerously intoxicated and who believe that they can both drive home safely and avoid getting caught by the police. As usual, the source of a serious social ill lies in the state’s own laws and regulations, and the solution lies in the realm of the free-market.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

U.S. must lead world to tougher regulation: Summers

That's the headline at Routers

The United States is economically falling like the French in WWII. Our descent is going so fast that most of us can't watch it without getting dizzy. Is that good enough for the Powers That Be?

Nope, the rest of the world needs to go with!

So they're encouraging the rest of the world--Europe in particular--to follow our shining example and introduce more regulation and other measures to "curb" banking, lending, and stock interests from "cheating."

The very same regulations that got us where we are today.

Well, at least we'll have friends to stand in the bread line with.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: and Drew Carey on 20/20 with John Stossel

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Sunday, March 15, 2009

The Story of Susette Kelo

This great video details the Kelo Decision by the Supreme Court that screwed all of us out of property rights and allows governments to use eminent domain to steal our homes for profit. It gives a complete history of the story and the final decision by SCOTUS.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

"I Want my Bailout Money"

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists

by Kurt Nimmo

Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.

The MIAC report (click here to review scans of the original) specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”

MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort.

Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.

In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.

MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics.

MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.

The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (see the NASCO map here).

The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.

In order to artificially heighten the perceived threat threshold, MIAC rolls in Christian Identity, white nationalism, “militant” anti-abortion activists, opposition to illegal immigration, and income tax resistance. MIAC deceptively blurs the lines between these disparate political ideologies and underscores the possibility for violence in a summary of the organizational structure of the militia movement and a section describing how members strive to train in “combat readiness.”

The MIAC effort to characterize Libertarians and Constitutionalists as racists is reminiscent of an attempt by the corporate media in early 2008 to portray Ron Paul as a racist by attempting to link him to a series of vaguely racist newsletters produced in the 1980s. Paul did not exercise editorial control over the newsletters and went so far as to apologize for them, but this did not prevent the corporate media from characterizing him as a racist.

According to MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a threat to the police. “The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps,” the document claims in a section entitled “You are the Enemy.”

In regard to supposed militia movement literature and media, the MIAC report mentions Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism and William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries — the latter was penned by the former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance and the former by a Libertarian filmmaker. In order to underscore the absurdity of the MIAC attempt to link Pierce’s novel and Russo’s anti-tax documentary, it should be noted that the late Aaron Russo was Jewish and The Turner Dairies posits a Zionist government in America (or ZOG, the Zionist Occupation Government) run by Jews.

The award-winning film Zeitgeist, featuring Alex Jones, is also mentioned as terrorist material.

The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists.

MIAC is attempting to radicalize the police against political activity guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If Missouri police indoctrinated by MIAC propaganda overreact to political activists and supporters of Ron Paul in their state and injure or kill people involved in entirely legal and legitimate political activity, MIAC, the governor of Missouri (his name appears on the MIAC document), and the DHS and federal government should be held directly responsible and prosecuted the fullest extent of the law.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

The Rise of the United Socialist Sates of Amerika

Go here and watch this informative video:

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: