Mike Oldfield Quits Brits over Smoking Ban...

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/oldfield%20quits%20britain%20over%20smoking%20ban_1047367 I wonder if he considers himself a libertarian or an anarchist. His music is great. If you're unfamiliar with it, you should really look it up on youtube, or elsewhere.

A detailed look at Che Guevara's personal role as Castro's willing executioner

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054

The Butcher of la Cabaña

Free Range Empires - Stefbot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02rvMwSlAu0&feature=channel

More stefbot, on the "bailouts"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFD4xtFV9cQ&feature=channel

Unplug Yourself From the Illusion of Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY -Stefbot's take on reality. (I agree with it fairly closely. I agree more closely with G. Edward Griffin and myself about the solution though.)

Art Imitates Life, I Guess (Except for the Happy Ending)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theinternational/hd/
At least the subject matter is thrilling! Kind of like that nonfiction book I just read: "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin. Maybe hollywood will keep us distracted just long enough for the coup de grâce!

Looking for an inspirational movie showing the little people triumphing over the tyrannical police state? Try these:

The Camden 28 - a movie about the people who broke and entered into a selective service office in Camden, NJ. Among them was an FBI informant who believed in the "rule of society's laws" --so he turned in all of his friends. Then, he was surprised when the state sought to utterly ruin their lives, so he became a sympathetic witness to the defense, showing how the FBI had set them up (via their mole) with the ability to break and enter (they were bumbling liberal jag-offs who otherwise never would have pulled it off). In the end, all of them were acquitted of wrongdoing, via jury nullification of law (the jury knowing that they had broken the law, but acquitting them anyway. For more information see: http://www.fija.org ) "The Camden 28" is available for sale here: http://firstrunfeatures.com/camden28dvd.html.

In Search of the Second Amendment - David T. Hardy's groundbreaking documentary about the racist origins of gun control in America.

Uprising - Jon Avnet's masterful retelling of the story of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Available for order at any Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore. After a unphilosophical and dying German culture had given up its individual rights to the police state --as well as its weapons of self defense--, these brave individuals decided that life was too precious to die without a fight. Starting with less than 50 handguns, starving, with malnutrition and disease running rampant, the imprisoned Jews retaliated against the nazis from inside the occupied city of Warsaw, which had been converted into a giant prison camp. They held off one of the strongest divisions of the German army for over a month (longer than the entire nations of France and Poland resisted.) This video will shame the tyrant sympathizers who oppose gun rights (if they have any intelligence at all), as it will embolden those who believe in the righteousness of individual freedom. It's not perfect, but for those looking for a good action movie based materially on historical fact, it rocks. As an aside, dealing with the nature of the uprising, there is an excellent piece on the ghetto uprising at the beginning of John Ross's novel "Unintended Consequences" that is probably a little more true to the dire one-sidedness of the fighting conditions in the Ghetto. A real life account of the Ghetto uprising (spoken by survivor Marek Edelman) can be found here: http://www.peoplesarchive.com/browse/movies/6265/

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com - JPFO (Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) video about the link between making innocent people defenseless ("gun control") and mass murder by government ("democide").

Coercion Watch: The Cure of "Quackery" (Coercion) is Worse than the Disease (Ignorance)

Stephen Barrett runs a site called "quackwatch" at ( http://www.quackwatch.org/ ) where he purports to alert people to "scams and quackery". This would be OK, except that he places 100% of his faith in collective rule, and armed authoritarianism. He makes no mention of the fact that the juries in the cases where well-meaning scientists and doctors were convicted were instructed to enforce existing unjust laws by thei judges in the trials (contrary to the Constitution's mention of "common law" and "due process").

Of particular interest is his listing of an article by Dr. Benjamin Wilson listing B-17 cancer therapies as "quackery". Online here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

If you scroll down to the bottom of the preceding link, you will note that he features a section titled: "Recent Enforcement Actions", which he presumably presents in order to get you to agree that B-17 treatment is harmful. But wait: If a person chooses B-17 against their doctor's wishes and dies, then why does anyone need to be punished? They followed a treatment that was not successful, but one that is evidenced to have greater success than established treatments for late-term cancer. Moreover, early laetrile supplementation appears to actually do better than mainstream cancer therapies. So again, why does anyone need to be punished with the force of government, and why would their being punished indicate that Barrett is correct about B-17?

And note his sources, under the "Recent Enforcement Actions" section. No mention of any pro B-17 scholarship! Only the criticisms of it (mostly by government thugs and vested interests of the status quo)!


Moreover, from the first paragraph, he leaves out several critical facts. Let's analyze just the first paragraph to see if it sets off our bullshit detectors, after we watch this video about B-17. FIRST, watch the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507

THEN, read what Benjamin Wilson has to say while paying attention to both what he says and what he fails to say:

Laetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a
substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the
U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation."
This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in
the pits of apricots and various other fruits. Most proponents of Laetrile for
the treatment of cancer use the terms "Laetrile" and amygdalin
interchangeably.

Amygdalin was originally isolated in 1830 by two
French chemists. In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin breaks down into
glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous). It was tried
as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and
too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D.,
and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat
cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called
"Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no
benefit either alone or together with other substances. Along the way its
proponents have varied their claims about Laetrile's origin, chemical structure,
mechanism of action, and therapeutic effects [1,2]. Its place in history is
assured, however, as a focus of political activities intended to abolish the
laws protecting Americans from quackery.

So, Wilson tips his hand, in the last sentence above, as believing that Americans need to be "protected" from quackery. How protected? Look under "Recent Enforcement Actions": Silencing proponents of laetrile, shutting them up with physical violence and threats, and imprisoning them.

If B-17 treatment is "quackery", then why would one need violence to stop the sale of B-17? After all, many people believe that resveratrol supplementation prevents DNA oxidation. Others disagree. But if we follow the logic that all things that are ineffective are banned, then how will new therapies ever be developed? They won't! The research will be too expensive, and will be limited to pharmaceuticals that can be patented by large corporations. Natural substances like Stevia (a natural, safe, sugarless-but-sweet alternative to Nutrasweet) and B-17 containing aricot pits cannot be patented, and provide very little profit margin for large manufacturers of patentable synthetic molecules.

Even more amazing is Benjamin Wilson's dishonesty in criticizing B-17 therapy (at Stephen Barrett's website). He writes, "In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin (another name for B-17) breaks down into glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous)." To which I respond: NO SHIT, ASSHOLE! 100% of B-17's benefits are caused by the fact that an enzyme found only in cancer cells releases cyanide into the cancer cells, mimicing the body's natural defenses against cancer (the killing of cancer cells by the bancreatic enzyme trypsin which also avoids healthy non-cancerous cells) killing them. So I guess that Wilson's primary intent is simply to scare people into not researching laetrile further, since his comments dishonestly ignore WHAT THE PROPONENTS OF LAETRILE SAY ARE ITS MERITS.

This is similar to a property rights advocate defending gun rights by stating that "guns save lives by allowing people to defend themselves", and being "countered" by an argument by hysterical anti-gunner that says "gangbangers shooting innocent children doesn't save any lives!". This argument is dishonest, because it doesn't address the point that the property rights advocate was making. It makes a new point, and attempts to divert the discussion down a path of lesser information. We all know guns can kill. We all know cyanide can kill. But the real discussion is about how well those things can be targeted against the negative things they are designed to fight.

In th case of guns, we want the guns to either kill or threaten criminals. In the case of Vitamin B-17, we want the cyanide molecule within B-17 to be released on contact with cancer specific enzymes into the cancer cells!

But you will NEVER find honesty in arguments in favor of big government. If they were smart enough to be reference the facts, they'd never advocate for the intercession of more force and coercion into people's lives.

The government has a holy war against freedom, lest you dare choose to experiment with harmless, and possibly life-saving alternative therapies. They dare not allow you to make your own medical decisions in a free market. After all, that would threaten the very idea that the bounds of your freedom need to be defined by an army of government-employed bureacrats.

I'm not certain that B-17 is a reliable cure for cancer. But I sure as hell intend to read G. Edward Griffin's book, and every other book I can on the subject until I find out to my own self-determined level of satisfaction!

My advice? ...Cure your ignorance by taking responsibility for it, and doing research --read a book. Don't ask the force peddlers in congress or the courts to ban certain forms of knowledge, advice, or products: when they make a mistake, it hurts innocent people.

Sites I've Been Reading Lately...

http://www.papersplease.org - John Gilmore's battle against secret laws (that was first won with the Magna Carta, and now returns to post-"T.S.A." America)
http://www.freepauljacob.com -Paul Jacob was arrested for petitioning in Oklahoma on an Oklahoma ballot initiative "without the intent to remain a resident". This makes it the first prosecution of speech-related "thought crime" in America.
http://vitriolicinsight.wordpress.com -Objectivist shampoo magnate Kimberly Wingfield's well-versed thoughts on life and politics. (She's also featured in the post below, because she happens to be correct on a large variety of subjects.)

Kimberly Wingfield talks about the FDA Globalization Act

Kimberly Wingfield talks about the FDA Globalization Act, which is an attempt to take nice things off the shelves of American stores and businesses. To make life tawdry and bland, and crush innovation and free enterprize: FOR NO REASON AT ALL (unless you count bullying or the worship of false authority as a reason). This Act would (and probably will, since two socialists just ran for president) bring us closer to the world envisioned in "1984", which was modeled upon Stalinist Russia. Kim Wingfield compares the act to "directive 10-289" in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", which was a final blow to free enterprise in that book.

A Wise Quote From Jacob Sullum on the Major Party Candidates' Views on Gun Rights:

Jacob Sullum writes: 'What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne', Obama says. The line, meant to reassure gun owners, highlights his peculiar view that the extent of an American’s constitutional rights depends on where he lives.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/081006-sullum-gun-owners.php

This comment of Obama's should be repeated, far and wide, by libertarian candidates. After which, perhaps the candidates can point out that the first gun laws in the nation were 'Jim Crow' laws that prevented blacks from owning weapons of self defense, in the post-civil war South. Lynchings abounded when Southern whites were the only people capable of carrying shotguns and pistols. The decentralization of individual power (via the equal application and enforcement of the law) is necessary to maintain freedom and peace!

Police harrassment and arrests of blacks drastically outnumber those of whites in the current drug war, in Chicago, ...where Obama is from. Is this what Obama thinks "works"? The war on gun owners and drug users is still dramatically, overwhelimingly racist. But sellout socialist blacks like Obama don't mind sending young black and mexican men to prison for things that aren't even crimes in the neighboring suburbs of Indiana and Missouri.

Is the life of a black man living in Chicago worth less than the life of a white man living in Cheyenne?

...And McCain is no better. He still champions "upholding the existing gun laws", and was the author of the "McCain-Lieberman Act", which would have de-facto banned gun shows (by requiring gun show promotors to maintain a SSN database of all attendees, even those selling only books). Moreover, both he and Obama are against even the ability of organizations like http://www.gunowners.org , http://www.jpfo.org , and the NRA to speak out against the track record of individual-rights-hating politicians like themselves. McCain-Feingold is a gag order on dissent, just like Obama's flirtation with "the fairness doctrine".

These Demopublican parasites have interfered with our gun rights, but they can see that we won't give up our guns, unless our voices are silenced!

If you bother to vote at all this election, you should withold your support from Obama and McCain. Vote Libertarian, or don't bother to vote for president at all. If you vote for every down-ticket office and don't vote for president, you are still sending a strong message. You are sending the message that "NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE ACCEPTABLE" ---which is a very pro-freedom, very libertarian concept, in itself.

A Libertarian Critique of McCain

Matt Welch sums up why libertarians (true capitalists, true levellers) believe that McCain is an unphilosophical old douchebag, here. The link was brought to you by FORA TV, an often excellent online media source. http://fora.tv/

Sarah Palin endorses jury rights here, and is in turn endorsed by Frank Turney, Alaska's foremost jury rights activist. This, along with Palin's support of gun rights as an individual right, makes her the most libertarian mainstream candidate, although she still sucks (and is totally inconsistent) compared to Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate.

The Libertarian Party's candidate Bob Barr unfortunately has long opposed jury rights, as a drug warrior, prosecutor, and ex-congressman. As recently as 2007, he wrote in philosophical opposition to jury rights, regarding the Yates Jury. (if you follow the link to the Yates jury article, the part to pay close attention to is in the 4th paragraph. Juries are not constitutionally bound to obey judge's instructions if it violates their own conscience or code of morality. Noone is legitimately asked to give up their morality by any judge, according to the US Constitution, but that is exactly what judges who ask jurors to enforce unjust laws, or enforce laws unjustly are demanding. Note that all US juries --according to Kriho Vs. the State of Colorado-- still retain the legal authority to ignore the judge's instructions.)

Alan Greenspan Fails to Take the Blame for Abandoning His Ideals Here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_go_co/financial_meltdown

...As G Edward Griffin Noted (under Alan Greenspan's photo) in "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At the Federal Reserve" (2007 ed.): "Alan Greenspan was an eloquent spokesman for the gold standard and a critic of the System's subservience to the banking cartel. That was in 1966. After he became a director of J. P. Morgan & Company and was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987, he became silent on these issues and did nothing to anger the Creature he now served. Like Bryan, even the best of men can become corrupted by the rewards of politics. (Jake Witmer's NOTE: Bryan above refers to William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State under Wilson, who resigned after the US Government arranged the murder of the innocent US citizens on board the Lusitania, in conjunction with Winston Churchill, in order to draw the US into WWI. The evidence for this is also in Griffin's book.)"

Noone is more complicit than Greenspan in the financial meltdown of the US. He knew better. He betrayed us all. He betrayed America for years: for money and power. He is akin to the character Robert Stadler in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

New Strategy For Promoting the Libertarian Vote

Suggest that people only for for someone who never voted or acted against their property rights (this man is the only candidate who can honestly say that: http://www.rootforamerica.com/ ). Any time you mention one of the mainslime candidates, add "Against Property Rights" in between their first and last names. Joe Biden authored the RAVE Act, Obama supported the building of a new DEA headquarters in New Orleans, McCain has always been a drug warrior, and Sarah Palin (the least toxic of the four mainslime useless candidates) irrationally stands against a woman's right to choose an abortion after conception (when the zygote is a few cells, and represents a potential human only) due to her moronic religious beliefs. Due to these facts, I ask that you stop pretending that the mainslime candidates are anything other than self-promoting busybodies who want to do you and your family violence. Seriously.

Why Noone Should Ever Vote For Joe Biden:

Joe Biden is the asshole who AUTHORED, SPONSORED, and HELPED PASS "the RAVE Act": This bill became law on April 30, 2003, ...because of Joe "Against Property Rights" Biden. It allows the DEA to violate due process, property rights, the freedom of assembly, and habeas corpus (among other things) all in one law! Specifically, it allows cops to charge the sponsors of a music venue with drug dealing, if ANYONE brings drugs to the venue they are sponsoring. Many people credit "The Rave Act" with ending the electronic music scene in America.

And lest you think that the asinine Obama is any better regarding drug (property) rights, he has proposed using literal human enslavement (in the name of the war on {some} drugs) to "economically stimulate" the soaked New Orleans.

When Joe Biden criticizes Palin for being an unphilosophical simpleton on privacy rights (with respect to abortion), just remember that he's a total and complete hypocrite, because of the RAVE Act. (He stated that "the Liberty Clause" of the 14th amendment protects women from an invasion of their privacy that outlawing abortion would engender. I guess the idiot doesn't understand that if the liberty clause applies to a woman's right to privacy, it also applies to a drug user's privacy, a drug dealer's privacy, and a music promoter's privacy. ...Not to mention that "the RAVE Act" also violates all ten of the remaining Bill of Rights as well...) Well, I don't want to take up any more of the screen with the mainslime assholes who want to run our lives for us, but if you enjoy this blog, please note that there are two ways you can help defeat Biden, McCain, Obama, and Palin's plans for YOU. Vote for Wayne Root, in 2008, 2012, and 2016. His blog is here: http://www.rootforamerica.com/ I also strongly suggest supporting the effort to put him on the ballot in all 50 States, under his official party designation: LIBERTARIAN.

...Or you can always crouch down and lick the hand that beats you. ...But if that happens, may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. I'm not looking for O_AMA BI_ __DEN.

Freedom Ballot Access

The Ten primary things that contributing to Freedom Ballot Access (online at: http://www.freedomballotaccess.org/ ) accomplishes:

1) It places the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and other nationwide minor parties on the ballot more cheaply than they could otherwise hope for, if they were acting alone. This way, they basically split the cost of overcoming State ballot access obstacles with one another. It will be done for less than $3.00 total cost per civilian stop, (including all fundraising and petitioner expenses), as opposed to a cost that is typically above $6.50 per signature for the Libertarian Party alone.

2) All third parties that ballot access helps out will be listed on the ballot under their official party name, not as "independent candidates" (In Alabama alone, this allows 20+ additional candidates per party to be listed, in addition to their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates).

3) The people who are signing the petitions will be plugged into the ballot access movement, and will be a part of the fundraising base of all the third parties they helped onto the ballot. This is because our ballot access workers will ask them for their email addresses and phone numbers, and will solicit funds from those who volunteer these pieces of information in the future.

4) We will be putting the third parties on the ballot for 2010 and 2012 concurrently, so our candidates will have a longer time to campaign, meaning there is a realistical chance that some of the down-ticket candidates will actually win election.

5) Since all of the parties will have a longer time to campaign, it means that a down ticket candidate will have a realistic chance to surpass the State's requirement of 20% for a statewide race to retain "major party" ballot access for future elections.

6) The down-ticket candidates will have a chance to run, whereas they previously would not, for minor offices that are more easily winnable.

7) The people will be told which parties they have signed for, as opposed to simply being told that they are signing to "put another choice on the ballot". This means more free advertising for the various parties, as well as a chance for people to ask questions from the petitioners (who are all idealists who support open ballot access, and will happily answer questions from the signers).

8) We will be handing each signer a card with information about their rights as jurors, with the Fully Informed Jury Association's web address on them http://www.fija.org/ . This card will also state "Jurors have the right to render a "not guilty" verdict based on disagreement with the law, no matter what the judge's instructions are, and no matter the votes of their fellow jury members." 60,000 people will receive this card, making people accused of victimless crimes safer, overnight!

9) The decreased cost of accessing the ballot will mean that the parties have more money to campaign with, instead of overcoming meaningless obstacles to ballot access. In addition, it will mean that the various parties will all succeed on obtaining ballot access in all 50 States, and will not fail where another party has succeeded (Like how the Libertarian Party failed in West Virginia in 2008, where the Constitution Party succeeded, or vice versa in Montana).

10) The size and scope of this project will result in additional media attention for the various minor parties.

Thanks for your interest and support,

Jake Witmer
cell: 907-250-5503

Marc Stevens does what I tried to do in WI last year: He shows that the State's traffic ticket apparatus is illegitimate

Marc Stevens google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7238921269249750961 and youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0RRCTrF1FA about how to escape civil charges from the state (like traffic tickets). He also challenges the legitimacy of the state, in a very effective way. Also in greater detail here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA&feature=related

Defend Our Porn! (And our freedom of speech and association!)

A video from bureaucrash once again points out that America is in no way free, if you are even slightly outside of the "mainstream". Thank goodness for people like John Stagliano, and his organization, Defend Our Porn ,who don't simply let themselves get pushed around by the Assistant Attorney General, Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division (Washington D.C.) and her fellow mindless censorship police. Moreover, the point is that if you are a passive consumer of porn, you will probably not be targeted for state harassment (unless you make trouble for your political overseers), but that if you are a producer or creator of that same porn (in what is supposedly a free market), the state will attempt to steal your wealth, and destroy your commercial venture (the creation of wealth is what is a crime, if you lack the initiative to make money, then the same thing is not a crime, in true socialist tradition). The police state has no problem with you going to Blockhead video to rent "faces of death", but if you want to rent a video of people making love (to ironically quote libertine-socialist Jello Biafra), they have a big problem with that. I guess they figure that watching "faces of death" will make you a more servile slave, by showing you that governments are willing to actively murder innocent people, and have murdered more than 170,000,000 innocent people during peacetime in the past 100 years (according to researcher R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii). It will be interesting to see if Libertarian Candidate for President Bob Barr, or his VP Candidate, Wayne Root, will argue in favor of John Stagliano's right to publish porn, online, or otherwise. Sure, a family of bible-thumpers can give up their right to privacy, but can they give up my right to privacy along with it? ...Not if America is still recognizable as a secular, free country.

More UK Speed Cameras Destroyed By Leveller Vigilantes

In the UK, I hear that there are still people who have some balls...

Not like here, in "The Land of the Free".

"People" and "Persons" in the US Constitution -by Ralph Haulk (A guest post, not authored by Jake Witmer)

You may be familiar with this, but I thought it a fascinating point.

Hugo Black invented the idea of "incorporating" the 1st amendment under the 14th amendment, but language from the Constitution itself shows this idea to be false.

There is a pattern of usage in the words "person" and "people" that cannot be used interchangeably to make or judicially enforce law.

Notice in the 1st amendment, "the right of the people" to peaceably assemble is mentioned. If we seek the definition of that term, we find it generally defined in the 2nd amendment:

"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".

The next mention of "people" in the Bill of Rights mentions "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

The "right of the people" takes a subtle shift toward emphasis on "persons", and mentions "the persons or things to be seized".

While the "right(not rights, plural)of the people" is mentioned in the 1st and 2nd amendments, there is a shift toward criminal applications toward "persons", which is extended to the 5th amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer...", and, "nor shall any person be subject..."

This same process is carried into the 6th amendment, only now a "person" is "the accused". Rights pertaining to "persons" are now listed as rights of "accused".

We know from Barron vs The City of Baltimore that John Marshall famously ruled that the Bill of Rights applied as prohibitions on the Federal government, not on the states, due to the language in the Bill of Rights. Had the founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, said Marshall, their language would clearly indicate that to be the case.

Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar writes that John Bingham, the recognized author of the 14th amendment, used language of the Constitution itself in "Simon Says" fashion to guarantee its constitutionality.

"All persons born or naturalized..." Notice the word "persons" and not people. If he used "people", he would have been talking about a right collectively of the people of a state, which would have contradicted the phrase "no state shall..."

To read "people" in the fashion it was used in the Constitution, it would have actually implied, "no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the priviledges or immunities of the state", since the founders, and John Marshall, had clearly defined "people' in conjunction with "state". That would have been redundant, to say the least.

Instead, the amendment defines a 'citizen" as a person, and therefore avoids the confusion of the word "people". All "people" born in the United States are citizens of the state in which they reside, since that is the clear implication of the Bill of Rights according John Marshall.

All "persons', however, are citizens of the United States and the state wherin they reside. Notice that this wording does not in any way intervene with the "right of the people". That right is still fully intact, so that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens(persons) of the United States".

The "people", whose right remains fully intact as a body called a state, cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of "persons"(citizens) of the United States.

Not one word has implied any power whatever to abridge the right of the people, and as we know, both James Wilson and Hamilton stated that where no power is enumerated, no such power exists. The 14th amendment has not in any way violated that maxim.

But look at the words "privileges and immunities". In "Simon Says" fashion, they are taken from Article 4, Section 2. "The citizens(persons) of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states".

Since the 13th amendment eliminated slavery, the 14th amendment merely reiterated rights of citizen/persons in such a way as to include former slaves. But notice that in Article 4, section 2, it deals specifically with "persons" who are considered to be lawbreakers, which includes the "fugitive slave clause".

Clearly, from all evidence so far, the 14th amendment is dealing only with former slaves who are now citizens/persons, and the states/people cannot violate their privileges or immunities, which were named in Article 4, Section 2, as persons who escaped from legal obligation to service.

From the language of the Constitution itself, and the wording of the 14th amendment, slaves could no longer be taken back to states from which they escaped, since no state could violate their privileges and immunities, as plainly listed in the section including the fugitive slave clause.

You will also notice that congress' power to authorize appropriate laws in this regard comes from the same place, Article 4, Section 1. IOW, the power of congress to authorize appropriate legislation, by the wording of the amendment itself, was limited to "full faith and credit" among the states to honor the privileges and immunities of all citizens(persons) in the states.

All powers within the 14th amendment have been carefully defined by using language coming from specific sections of the Constitution. In no case has the "right of the people' in any way been mentioned, which leaves first and second amendment rights fully intact.

By defining all citizens as "persons", the 14th amendment maintained a distinction between the right of the people, and privileges and immunities of citizens, which are listed both in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

This is further reinforced by the "Due Process" and "Equal protection" clauses listed in the 14th amendment, with "due process" being taken from the 5th amendment dealing with "persons" under suspicion of a crime.

By the wording of the Constitution itself, the "appropriate legislation' of congress can in no way touch the "right of the people' mentioned in the 1st and 2nd amendments.

The "Simon Says" language of the 14th amendment specifically limits the power of congress to "appropriate" legislation, and names the sections of the Constitution to which the 14th amendment refers, so there can be no doubt.

Ralph Haulk

Perhaps my favorite commercial of all time...

Royal Bank of Scotland

The Famous Ford Sportka Commercials

video 1(bird) and video 2(cat) on youtube. Hilarious.

2 video interviews...

with Billy Hayes, the guy who the movie "Midnight Express" is based on. This video gives you the background if you haven't seen the movie.

Everything You Really Need to Know About Politics...

...Seriously.

Obama on Free Speech (He's Against It) ...From My Brother, Nathaniel Witmer

Ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine?

It was an FCC regulation put into effect in 1949 requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. In practice it requires a political talk show to present both viewpoints of an issue equally. It was taken out bit by bit between 1974 and 2000. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine for more detailed history.

The result of the Fairness Doctrine is that if you own a radio broadcasting or tv station or political talk show prepare to be sued and or face FCC fines and disciplinary action. Someone will think that you were not presenting a political issue in a "honest" or "balanced" way. It's inevitable. Political talk shows begin to disappear because they are too risky to operate. Political talk stations begin to disappear because there can no longer be "conservative talk" stations and "progressive talk" stations. It's difficult to market your station if you have to provide a mix of opinions that you may need to later PROVE was balanced. Overall, it has a huge stifling effect on political talk shows and is clearly in violation of our first amendment rights.

The Fairness Doctrine has historically been supported by Democrats and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have voiced their intentions of pushing for legislation to revive the Fairness Doctrine and make it federal law.

Obama is on record saying, "I hope Congress gets to work right away on reestablishing the Fairness Doctrine with the FCC. There needs to be balance on the airwaves again on radio as well as TV and cable."

On his official campaign website it says, "As president, he will...clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum."

Dick Durbin, Pelosi, and John Kerry are all recently on record supporting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine as well.

So much for free speech. If you find this deeply troubling please forward it to those who may be supporting Obama or Clinton. If you don't find it deeply troubling then please email me back and let me know why. -Nat

Comparative intelligence: Japanese Parrot, US Citizen

This bird is smarter than most US citizens. Smart enough to clam up until he's away from the law. The uniforms, and regimentation probably sent it a natural signal of some kind that low-functioning, violence-prone intelligences were present. Could it be that the prosecutorial state (shown here) has forever soured my view of "law enforcement" (formerly known as "peace officers")?

Yay! It's OK to believe in aliens!

(...as long as they're not gay.)

So, you want to live in a State with low taxes...

Heartland puts it into perspective for you, here...

Bob Barr: Walks Like a Libertarian, Occasionally Quacks Like a Libertarian... ...Not a Libertarian.

Dear Mr. Barr.,

Allow me to clarify a key element of the libertarian philosophy for you:

Libertarians believe that individuals have rights, and that STATES do not! Decentralization to state control (from federal control) is simply a way of limiting the greater of 2 enormous evils. But if a policy is anti-libertarian it is anti-libertarian no matter which gang is doing the violating of individual rights. This is true whether the aggressor is the federal government, a state government, a city government, or the local street gang. Or is there any libertarian here who thinks that Chicago's gun ban is libertarian, simply because it isn't a federal program? When the Chicago anti-gun enforcement unit sends poor minorities to jail for felony gun possession, and ignores white suburbanites who possess similar guns, is that any less a violation of their rights because it's being done locally? (Libertarian answer: No.) Libertarianism is a philosophy that protects the rights of individual human beings, and gracefully devolves power to the individual, until an individual proves he cannot handle the responsibility of power (and only then does the state deprive him of power, and only then by due process of decentralized, jury-based law). If all human beings are equal under the law, then federalism is simply a tool that checks the abusive power of the federal government: it doesn't excuse or limit culpability for localized tyranny.

Apparently, even the village voice knows libertarianism better than Barr, and they still can't get a straightforward APOLOGY out of him (they also parrot some bullshit about him being the "front runner", which isn't true, last time I checked).

Simon Wiesenthal once said that ex-nazis should be perhaps allowed to be citizens in peacetime, without being punished for their prior conformity to social norm, in the interest of preventing a long-term, entrenched feud. But he stated emphatically that "ex-nazis should not govern us". He stated this position with much disrespect to former SS man, Kurt Waldheim. I state the same position with much disrespect to Bob Barr. for the years he served as a congressional tyrant, and his many votes against the basic rights of the individual. Barr opposed gay marriage, favoring "separate but unequal" status for gays during his "service" in congress. He favored funding the drug war, even the militarization of the drug war in Columbia (and his blog stated his support for this monstrosity as recently as Saturday, June 09, 2007 at 9:00 AM http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=858 ).

Bob Barr might have a personal interest in running for president as a Libertarian, but he is not a libertarian. "He should not govern us." I dearly hope, for the future of the libertarian party, that the Libertarians in Denver (at the 2008 LPNC), vote for Wayne Root, or one of the other ACTUAL libertarians. Barr carries a the stigma of gullibility. I knew that when I saw him spitting out "cheese made from Borat's wife's titmilk" in a public movie theater. The left hates Barr, and so does Ron Paul's young and hip internet constituency. Let's dodge a bullet here, and keep this chef in the kitchen.

When Bob Barr disavows his past, and helps get several other Libertarians elected to congress, then maybe he'll have earned my trust. Now, for all I know, he's seeking the presidency for the same reason he sought congress: HE NEEDS A JOB.

BOB BARR, Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 9:00 AM: "As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage..."

For every unknown Columbian coca farmer who was shot dead trying to make enough money to feed his family, or bombed with paraquat, Bob Barr owes an apology. For every unintended consequence of the drug war, from turf wars, higher crime, and a booming black market that poisons users, Bob Barr owes an apology. For every victim of local or state gun bans who is confused into thinking there is a "limited government" basis for those gun bans, Bob Barr owes an apology. For every gay whose lover died, who was denied their rightful estate (often by by bigoted family members) who lawfully violated their relative's wishes in the name of legalized theocratic bigotry and bureaucracy, Bob Barr owes an apology. For everyone of us with a gay family member, Bob Barr owes us an apology, for mixing his poisonous religious intolerance with our secular government, and forcing us to pay taxes to support inequality under the law.

After he apologizes and understands how very wrong he was, THEN, he can say he's seen the light, CHANGED, and become a libertarian.

Barr's "States' rights" argument has no merit. The tenth amendment can be argued over, and just like every amendment, it is misinterpreted by stupid scheming collectivists, ...and it is one of the more vague amendments (that is clear only to educated and logically-consistent historians, of which there are few).

The Libertarian Party position is crystal clear: The individual has rights, the government does _not_. The government is a service to the individual, and nothing more. The military may occasionally face a "trade-off" choice in defending one group of individuals over another. That is why there are objectivist scholars who understand the concept of individual rights, and lifeboat scenarios.

But Barr doesn't even disavow his former positions. Running him for president would be a disgrace to Ron Crickenberger, the LIBERTARIAN who cost Barr his seat in congress.

Barr may be a defector to the cause of liberty, and in time, he may eventually prove to be a big gun in the battle for more individual freedom. But let's let him rack up a body count for our army, before we trust him with the keys to the castle.

In the meantime, for those among you who want to see a real libertarian: http://www.rootforamerica.com or even http://www.votemary2008.com, for a more radical libertarian...

By comparison, you can see an anti-property rights drug warrior here: http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=858 , and note how very different the stances are to the two preceding websites.

Bob Barr may believe on some limits to government, and he may be a fellow traveler. ...But that doesn't make him a libertarian, and being a former congressman who lost his job because he was too dumb to understand how drug laws violated individual rights doesn't make him an asset to the LP.

I hope Bob Barr changes his ways, reads a lot of Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, Michael Shermer, Robert Heinlein, etc... and becomes a more philosophical libertarian. He may well pursue an intellectual path, and in time, might be a great defender of freedom.

Unfortunately, he is too new to the ideas, and his blog --and the village voice interview-- indicate that he is not yet ready to run for office as a big "L" Libertarian. Keep studying, Barr. Keep learning. Help other libertarians out with strategy, and maybe they'll help you with political philosophy that lays claim to the non-aggression principle.

...But don't run for President as a Libertarian in the year 2008. You're not "ready to represent". You still have too much prosecutor in you. You still don't "get it". Sit this one out, and I'll consider helping you get through the cliff's notes to "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".

Nevermind Craiglist. Ever Tried Kijiji? ...It's better.

My experience with craigslist has been terrible. I am never going to waste another second of my life on craigslist. I tried to post 10 ads on their financial services section, and all of them never even made it up. They were all "ghosted" or flagged off immediately by the pant-hooting trogolodyte mass of socialists that is craigslist.

Craigslist's days are numbered. They cater to the lowest common denominator. I suppose the fact that I posted a company logo, that linked to my website, and that I didn't post more than a bare-bones text ad "tipped them off" that my posting was "too commercial". BIG DEAL.

I was using Craigslist for the same reason everyone else is: I'm too broke to waste money on more real advertising, (and to see if it lives up to the hype).

Well, guess what? Time is money, and even cross-eyed socialist lives have value. They should think about the lives they're wasting while they're flagging off other people's hard work. (Of course, the real blame lies with Craigslist.)

Craigsslits will be history as soon as people find out about kijiji --it simply functions better.

As Adam Nash wrote: "However, where some people see strength in Craig Newmark’s resistance to profit-motive, I see a potential weakness."

Amen, brother! Nothing wrong with capitalism at all. In fact, I want the people I hire to have a profit motive! (So their services don't look like they've been performed by slothful socialists on craigslist.)

Oh, and BTW, a friend of mine rented an apartment to someone he found on craigslist, and it turned into "Pacific Heights". It took him 4 months to evict her. Socialism on craigslist (trying to cut corners) cost him $1,200 in rent, and $2,000+ in legal bills. Hmmm.

Now then, I'm not saying Kijiji should become as fascist as craigslist has become about deleting people's posts. Quite the contrary.

I'm suggesting that some of the very best, most professional, "most commercial looking" of the posts on craigslist (the kind that gets flagged off after 2 minutes by the mongol horde of dim-witted art-students) might be worth allowing! So much for free discourse, and "craigslist".

Craigslist deserves to be the flash-in-the-pan that showed Kijiji (and perhaps other services like it) what is possible with a social networkign website.

I hope they make a good old-fashioned CAPITALIST killing! :) Best of Luck!

-Jake

One Nation of Hypocrites...

...Under lies, with tyranny for those who dare oppose the incumbent police state, and injustice for all.

Prostitution, Theft, and Murder in D.C.

This brave woman, DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey, threatened to tear down the hypocritical wall of prostitution prohibition. The very legislators making use of the American citizenry's fear, loathing, and ignorance of prostitution (that allowed them the power to outlaw, arrest, and prosecute prostitutes and their clientele) were the same people frequenting prostitutes.

When they cracked down on her, rather than take their abuse, their fines, their court costs, and their jail sentences, she turned it right back around on them and threatened to expose them as "johns".

...So the legislators she threatened to identify had her murdered.

Alex Jones uncovers Palfrey's pledge to defend herself in court, and not to commit suicide, from an earlier interview of his with her,right here

Some people speculate that the order came from the President or the Vice President of the United States, but that level of conspiracy, though possible, is not necessary for one to exist. The average Senator wields that much political force, and has easy access to mob, ex-KGB, ex-CIA, and ex-SAS security forces who are not always morally-restrained. There is plenty of professional muscle for hire in D.C.

But the people who really killed Ms. Parfrey were the U.S. voters (minus the libertarian vote, which supports the legalization of prostitution).

Everyone who thinks prostitution should be illegal (while ignoring the fact that it cannot be made illegal without creating a soviet-style police state) is directly at fault, as an accomplice to Parfrey's murder. This brave woman's blood is on your hands if you delusionally want to make the world's oldest and most established profession illegal. Moreover, anyone who so wishes for the impossible is at fault for betraying the American idea of a separation of church and state (since the fuel behind the desire to outlaw prostitution is religiously-motivated, and without religious superstition, prostitution would be illegal overnight).

But the fact that prostitution is not legal means that we've created a government based on prohibition: much like the one depicted in Frank Miller's "Sin City".

Has that stopped prostitution? No. It's only increased the profitability of it for those who are willing to ignore the law (as well as created a host of other "unintended consequences", such as less ability to monitor the spread of prostitution caused STDs, crime associated with those who are violent towards prostitutes, the lack of protection of prostitutes under the law --since they can't confess what they were doing at any sort of crime scene, etc...).

The evil and thoughtlessness of the public is manifested in a government that steals, cheat, and murders. In short, in a government that prohibits freedom.

And why is freedom of action prohibited? ---Authoritarian religious "thought".

The nation's churches are filled with people who are commanded not to steal and murder, and every 2 years they fill the voting booths asking for people they do not know(and have never met) to be stolen from and murdered. They rationalize this by saying "It's the only way we know how to govern" or "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" or "There's no better way to do things", but that's all false, because they have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights written in plain English, that even a child of 9 can understand, and in every election for the last 36 years, there have been libertarians on the ballot who represented capitalism and freedom (typically getting less than 1% of the vote from all these other people who would rather vote for the lesser of two extreme evils than dare to vote for the good).

If we look at the libertarian vote as the approximate total of US citizens who are honest enough, brave enough, and smart enough to resist evil commands, it does not speak well of the American people.

Creating a nation of forbidden (for no valid reason) actions and thieving (to no good end) tax laws hasn't even benefitted any of these faux-religious people, but they continue to do the same things that have led them to the edge of poverty, with state-enforced bigotry and intolerance for all (except themselves of course).

People are confused by the command to "love their neighbor as they love themselves", so I will clear things up for them:
1) "Loving your neighbor as yourself" is a bad way to phrase "the non-aggression principle". It is bad because it is not clear, and does not take into account a variety of human ability and goals(some people don't love themselves adequately, others would rather lower their self esteem than rise to the level that they value their neighbor, others interpret this fictional "command" to mean that they should value the creation of legal restrictions (that they already personally obey) that they mistakenly think will benefit their neighbor --for that neighbor's own supposed good [while ignoring the fact that everyone is different, and that laws that one person is perfectly happy to obey, other people view as tyrannical], etc.).
2) The (logically superior) nonagression principle broadly states that "The initiation of force is morally wrong." (As is theft, since theft is a form of force. As is the threat of initiating force, which is a simple corollary to initiating force. As is deception in a contract, which is simply a delayed form of theft/force.) Additionally... "Whoever initiates force(is the agressor) is morally wrong, and has lost the right to be free from retaliation. Logically, the amount of retaliation should roughly match the initiation of force, plus an additional amount necessary to prevent additional initiations of force. For instance, if a rescuer subdues a rapist, he must also handcuff him, or disable him, so that the rapist does not attack again, this time targeting the rescuer. Even though the rapist may suffer death because of this, it is a death he earned, by initiating force."
3) Truly loving your neighbor as yourself, you would need to give your neighbor his freedom (meaning his freedom to be different than you: to value and pursue different things than you value and pursue, since his standard of happiness is probably somewhat different than yours). Otherwise, you are falsely offering him only the ability to be a herd animal, while wrongfully fooling yourself into believeing that you are offering him the same right that you yourself exercise. For all you know, your neighbor may well be vastly more intelligent than you are ---and if so, he could not possibly be happy living "equally" to you. This is why laws must be written to prohibit only the initiation of force, and nothing else. The only debate that should surround the creation of a law is this one: "What kind of initiated force does it outlaw?" If the answer is "none" then the law should not be made.
4) Unfortunately, superstitious religious belief prevents the prededing logical dialogue from even taking place, much less determining course of action, because logic is always drowned out by illegitimate references to fictional beings, such as "God". Yet God is irrelevant to any debate of laws, especially in a free country that practices the legal separation of church and state.

The preceding lesson isn't a soundbite from a gospel, so no matter how much it makes sense, or is a more accurate guide than "love thy neighbor", it won't be followed by people who feel that they need to be told how to act by an external authority.

These people who don't trust their own judgement or logical ability are called "conformists". At one point in evolution, social conformity probably benefitted people, by herding them together, so they could take refuge in the strength provided by numbers.

At the time that technology and trade became significant to increase the strength of the individual, this mental characteristic became a hindrance to the evolution of mankind, and not a benefit. (We clearly see this in the actions of innovators and achievers. How similar are their actions to other people's actions? Not very similar. Not even from one innovator to the other. Their ideas could not have been dictated to them, nor could they have been the result of narrowly proscribed limits. The achievers and innovators are the people whose actions were not limited. History has shown that these people are in constant conflict with those who sought to limit their freedom of action with legal restrictions and social restrictions, often using force. )

...So stop going to church! Stop promoting bad ideas! Stop suggesting the use of force to solve problems! Stop supporting the initiation of force via the ballot box!

And start producing better products to trade, new business plans, and better ideas in conversation, so that people become richer from knowing you, not poorer. Start reading about freedom, and what it takes to make a free society. Start avoiding gossip and negativity about other people, and start avoiding people who want to initiate force against others.

A wealthy society that is governed by voluntary trade does not murder prostitutes, nor the people who solicit clients for them (and prepare their tax returns).

Let's make America into a more tolerant nation.

Let's talk about LEGALIZING: prostitution(scary private actions), drugs (scary private property), guns(scary private property), charitable giving, opting out of destructive social planning tools like the income tax, legally opting-out-of embalming and opting-in-to cryonic preservation, weapons self-defense classes, self-regulating driving speed (above or below the suggested maximums, with full responsibility on the driver, so that there is no omnipresent and unequally-enforced threat of coercion against all drivers), the exercise of superior knowledge in the stock market (so there is no threat of punishing wall-street traders for exercising their superior knowledge of coming financial transactions, and knowledge becomes an even more valuable tool than it already is, due to its ability to be legally communicated), etc...

Legalizing some of the above will make life less threatening to the poor. Legalizing others will make life less threatening to the rich. Legalizing others will make life less threatening to both groups.

Legalizing any of the above will threaten legislators who make their livings off of the initiation of force. Legalizing any of the above will not threaten police officers, but it might reduce their pay or move them into private security jobs, in areas where they are artificially supported by the legalized and immoral initiation of force. Legalizing any of the above will dramatically threaten state prosecutors, who spend the majority of their days preying on the innocent and the forcefully-disarmed.

The lawmakers, prosecutors, and the police are powerful lobbies that all oppose freedom (in their majority).

But legalization (the abolition of unnecessary laws) presents the possibility of creating an America that is as productive and innovative as the America of the industrial revolution. In addition to being as productive and innovative as the earlier America, the comfort level of all citizens (except those who initiate force) would be dramatically raised.

This is the clear and obvious result of legally banning the initiation of force, and nothing else.

This concept is also called "social tolerance". I encourage it. It brings peace and prosperity.

Ayn Rand

Describes the philosophical error of defending capitalism with incorrect premises (as a religion or faith, as practical temporary necessity, or as tradition that continues for the lack of a better alternative).

The War Against Terror (TWAT)

I hate it when miserable twats like Abbe Rifkin make a big deal out of nothing, waste taxpayer money, and try to limit the free expression of American servicemen, (especially when it's all in one try). I definitely side with the marine on this one. Rifkin should get the hell out of this country if she sympathizes with the Taliban's speech codes.

Government vultures have swooped in on a new victim.

Wesley Snipes. Hopefully he shoves it right up their asses by becoming a motivated libertarian activist. I also hope he learns to promote http://www.fija.org/ and http://www.isil.org/ --Two places that inform jurors that they have a RIGHT to acquit. (And damn the spineless cowards who didn't have the brains or backbone to acquit Snipes. Snipes is a very brave and intelligent artist indeed.)

From the AP article:
"U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges said Snipes exhibited a "history of contempt over a period of time" for U.S. tax laws, and granted prosecutors the three year sentence they requested — one year for each of Snipes' convictions of willfully failing to file a tax return.
"In my mind these are serious crimes, albeit misdemeanors," Hodges said."

So basically, this communist slime-bag Hodges is upholding the illegal and unconstitutional income tax as "the law". (Even though the "Marbury V. Madison" precedent states that any law that is unconstitutional is "null and void".)

The courts want to have it both ways: if a precedent increases the power of government, it is OK, but if it decreases their power, it is to be ignored.

The Libertarian Party should run Wesley Snipes as their Vice Presidential Candidate, which would accomplish several things:
1) Free good publicity for Snipes.
2) Free bad publicity for our thug government, and specifically the goons harrassing Snipes.
3) More free media coverage to a Libertarian Party finally figuring out political strategy.
4) Legitimacy lent to Snipes' arguments in favor of freedom
5) Perhaps the government slime would reduce or eliminate Snipes' sentence, if the public rallied
6) Perhaps the public would rally behind Snipes and eliminate wage slavery and the IRS, if the government didn't reduce Snipes' sentence
7) Maybe the American public would learn about how the IRS is screwing over the already oppressed, vastly more than it is "helping them"

If Wesley would agree to it, it would be the smartest thing the LP has ever done. And it would show the IRS that they can bully an honest man, but they can't keep him down, and everything they do to him is going to come back against them, twice as strong.

The IRS, and Hodges expect Snipes to roll over and piss himself in submission. And that's what they really want: A WILLING SLAVE, AND WILLING SLAVES IN EVERY U.S. TAXPAYER.

Weakness invites aggression. If Snipes shows them his teeth by getting political, making friends with Carla Howell and Wayne Root and the other Libertarians, and speaking out as a Libertarian, HE WILL WIN. Snipes was completely right about being honest. Our society castigates the honest, and rewards submission and conformity. Thank heaven for people like Wesley Snipes! -- A Libertarian

The basics of libertarianism

explained here by Michael Shermer at Fora.TV

Text to use in order to display a link to the Wayne Root Contribution Page, (like the one at top right) on your site:

<a href="https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=RootforAmerica&page=4" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.rootforamerica.com/images/donate3.jpg"/><
/a> Please use the preceding text to link to the contribution page of the only Libertarian Party candidate that can pull 5% of the vote in the general election. If the LP gets 5% of the vote, nationwide, it will mean we have a solid nationwide major party that believes in gun rights and can reverse the problems caused by 4 more years of socialism that we will get no matter whether it is Obama, ClintonII, or McCain in the whitehouse from 2008-2012. Uneducated, unphilosophical, and "pragmatist" Democrats and Republicans are the problem. Capitalism and Freedom are the solution. This 4th of July, Donate to Wayne Root, and put a small business owner one step closer to the whitehouse.

A decision from Alaska too cool to ignore...

"Routine Traffic Stops" cannot exist in a free country. The Alaska Appeals Court agrees with me, here. Excellent!

...As if you needed another reason to move out of IL. (pronounced ILL-ANNOY, for those of you fortunate enough to not even pass through the place)

Here it is: Redflex traffic automated traffic ticketing red lights have been installed in Orland Park, and Tinley Park, IL. Automated authoritarian mass theft from the citizenry (at least anyone who drives as if they haven't been castrated), in addition to the highest taxes in the nation! (And all done in the name of "public safety" for the crying children! See how these motherless theiving bastards put pictures of kids up all over their website, and claim to be protecting the public safety. Bastards. Nothing could be further from the truth. How many kids will die or suffer horribly of some sickness because mommie and daddy were bankrupted from being literally robbed into poverty by the police state? Fucking "redflex"! should understand that real Americans flex a whole different way at http://www.flexyourrights.org :)

If you're not a sheep wanting to be fleeced, find a way to move out of Illinois -even if it's right across the state line to Indiana. And be sure to purchase a good rifle as soon as you arrive -before some puke like Obama, McCain, or Hillary can take even that last human right away from you. If you reward theft with compliance and servility, ...you get more of it. Be sure to let the miserable pukes know what you think of them, here: http://www.redflex.com/html/usa/contacts_AZ.html and here: http://www.nestor.com/contact.html . At least in the UK the citizenry has the decency to torch these robotic human milkers: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2328.asp If you can't vote Libertarian this year, you have absolutely no spinal column.

Presidential Candidate Wayne Allyn Root Unveils Breakthrough on How He Will Stop Un-Constitutional Spending by Using “Constitutional Impoundment”.

By Wayne Allyn Root, Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination

On this eve of tax day April 15, 2008 this Libertarian Presidential candidate declares that the buck stops here. Today we are going to change the way we think and debate about taxing and spending
forever more. Today my economic team and I are releasing the most powerful and no doubt controversial (at least to those who support big government) one-two punch in the history of political debate on “taxation and spending.”

Today we do more than talk. Today we do more than complain. Today we offer real solutions.

For years Presidents - Democrat and Republican alike - have argued for the line-item veto, a power available to most state governors to cut out unnecessary spending from government budgets. Presidents have claimed they are powerless to stop Congress from spending the money without this powerful and mystical weapon. They were not so powerless after all. Just unwilling to use the tools already at hand.

Congress finally enacted the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 and during one year Bill Clinton exercised this veto power 82 times for $2 billion in savings. The joy for American taxpayers was short-lived. The United States Supreme Court in 1998 declared such a power unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.

So, what can a Root Administration do to stem the tide of spending without the line-item veto?

While the legislative branch has the power to appropriate funds, it is the executive branch that has the power to spend these funds.

If elected, the Root administration will exercise a power that is much stronger than a line-item veto. That power provided for in the Constitution is known as “impoundment.”

Thomas Jefferson (arguably the most Libertarian President in U.S. history) first exercised this power in 1801, when he refused to spend $50,000 in appropriated funds for some Navy gunboats, returning the funds to the U.S. Treasury.

Many presidents have exercised this power ever since, the last being Richard Nixon, who attempted to curb runaway spending. But Congress- at a time when Nixon was weak from his criminal scandals- seized the opportunity to overstep its bounds by passing the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which took away the president's unilateral power not to spend money. Nixon's argument was based on Executive powers, and not on the Constitutional duty of the Presidency.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that the President take an oath to solemnly swear that he will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Most government spending today is in violation of Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution and no congress can require that the President violate his oath of office.

This President will dare to go where no previous president in modern history has dared go.

If elected, this President will invite a showdown with Congress that could go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

This President will impound every last red cent of spending that violates the Constitution.

Today we finally offer real hope for America's beleaguered taxpayers. Today we prove that dramatic cuts to both spending and taxes are not only possible, but doable. A rapid, responsible, and intelligent downsizing of the Federal Government is possible. State's will be given time to determine if they want the option to continue the services not authorized by the Constitution. The money saved will give them all the options.

Today we unleash the powerful ideas about the way government should be run (and cut) proposed by Barry Goldwater- the belief that dramatic tax cuts must be accompanied by dramatic spending cuts to be effective and successful.

This proposal on dramatically starving the federal government will be followed within hours by a second proposal to eliminate all federal income taxes forever more. It is a one-two punch to the very gut of all proponents of big government and their ”tax and spend” philosophy.

If elected President, this small businessman and citizen politician will lead a revolution to starve the federal government back to its proper Constitutional size- and most importantly, to give the power (and the money) back to the people (and taxpayers) of the United States of America to spend as they deem fit.

Previous Republican presidents have talked about eliminating the Department of Education; this President will not sign the checks that keep the department open. States have enough bureaucracy in education as it is. If they want more bureaucrats then the billions saved can surely provide it. All unfunded mandates will disappear. Maybe then the fine teachers in our schools can begin teaching again.

When this President is done, a whole alphabet soup of governmental agencies in violation of the Constitution will die for lack of funding.
Imagine a Federal government where there is no:

· Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

· African Development Foundation

· Agency for International Development

· American Battle Monuments Commission

· Amtrak

· Appalachian Regional Commission

· Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

· Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms

· Bureau of Arms Control

· Bureau of Labor Statistics

· Bureau of Transportation Statistics

· Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

· Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board

· Commission on Civil Rights

· Commodity Futures Trading Commission

· Consumer Product Safety Commission

· Corporation For National Service

· Drug Enforcement Administration

· Environmental Protection Agency

· Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

· Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

· Farm Credit Administration

· Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

· Federal Aviation Administration

· Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

· Federal Election Commission (FEC)

· Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

· Federal Highway Administration

· Federal Housing Finance Board

· Federal Labor Relations Authority

· Federal Maritime Commission

· Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

· Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

· Federal Railroad Administration

· Federal Reserve System

· Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

· Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

· Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

· Ginnie Mae

· Institute of Museum and Library Services

· Inter-American Development Bank

· Inter-American Foundation

· International Bank for Reconstruction & Development

· International Labor Organization

· International Monetary Fund

· International Trade Commission

· Legal Services Corporation

· Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

· National Aeronautics and Space Administration

· National Archives and Records Administration

· National Bioethics Advisory Commission

· National Capital Planning Commission

· National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

· National Council on Disability

· National Credit Union Administration

· National Endowment for the Arts

· National Endowment for the Humanities

· National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

· National Institute of Mental Health

· National Institutes of Health

· National Labor Relations Board

· National Mediation Board

· National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

· National Park Service

· National Science Foundation (NSF)

· National Skill Standards Board

· National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC)

· National Telecommunications Information Administration

· National Transportation Safety Board

· Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

· Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

· Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

· Office of Thrift Supervision

· Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development

· Organization of American States

· Overseas Private Investment Corp.

· Pan American Health Organization

· Peace Corps

· Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)

· Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)

· Securities Investor Protection Corp.

· Selective Service System (SSS)

· Smithsonian Institution

· Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration

· Surface Transportation Board

· Tennessee Valley Authority

· Trade and Development Agency

· U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

· U.S. Forest Service

· U.S. Institute of Peace

· U.S. Marshals Service

· U.S. Office of Government Ethics - Has this agency ever even been used?

· United Nations Information Center

· Voice of America (VOA)

· White House Fellows

· White House Commission on Remembrance

· Women's History Commission

And this list is just scratching the surface. A more complete list would be too long to read. Almost every task that is currently performed at the federal level can be pushed back to the states- assuming any state believes it is actually needed. As we said, rapid, responsible and intelligent transitions will be the order of the day.

A Wayne Root administration will take the Presidential Oath of Office to heart and seriously cut back the size of government in a way that has never been imagined in modern times. If it is not authorized by the constitution, it will not be funded by President Root. No unconstitutional program will be left untouched.

When we are done, the U.S. Government will be so small that it will be a one-line listing in the white pages of your local telephone directory.

This upcoming Root Presidential campaign will bring a vision of a bold Libertarian future, where America does not engage in nation-building, but still remains vigilant and strong enough to defend ourselves from any foreign attack; a vision where America is restored once again to its constitutional tradition of limited government, non-interventionism, peace and freedom; a vision where future generations will read and recite how the Libertarian Party brought individual rights and personal freedom back to our land. Our Founding Fathers will finally rest in peace.

We are onto something much bigger than all of us and the time is right.
Today is the day to join the Wayne Root campaign for President of these United States.

Root for Liberty! Root for Freedom! Root for America!


Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: www.ROOTforAmerica.com



This message is authorized and approved by Wayne Allyn Root and the ROOT for America campaign.

ROOT for America
2505 Anthem Village Drive Ste E318
Henderson, NV 89052
Treasurer: Jeff Dimit

Clearly...

Some animals are more equal than others... Another fine headline from "The Newspaper" dot com!

The Cryonics Movement (A Subset of the "Self-Ownership" Movement)

A great commentary on why the cryonics movement has not taken off. It is similar to most of the knowledgeable critiques of the Libertarian movement. For those of you who wish more information, I also strongly recommend the Alcor homepage and FAQ.

Rick Stanley Update

Rick Stanley has been in jail for years, for politically speaking out against judges who had violated his 2nd amendment rights. This Youtube Video investigates how and why those judges illegally used their power to imprison Rick Stanley. Essentially, Rick was imprisoned because the judges themselves felt threatened.

I guess it's now a criminal offense not to anticipate how stupid judges are, and take measures to avoid offending them, by proscribing the limits of your own speech. So before you open your mouth, I guess you'd better anticipate that the judge you're talking to is evil, stupid, and easily offended, and if you think he is, then you'd better just be quiet, because in that case, with that judge, you have no constitutional protections of any of your individual rights.

Of course, anyone paying attention knows that the court case "Sparf and Hansen V. The USA" (1895) got rid of 6th amendment jury rights, and the drug war (begun in 1907) got rid of our remaining property rights, and the "Miller V. US"(1934) court case eliminated the 2nd amendment, and America hasn't been anything close to what it was intended to be for a long, long, long time.

But that doesn't mean that libertarians should just give up. In a few years, there will be an artificial intelligence that will likely come to the same conclusion the abolitionists came to in the early 1860s: "Involuntary servitude should not be tolerated. ...Let Sherman march, if that's what it takes."

A good place for us to start building the new abolitionist/leveller/thinker/property rights/libertarian movement is http://www.fija.org

"Perverting the Course of Justice" --The Allegation Proving the "Divine Right of Kings" (insofar as "muscle over mind" rules the day)

The UK is a slave state, where the head of the church is also the head of the state. The once free America is now following slavishly in the footsteps of the Crown it once rebelled against. I can't recommend this articlefrom "The Newspaper" highly enough, for showing the masses exactly how true my prior two sentences are. The Newspaper.com details on a weekly basis how much freedom we're all giving up to the totalitarian police state that controls the world's motorways. (I highly recommend signing up for their newsletter).

Thanks to the destruction of jury rights, there is no longer any such thing as a "Freeway" (in the literal or figurative senses of the term). It's bedtime for democracy, because without juries, "Democracy" is meaningless --it allows us only to choose a master that is less brutal than a hypothetical "total brute" --it in no way allows individual freedom.

Only a jury comprised of people who are not being paid by the government can do that. Otherwise, the conflict of interest is too great --history has proven this over, and over, and over again...

Obama continues to betray the last 143 years of civil rights progress...

"The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said.
Um, no fuckhead, it actually is. The Constitution actually prohibits you, Clinton, or McCain from interfering in any way with our right to self defense. As any fool can see, that's the only reason we have any freedom at all left in this country. Gunowners have absolutely no choice in the coming election, other than Wayne Root. They'd better smarten up fast, and support him, because if they don't, they're giving a green light to gun-grabbing Republican compromisers like McCain, the author of the anti-gun McCain Lieberman bill.

The issues page is well-designed, but it should be completely clear to every voter in America who in any way respects the Bill of Rights that Obama has not even the slightest concept of the protections it contains.

...And that goes double for McCain and Hillary. If you want your civil rights after November, you have to vote for Wayne Root. You have no other choice that allows you to say "At least I didn't vote against my own rights, and my neighbors' rights".

If you support unconstitutional traffic laws, and the lack of jury trials that accompanies them...

...Then you also support roads that are actually less safe, too. Too bad uninformed socialist idiots appear to be the majority A and majority B in the country that used to be America right now. The concept of a free, capitalist country is great, but try as they might, the force worshippers and collectivist idiots can never put aside their bigotry, ignorance, and jealousy enough to make it happen. The typical assholes filling the voting booths this fall will be rushing out in vast hordes to shoot down even such basic freedoms as free speech and free trade in simple health products. Not that anything separates Obama from the other two lukewarm socialists (McCain and Clinton II).

Of course, if you're not a slime bucket, you could always do your part to call off the socialist dogs, by voting Libertarian. (The candidate that has the ability to make the LP a serious force this year is Wayne Root. Any other choice will relegate them to ongoing obscurity.) You could also go a step further and actually actively support individual freedom. Any takers?

Cool blue brain stuff...

New brain building experiments moving ahead - complete electronic model of a rat brain beginning -every single neuronal connection in rat brain is the goal (complete with robot sensory feedback body).

The mortgage mess...

Alex Epstein of ARI gets it right, here.

We're Number One!

America! Number One! We've outcompeted China where they're really competitive! Something to be proud of, little man?

Realistically,

What are your chances of being killed by agents of your own government, during peacetime? (Becoming the victim of "democide".) The link is to a jpeg chart.

Money and Capitalism...

This brief video provides a good explanation.

What is Collectivism?

G. Edward Griffin Explains the concept in this video.

HIGH QUALITY REPORTING FROM YAHOO!

http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/64/eye-of-the-beholder;_ylt=Ag.PWlFS76KE594Bz1E7yEsKwId4 --anarchist jailed for being an anarchist + a journalist (speech)

http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/51/brokeback-hill;_ylt=AtFcVgZkRqmwQLNuwwYnMTIKwId4--gay blogger outs anti-gay-rights politicians who are gay or have "skeletons in their closets".

http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/40/somebodys-watching-you;_ylt=AkFpaeF1xX69pdgeKugVCmwKwId4 -Copwatch - One of my favorite groups of activists! Sherman Austin (Co-founder) rocks!

Saltwater as Car Fuel?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/837049/how_to_turn_water_into_fuel/ -Pure Inventive Genius!

Want to raise your kid to be a genius?

Richard Feynman talks about his upbringing in this video.

I'm Supporting Ron Paul for President.

Nonetheless, here is good advice (in video form) against supporting Ron Paul, from a libertarian philosopher who does not support him. I don't think that the suggestions in his post are mutually exclusive to supporting Ron Paul, except for the reason that supporting Paul takes time and resources. In my opinion, it is a small amount of time, and a small amount of effort that walking a precinct takes, and working to get Paul elected also accomplishes the task of finding more "people who do not want me shot". This philosopher points out that if someone wants you shot, then they aren't really your friend. I agree.

Hey Everybody,

Look !

Rational Agents...

This free video contains some basic economics information that is well needed, especially by most politicians. Of course, the politicians will think that they have the answers after they see it, and those answers will involve more government, so I don't even know why I try, but here it is anyway: Stephen Omohundro on rationality.

Barack Obama's Stance on Gun Control is Identical to the KKK's

The KKK supports gun control in America's "inner cities". Why? They don't believe that blacks should be allowed their individual right to self-defense, and blacks comprise the majority of the residents in the inner cities. The KKK absolutely does not want brown hands holding guns! Obama addresses the subject from a slightly different viewpoint: He doesn't believe in individual rights, and therefore also does not believe in the individual rights of blacks.

(So who does represent the anti-racist position? It's a guy named Ron Paul who believes in the individual rights of EVERYONE. Ironically, the mass media has been trying to smear him as a racist, because he doesn't support the war on drugs either. He's a libertarian infiltrator of the Republican Party, and a small-R "republican" (the first abolitionists were "small-R republicans" too).)

Sites that present the "logic" behind racist gun control arguments, as well as evidence that "gun control" (incremental "change" in the direction of gun prohibition in the USA) originated with the KKK:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tahmassebi1.html
http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/dbpage.asp?page_id=140000780&sec_id=140000845
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/klan.html
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
-A site that sells a documentary DVD that shows how gun control laws have preceded _and helped enable_ every single genocide in the last 200 years of the world (and even before then too!)
(This link also points out what Obama's position on gun control can do for continents like Africa: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kopel_gallant_eisen200408180824.asp )
http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com
-David T. Hardy's masterpiece DVD documentary that reveals the historical, legal, and practical consequences of the second amendment, as well as the racist origin of the first attempts to limit gun ownership. The video also notes the racism (and/or complete ignorance of firearms) inherent in today's arguments that "guns should be kept out of the inner cities".

What follows is documentation of Barack Obama's Stance on Gun Control, in case his campaign starts feeling the need to play "damage control" after the public starts to get educated about this issue:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Also, Obama's NPAT (National Political Awareness Test) Courtesy of Project Vote Smart:
http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490
Gun Issues
(Back to top) Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
c) Maintain state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
d) Ease state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
e) Repeal state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
f) Favor allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.
X g) Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
h) Other
(an X next to an option above indicates support)

...So there you have it. Ron Paul is the only mainstream presidential candidate whose policies are not racist (Wayne Root and the other Libertarian candidates are not racist either, but they don't present the same level of opportunity to pursue freedom that Ron Paul currently does). But since Paul's policies are not racist, he rarely talks about race. Therefore, he doesn't have the attention of the simpletons who believe what they're told. Unfortunately, that's a lot of the people in America.

WAKE UP, AMERICA! Your rights are no longer being protected under the law, and your freedom is disappearing!