Jake Witmer's Blog

Rogan Brings The Truth About Ron Paul

2012-01-27T05:04:00.000-08:00

Doug Miller: Alabama Delegate For Ron Paul Sets The Record Straight About The Delegate Nomination Process:

2012-01-27T04:34:00.000-08:00

A spreadsheet that breaks down the delegate count, and what it means for Ron Paul's candidacy.

A Great Quote For Libertarians

2012-01-24T23:11:00.000-08:00

Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win. Political technology determines political success. Learn how to organize and how to communicate. Most political technology is philosophically neutral. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win.

-Morton Blackwell

Ben Swann Explains The Current Republican Delegate Count

2012-01-22T10:24:00.000-08:00

The South Carolina Congressional Districts that Ben Swann talked about in the above video:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SC-districts-108.JPG
For each of the above South Carolina congressional districts that Paul won, he gets 2 delegates. It doesn't appear that he won any of them, but if his votes were all concentrated in one or two districts, then he could leave SC with a few delegates. Why wasn't this known in advance? If it was known in advance, then why weren't badass communicators on Paul's team dispersed to South Carolina, weeks ago? (Granted, I understand that a few of them remained in Iowa, and that they did great work there. I also understand that Pennsylvania is a state with tons of delegates, and tons of Ron Paul support to be snapped up, or lost.)

Right now, Ron Paul has 10 (out of a possible 62) delegates who are pledged to vote for him. Romney has between 7 and 21 (I don't know how many Romney got in SC, but they are hard delegates, it's 2 per congressional district he won). Newt has the most "hard (bonehead) delegates" right now, at 11 "hard" and a possibility of 25.

Here's the breakdown:
Iowa (only "soft" unpledged delegates): Paul - 7 soft, Romney/Santorum 18 soft (25 soft total)

New Hampshire (usually has 24 "hard" delegates, this year demoted to 12 for breaking GOP scheduling rules): 7-Romney, 3-Paul, 2-Hunstman(go to establishment, against Paul now that Huntsman is out).

South Carolina (usually has 50 delegates, this year demoted to 25 for breaking GOP scheduling rules. Therefore all the media hooplah about "No GOP president has ever won without winning South Carolina" is nonsense. This is usually the case, because South Carolina is usually TWICE as powerful in terms of delegate count.): 11-Newt(hard), 14-undetermined by this blog, but somebody knows who they go to, since it's based on known SC congressional district results. Paul apparently didn't pick up any delegates here. Too bad. If he'd have had more resources (or they were better allocated) he could have had people on the ground in Abbeville County, and the surrounding counties, and maybe won the 2 delegates from Congressional District 3. Paul got 22% in Abbeville County, the largest percentage of any county in South Carolina.

In any State that does winner-takes-congressional-districts, it would really benefit the Paul camp to allocate a lot of resources to rural congressional districts, and give rousing pro-gun, anti-tax speeches. The gun rights issue attracts single-issue voters, more than any other issue, other than taxation, which is universally applicable. If Paul did this, he could really optimize his race based on delegate count, and stay competitive for a lot longer than he's likely to, right now. (I'm hoping for the best, but realistically, Super Tuesday in 2008 was a flood of zombies from liberal states, where conservatives wrongly thought they were being conservative by voting against individual personal freedoms.)

Based on the following map, it looks like virtually all South Carolina's delegates go to Newt Gingrich, the "Russian Roulette" candidate (you never know when a scandal caused by his egomania and sociopathy will erupt). Since Newt is (by track record) an unelectable sociopath (who pays lip service to free market ideas while self-contradictorily advocating that people get the death sentence for marijuana possession), it's anyone's call how his former delegates get divided up, in Tampa. Maybe they'll all do the sub-optimal but most honorable thing, and committ seppuku, en masse. Or, if there's a benevolent God, perhaps they'll do the optimal thing, and send their votes to Ron Paul, the only republican in the race.

Now, some people might think that my suggestion of voluntary Seppuku for pseudo-republican traitors to the USA is a little harsh, but think about it: Not only are they betraying their country, by voting in favor of social intolerance and financial servitude (and therefore against enlightenment values), they are doing so on the eve of a looming U. S. financial collapse. So, there's a real likelihood we could see the collapse of western civilization, based on their vote. Opposition to enlightenment values is basically serving Al-qaeda, or some other form of theocratic tribalism. Moreover, they are willfully ignoring the historical decay of the Weimar Republic in the pig-headed defiance of the rule of law, jury trials, and a free market.

So, an overview of the delegate situation, as it stands on January 21, 2012:

"Hard delegates" pledged = 37.
Of that 37:
7-9 are for Romney.
3 are for Paul.
11-25 are for Newt.
2 are for Huntsman.

Including the "soft delegates" (the delegates that remain unpledged until the GOP convention in Tampa), we can assume that the breakdown is between Ron Paul (republican principles) and the banking establishment (anti-republican socialist "establishment" principles). Including the soft delegates who have indicated they will vote one way or another (7 Iowa delegates indicated they were voting for Ron Paul), the picture tilts a little in Paul's favor:

7-9(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Romney (total of 27 right now).
3(+7 soft) are for Paul (total of 10 right now).
11-25(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Newt (total of 25 right now).
2 are for Huntsman. (These two get added to Romney or Gingrich)

(I believe "hard delegates" can be reassigned at the convention, if their candidate does not win on the first ballot, or does not have a chance of winning on the first ballot. So, these get added to Newt or Romney's "establishment" vote totals, as "establishment" votes, unless Paul is close, in which case they go to him as "power-worship" or "favor-seeking" votes. The latter case is highly unlikely, given the desire for control that the sociopathic banking establishment has.)

So, right now, the establishment is divided against itself, Romney has approximately 27 delegates, Gingrich has approximately 25 and Paul has 10. If you count Gingrich and Romney as "the establishment," then it's 52 establishment (Romney-Gingrich) and 10 freedom (Paul) votes. Not good for individual liberty, but not a death-knell either. If Paul is knocked out of this presidential race, then I'm supporting R. J. Harris for the Libertarian Party nomination.

Ron Paul Explains What's Wrong With the NDAA

2012-01-21T10:45:00.000-08:00

Joe Rogan Talks About National Defense Authorization Act w/Duncan Trussell

2012-01-20T12:57:00.000-08:00

Undercutting the Racist Establishment

2012-01-20T10:33:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul is heroic. I'm a middle aged person who would NEVER vote for any of the other mainstream false republicans. Incidentally, Ron Paul is right about getting his delegates on the ballot. If he does that, he's still a contender, because it can come down to him and Mitt "obviously unelectable" Romney, Newt "even less electable, death sentence for marijuana" Gingrich, or Rick "google santorum" Santorum. As soon as it's just 2 candidates, the other candidate will LOSE because distractions and lies don't work as well, when it's "mano e mano." Notice how Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all favor the Federal Reserve system, the drug war, some form of individual tax on labor or consumption. Materially, they favor UNACCOUNTABLE SYSTEMS OF CONTROL.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.

That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org

One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:

1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.

2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)

3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)

4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.

5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.

6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."

7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.

Again, Paul Butler's page is http://www.jurorsforjustice.com

I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.

Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.

Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.

Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.

Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.

The Most Important Court Case in the USA

2012-01-13T15:12:00.000-08:00

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/activist-appeals-felony-ruling-for.html
If this court case is lost, then free political speech no longer exists in the USA. Watch the videos, pay close attention. If Mark Schmidter loses his case, we're all going to wake up the next day with no Bill of Rights. If you've ever wondered how the Weimar Republic caved in to nazism, it probably looked a lot like this.

Ron Paul Wins!

2012-01-04T03:04:00.000-08:00

...100% of the educated vote, in the Iowa caucuses!

Thesis: Whenever you hear someone describing libertarian foreign policy views as "isolationist" they are misleading you, in the belief that you are too stupid to know the immense difference between the terms "military non-interventionist" and "isolationist." Alternate phrasing: "Will you blathering idiot pundits please stop calling Ron Paul an 'Isolationist'?" Alternate phrasing: Nonintervention =/= isolation.

Please, ...remember that. Your future may depend on it.

Why am I so angry about this right now? In short, the TV political blather show "FOX and Friends."

Stuart Varney just made the idiotic statement on "FOX and Friends" that Wall Street isn't supporting Ron Paul because he's an "isolationist." Steve Doocy then idiotically states that "...and that's because you can't be an isolationist in a global economy." These idiots are apparently incapable of comprehending the difference between "military non-interventionism" and "isolationism."

Ron Paul supports a foreign policy that Thomas Jefferson described as: "Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." That's military noninterventionism, and historically, it prevents war and conflict. Stated another way: "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." "Isolationism" --a completely different thing-- is a backwards politicial philosophy that encourages the reduction and isolation of trade to favor "American business," as well as military and political disengagement, often with populist or nationalist overtones. Pat Buchanan is an "isolationist." F. A. Hayek, Harry Browne, and Ron Paul are "military noninterventionists." There's an immense difference, as any kindergartener of median intelligence can understand.

But I guess that Stuart Varney and Steve Doocy aren't quite that bright. ...Or, they're willing to sell out America on orders from their corporate overlords.

Sadly, the Ron Paul-supporting intellectuals in Iowa were not numerous enough to keep our grandkids out of "indefinite detention" in tomorrow's prison camps. (Let's hope there are enough people who comprehend the basic concept of America for Paul to win NH and SC.) If not, it's bye bye, America, ...fun while it lasted!

"FOX and friends" further reveals its ignorant media bias by their wording of their push poll: "Given expectations going into Iowa, the biggest loser from Tuesday night was: Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul" THEY LEFT MITT ROMNEY'S NAME OUT!

...He got fewer votes than he got in 2008, even though the Republican establishment has been supporting him from the beginning! He came 8 votes from being beaten by the ridiculous socialist and bigot, Rick Santorum (who benefitted from an enormous herd of sheeple who mindlessly listened to their pastors and to santorum's words, without bothering to check his record out)! This weak showing is amazing, when put in the context that the media establishment has been working for free for Romney for months!

Even all that money and free support couldn't take the stink out of Romney enough to give him a landslide victory! Plastic Mitt is just too transparently a tool of the Federal Reserve bankers! FOX clearly wants their unthinking low-brow conformist viewers, to view Romney as a "winner." ...Ridiculous!

Don't worry, tyrants, your strategy of bringing education under the control of government has paid off. With voters in Iowa calling themselves conservatives, and working for their own enslavement, it's apparent that depriving highschoolers of proper history, philosophy, and economics lessons has accomplished its goal: a servile American population of willing "free range" serfs. A serf owns nothing, not even his own body: as this video (and the existence of the AMA, FDA, and DEA) clearly shows. So, congratulations on doing a very thorough job. The general public is completely unaware that America had the highest standard of literacy in the world, prior to the advent of public education.

"Conservative" is now a word with completely no meaning. It is a suitcase word that means anything from the legitimate "limited government" to the illegitimate "institutionalized bigotry on behalf of a fearful majority."

If you're a part of the uneducated majority, I strongly recommend these four works of nonfiction:
The Triumph of Liberty,
by Jim Powell
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Liberty-Jim-Powell/dp/078612296X

The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve,
by G. Edward Griffin
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

America: From Freedom to Fascism,
by Aaron Russo
free video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#

Why I am Not A Conservative,
by F. A. Hayek
free online: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html

Well, I need to go and watch the Fox News media fascists argue about the differences between 99% support for unlimited government, and 99% support for unlimited government allocated to slightly different subject areas. ...It's been fun.

Woods Appeals to Key Iowa Radio Host: Please Endorse Ron Paul

2012-01-02T19:56:00.000-08:00

What Will Iowa's Legacy Be?

2012-01-02T02:15:00.000-08:00

If Iowa's Republicans don't vote for Ron Paul, they will forever be remembered as the state Republicans that eliminated all hope of returning America to the constitutional rule of law. They will go down in history as "Republicans" who could not define the term "republic."

A republic is defined by a constitution that limits the power of government, no matter what 51% of the voters decide. A republic's constitution is the sourcecode or DNA of country that determines what form its body politic will take. Even if 51% of the voters decide to eliminate jury trials, or build gas chambers for Jews, a constitutional republic does not allow them to have their way. A constitutional republic allows multiple overlapping checks on government power to say "That's too far, this government action cannot be allowed." The president or governor can pardon those who acted in violation of unconstitutional government laws. The congress can pass a law providing relief to the people, and the State legislature can pass laws that offer relief from congress's laws and the president's executive orders. Judges can soften a punishment even when the jury returns a guilty verdict. And juries can outright refuse to return guilty verdicts. Even one single juror can hang a jury, based on his individual conscience.

This is the very core of what it means to be a Republican, and the very core of what it means to be an American.

Ultimately, We, the Jury, are the final check on government power. The government's prosecutors must ask a jury for permission to enforce the law. They must get 12 people to give them the word "GUILTY."

But Republics don't always last. In Germany, in 1934, the Nazis won a decisive plurality of seats in the Reichstag. A false flag attack then rallied the German people into giving up jury trials, and freedom of speech. The German state consolidated power, and began to use state power to destroy its opponents, internally. By the time the German public woke up to this fact, to speak out was to be raided by SS storm troopers. Those nice young men in uniform who were "keeping the order" were no longer protectors, but victimizers who served a political master, not the public peace.

Before the Civil War, in our own USA, jury trials were attacked by the government, and prosecutors were allowed, for the first time ever, to question the jury for agreement with the Fugitive Slave Law. Northern abolitionists like Lysander Spooner saw through this barbaric and unconstitutional practice, and reported it to the press. Juries responded to the state's efforts to return escaped slaves to slavery by getting smarter, and lying to state prosecutors, so they would be seated, and get the chance to acquit runaway slaves and their neighbors who harbored them. After the civil war ended, this practice of allowing the prosecutor to question the jury was not repealed, and is the reason for unconstitutional laws being enforced today.

...But we still have jury trials, and those determined to send a message can still present themselves as willing to enforce unjust laws, and can still veto unconstitutional laws. ...So prosecutors must still be wary not to punish those who are too obviously innocent of wrong.

Once Germany's nazis had eliminated jury trials, the life-blood of the economy, Germany's industrialists, were no longer safe from being looted under the "color of law." There were no longer legal protections in courts of law for them, and no longer jury trials. If they wanted to survive, they had to bow and scrape, and give Germany's nazi politicians everything they wanted. They were taxed and looted into bankruptcy. Before the war was over between six and eight million Jews were murdered, but people forget that that genocide is less than half of the murdering that took place. The rest of the murdering was democide. Approximately twelve million non-Jews were also murdered, for opposing, or simply being victimized by, Hitler's unconstitutional police state. They were not murdered for their race, or "genes," they were murdered for their beliefs, speech, or political identity. What if they had taken up arms against Hitler when he had passed his "Enabling Act?"

Germans in 1933 had to choose between marxists, social democrats, and fascists. But here, in America, we have a final shot at a better alternative: A true Republican. A man who favors proper constitutional limits on government power. A small-L, philosophical libertarian in the mold of Thomas Paine.

Nearly everyone disagrees with one or another constitutional limits on government power. Nearly everyone believes that if government power were expanded in some area, it would be able to do more good, or accomplish more to benefit society in some way. It's been pounded into every American in the form of "social studies" classes, since they were children.

The same thing happened to Germany, in the 1920s. For many years, Germans had been indoctrinated by tax-financed government schools to favor unlimited taxation. This was the genesis of the decline of the German Republic. Gradually, the Weimar Republic eliminated the already weak limits on government power that it had.

In modern Germany, grandparents now need to explain to their grand kids how they either supported or opposed the nazi police state. Young, curious minds want to know how such a betrayal was possible.
How would you explain to your grandkids, if they cracked a book open, years after the fall of America? Would you tell them something like this?: "I was on the wrong side. I was stupid. I didn't read about how jury trials had been eroded. I didn't think about the loss of free speech, or the NDAA's new executive-enabling powers. I just didn't understand what was going on." ...Do you think they'd forgive you their impoverished, hard-scrabble existence? Do you think they'd forgive the fact that you took the last of America's wealth, and spent it putting innocent people in prison, and bombing goat-farming foreigners into pre-industrial oblivion? Do you think they'll forgive the fact that you were willing to allow the police state to make exceptions to property rights for marijuana, guns, and gold (real money)? Do you think they'll forgive you for not ever cracking a proper economics or history book? There's some indication that Iowa is snapping out of America's socialist delusion. There's some indication that just because socialism is labeled "Republican," some of the voters are daring to ask bold questions of the candidates. There's some indication that the voters won't betray their grandparents, who marched into Germany to prevent world fascist domination by a superpower gone terribly wrong.

Let's not make America into another rogue superpower. Let's not share in the disgrace of Hitler's Germany. Germany lost their Republic, but we can keep ours. Germany allowed Hitler's enabling act, but we don't need to allow Bush and Obama their "PATRIOT Act", and "NDAA" that allows the elimination of trials by jury.

TRIALS BY JURY! That's what Obama and our congress has now put on the chopping block! Since 1215, we've had to fight to keep trial by jury! Almost 800 years of relative freedom and progress! The foundation of our civilization! Citizens must agree that their neighbor's transgression deserves government punishment! A last-ditch means of preventing government from going "off the rails" and into despotism! All of the progress of the industrial and information revolutions made possible by juries that would not punish the organizing free speech of factory migrant workers, or of modern computer and internet innovators!

All this will be lost if Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination.

Is your own individual freedom not worth showing up, and being counted as a supporter of the derided, criticized, insulted, and ridiculed?

If you feel your childrens' freedom is not worth the effort, then how about simple self interest? How about keeping the interest on your paychecks, instead of giving it all away without a fight to Federal Reserve bankers? Most of your savings have already been eaten by this monster! The purchasing power of the dollar of 1900 has fallen by 98%! Will you just idly stand by while your legacy is devoured?

Or will you risk ridicule and social discomfort to do what is right?

YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT RON PAUL, FOR ALL HIS FAILINGS, IS RIGHT: THE UNITED STATES CANNOT SURVIVE THE LOSS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IT CANNOT SURVIVE THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, IT CANNOT SURVIVE WARS WITHOUT CLEAR END GOALS.

DO THE RIGHT THING ON JANUARY 03, 2012.

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

VOTE RON PAUL IN THE IOWA CAUCUSES.

Let the Record Show...

2012-01-01T10:41:00.001-08:00

That Bob Barr is an abject scumbag, drug warrior, and anti-libertarian, and that the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin is a kind and decent human being, with libertarian values. Let the record also show that more choices on a ballot is a generally a good thing. Even in the case where the State of Virginia just illegally put two totalitarians (Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry, who both failed to collect enough signatures to legally access the ballot) on the ballot, it's a good thing, because they will split the VA totalitarian vote three ways.

Although I fully comprehend that Newt and Rick's hypocrisy regarding their support for ballot access restrictions is grotesque, and that they deserve to lose ballot access (as Ron Paul would have if libertarian activist Bob Lynch had not come through for him, and delivered last-minute ballot access to him on a silver platter) ...I'm glad they've decided to split the totalitarian vote. That will give Ron Paul a better chance to make a bigger impact in the race, and possibly even win.

Classic From F. A. Hayek that Inspired WIKIpedia

2012-01-01T10:24:00.000-08:00

In researching the below posts, I came across this great piece by Dick Clark;
WIKIpedia: What Is It Good For?at http://mises.org/daily/2704

In that piece, Clark notes that WIKIpedia founder Jimmy Wales was inspired by an essay by Austrian economist F. A. Hayek. Fascinating.

Here is Hayek's famous essay, in its entirety:
The Use of Knowledge in Society by Freidrich A. Hayek
at http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html

The Dick Clark We All Know And Love

2012-01-01T05:13:00.000-08:00

I was pleased to see that Dick Clark was a trending search term, according to yahoo, today. Of course, the Dick Clark I'm referring to is neither the elderly veejay personality, nor his cryo-preserved head made famous in "Futurama," it's the libertarian mastermind Dick Clark from the Mises Institute, who is now somewhere in frozen flyover country.

I was pleased to see that google images returned an image of the Dick Clark I know and whose writings I love.

...Right next to the Futurama cartoon of the other Dick Clark's cryonically-preserved head.

I hope Dick's taking advantage of his "trend" in the search engines. He's one of the few libertarian philosophers I know who is "right about everything." (I also put Radley Balko, Marc Stevens, and Jacob Sullum into that category.)

Dick is the author of the fine book "Fighting Back." Follow the prior link to get your free copy today, and if you like it, purchase a hard copy!

Eric Dondero Reminds Me to Pick Up Nuts At the Grocery

2011-12-30T23:59:00.000-08:00

A link to a commentary by Warren Redlich that is critical of Eric Dondero. Warren's piece includes one of my earlier criticisms of Dondero and some amusing anecdotes about him in the comments section. (For those late to the party, Eric Dondero is an unphilosophical political hack who has an insane vendetta against his former boss, Ron Paul.)

Here's another website with a lot of information about Dondero.

Conclusion: anyone who takes Dondero seriously is a damned idiot.

Jury Nullification is the Solution to the Problem of Tyranny

2011-12-30T19:45:00.001-08:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/montana-jury-marijuana-mutiny_n_800074.html

Ron Paul and R. J. Harris advocate jury nullification of law, as the proper constitutional remedy for overbearing government tyranny. Keep in mind that you're under no obligation to comply with answering intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) "voir dire" (jury selection) questions from the prosecutor when you're called as a juror. Also keep in mind you'd be stupid/servile to plea bargain with a prosecutor if a jury couldn't be seated. You're always stupid not to fight with 100% of everything you have. Never accept injustice.

If Ron Paul Loses the Republican Primary...

2011-12-27T03:18:00.000-08:00

...He should announce that he's running as a Libertarian, and that he will seek the LP nomination in Las Vegas, with R.J. Harris, Paul Butler, or Jesse Ventura as his running mate. Paul could easily win the nomination, and it would allow him another 6 months of "money bomb" style fundraising, which he could use to mount an effective Jury Rights Activism campaign, from coast to coast. This would do vastly more to legitimize libertarianism than any politician running for office. Simultaneously, it would PROVE that Ron Paul cares about minorities and the downtrodden: by removing the government boot from their necks. We know that Ron Paul comprehends jury nullification of law, (AKA "jury veto"), because he's spoken so eloquently on the subject.

...Or, he should endorse R.J. Harris for the LP nomination. R.J. Harris is a stellar human being and a dedicated libertarian and Ron Paul supporter. He makes a great "Plan B."

My Commentary on the Huffington Post's Hitpiece on Ron Paul: "Eric Dondero, Former Ron Paul Aide, Addresses Newsletters"

2011-12-26T23:26:00.000-08:00

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/eric-dondero-ron-paul-racist-homophobic_n_1170054.html?ref=politics

While we're airing dirty laundry, let me air some of Dondero's. He's a militarist. He literally believes "My military, right or wrong." If tomorrow, the military was tasked with rounding up Jews (or Muslims) and putting them all into concentration camps, Dondero would champion the process, so long as the U.S. military was doing the work. I asked him point blank if he believed that his allegiance to the military was more important than the libertarian aspects of his philosophy, and he said "yes." Make of that, what you will. (In the past, he's defended the door-to-door gun confiscations that occurred in New Orleans in 2006, whether the occupant was home, consented, or not. So much for Dondero's "libertarianism.")

As further proof that Dondero is totally unphilosophical, he started a group called "Libertarians for Guiliani" after the famous debate where Ron Paul stood up to Guiliani's bullying on the issue of foreign interventionism. Dondero took this group so seriously that he ended his minor friendship (my good-natured toleration of him) with me over my lack of willingness to mindlessly join it.

Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer of Paul's who was fired for disavowing Paul's noninterventionist stance on foreign policy. Later, after being fired, he threatened to run against Paul, before he realized he was delusional and didn't stand a snowball's chance in Haiti of beating Paul.

I know Dondero better than most people. I stayed at his house for about a month and a half in 2004, back before I knew what a militarist lunatic whackjob he was. At the time I only wondered how he could screw up the best job in the world: working for Ron Paul, the only elected libertarian. The more I learned about Dondero, the more I learned that his libertarianism was skin deep, but that his commitment to interventionism defines his whole personality.

How did Dondero wind up working for Paul? He testified against the draft, since he's in favor of an all-volunteer military. This was a noble thing to do in the 1980s, when Reagan was still putting people in prison for agitating against the draft. Since Dondero was a veteran, his testimony was seen as being especially legitimate. In spite of opposing the draft, Dondero loves all things having to do with the U.S. Military. ...He is a worshipper of military might.

A few years ago, I introduced Dondero to the most legitimate, libertarian arguments for foreign interventionism that he now has, by introducing him to R.J. Rummel's webpage. I regret doing so, because it legitimized his arguments in his own mind, without raising the standard of his arguments. Dondero believes 100% and in all cases that "the ends justify the means." Thus, he feels justified in using any tactics whatsoever to win an argument. Instead of the R.J. Rummel material refocusing Dondero's debate style so we could have a real argument, he clings to red herrings, straw man arguments, and ad-hominems that lack rhyme or reason. And he spends about half of every day online, plastering public fora with his insane rantings. (One reason many people suspect him of being a paid agent provocateur.)

I don't know precisely why he's like this. Perhaps he's a paid agent provocateur, as many in the libertarian movement have postulated. I do know that he has absolutely no standards of logic or reason whatsoever. If someone too soundly defeats his arguments, as Andrew Jacobs and Paulie Cannoli have done in the past, he resorts to insults and ad-hominems.

Now, is Dondero right about Paul? Many old people are uncomfortable around rap music and openly gay behavior. Ron Paul is probably no different (although I can't say, because I've never met the man, and Dondero is highly unreliable). But Ron Paul has the ideas that defeat institutionalized homophobia and institutionalized racism. Has Ron ever voted the wrong way in congress? Yes. When a vote came up for liberalizing the punishment standards for rape in DC, so that juries would stop acquiting rapists for fear of sentencing the wrong guy to a cruel and unusual punishment, that bill also would have legalized then-illegal anal sex or "sodomy." Paul voted "No." It's clear in hindsight that Paul voted the wrong way on that, and that James Peron was right to confront him about it, as some commenters have noted below.

However, the bill that Paul voted against was a mix of various subjects, a practice that deserves to be recognized as wrong, especially in the absence of a line-item veto. Did Paul fully understand what he was voting against, or was he simply voting against a complex bill with lots of different subject matter in it, that he didn't understand? When in doubt, it's best to vote no, and not be surprised later.

And to attack Paul for this when he's advanced the cause of individual liberty more than anyone else in the past 10 years? ...That's a profound mistake.

Paul is the ONLY candidate talking about ending the grotesque and mass-incarcerating war on (some) drugs. (A war which disproportionately imprisons poor minorities, btw.) He's also the only candidate talking about abolishing the grotesque and rights-violating BATFE or war on (some) guns. In short, Paul is the only candidate who believes in the Bill of Rights and its fourth amendment. For that, noone should consider voting for anyone else in the GOP primary.

Paul's also the only candidate talking about ending the debt enslavement of all Americans to the Federal Reserve. (Something Eric Dondero isn't smart enough to care about.)

Paul's also the only candidate talking about ending grotesque overspending (and bombing) on the part of the U.S. military (and its industrial complex).

For Dondero to betray his old boss, and America's best shot at electoral freedom over a personal vendetta is disgusting. But then, I think Dondero is a disgusting human being.

Since Dondero spoke about Paul's antiquated personal tastes, I feel turnabout is only fair play.

Direct quotes from Dondero:
"Women don't understand politics, and shouldn't be involved with politics."
(He said this when his wife, a chinese immigrant, was defending Mao Tse Tung, and Mao's policies, at Dondero's house, in 2004)
"Atlas Shrugged is my second favorite book, right after Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'"
(Interesting. ...Too bad he didn't understand much of what he read.)

Also, regarding Dondero's character: For years he refused to take down a retracted quote from me on his webpage stating something to the effect that he was 'the best petitioner in the country.' (And why would this matter, even if it were true? Mercenary petition circulation is hardly an intellectual pursuit, in the form it currently stands. Dondero is a right-wing pseudo-libertarian political petitioner. He is not libertarian, and doesn't limit himself to working for libertarian causes. He gathers about 1/2 the petition signatures that a mercenary such as Russell Baggett collects on any given day.)

Here's a brief forum post I wrote regarding some of the problem areas of Dondero's thinking. All are free to repost it and quote from it:

Google "Eric Dondero a Real Life Master Shake" for a great essay on Dondero. I know in great detail what a scumbag and agent provocateur Eric Dondero is. Anyone from the media who wants a few entertaining true anecdotes about Eric Dondero is encouraged to call me. 312-730-4037 the insane rantings of Dondero shouldn't be taken too seriously.

1) His wife is a maoist, but Eric Dondero says that's OK, because "...Women shouldn't be involved with politics."
2) Ron Paul fired Dondero when Dondero started claiming at press-releases and public events that Paul had reversed his position, and favored the Iraq war. Paul had to yell at him and remind him "You work for me." (Not a lot of people have seen Paul this angry, which further points to how principled the man is.)
3) Dondero claimed to be friends with me at one point. (I had stayed at his house while putting the LP on the ballot in 2004 in TX because a LP-member friend of his, Scott Kohlhaas, had arranged that. After the very anti-war Badnarik got the nomination, Dondero went nuts and said he was now a "lifelong enemy of the LP.") I thought then that Dondero was not a good libertarian, because he was anti-libertarian in his foreign policy, but on most domestic issues, Dondero is somewhat libertarian. So I remained a friendly acquaintance of his. In 2007, when I refused to endorse his prima-facie fascist and idiotic group "Libertarians for Guiliani," I said "I hope this doesn't mean we still can't be friends." and he replied "Actually Jake, it does. No further contact necessary." He then hung up. I haven't spoken with him since, and good riddance!
4) Prior to ending the friendship, when I pointed out that I didn't need military protection at its current cost in lives and tax dollars, Dondero said "Who's going to protect you?" and I said "I'll protect myself. I'm a gun owner." Dondero then said "Gun guys can't protect the US!" (I'm not sure Dondero comprehends that former military and current reservists are also gun owners, and that no nation could ever invade and occupy a nation as well-armed as the USA. ...LOL.) This servile mindset of Dondero that we need a bloated military or we'll all be killed, is a weak and un-libertarian, not to mention un-American, mindset.
5) Dondero claims that foreign interventionism is libertarian, and that if you're not a foreign interventionist, you cannot be a libertarian. This makes him laughably wrong, and one doesn't really need to pay any attention to him after he makes this clear. In fact, only a few self-proclaimed libertarians are interventionist, such as Christopher Hitchens and R. J. Rummel.
6) Dondero claims that military men are all libertarian, because "anyone who hires a prostitute or uses drugs is a libertarian." Even without pointing out that sailors who use prostitutes aren't necessarily 100% of sailors, Dondero's argument is absurd. I guess that makes foreign dictators "libertarian," given the tales of decadence that I've heard while overseas (even though they put their own people to death for doing the same). I guess that Dondero can't understand the concept of "hypocrisy." (Which is funny, since it so often applies to him.)
7) Another amusing incident was when Scott Kohlhaas of the AK LP (a paid petitioner), Anthony Garcia of the TX LP (the 2004 TX LP petition coordinator), myself, and Eric Dondero were all out eating a mexican dinner. A program director of the liberal radio station, KPFT, Clay Smith struck up a conversation with Scott Kohlhaas and Anthony Garcia, because they had identified themselves as libertarians who disagreed with Eric Dondero. He offered to help them express the libertarian viewpoint on the radio. Dondero was so stupid and belligerent that instead of allow the men to exchange numbers, to the benefit of the libertarian message, he said "You guys don't understand! This guy is liberal scum! If he's going to be here, I'm not!" And he threw down his fork, and ran out of the restaurant without paying. As I've tried to make clear, Eric Dondero is quite a nutjob!
8) Interestingly, Eric Dondero is also a racist eugenicist. He stated to me at one point, in 2004, "Blacks aren't as smart as whites." I roundly criticized him for this, and he tried to justify it by referencing "The Bell Curve," by Charles Murray, a book I admittedly haven't read. Nonetheless, when I started pointing to examples of black men who were clearly smarter than Eric, he qualified his statement by claiming that "Overall, blacks are less intelligent, although there are some smart ones." (If that's not an exact quote, it's very close, and captures the sentiment, 100%.) Eric claims this view point, because his "second major passion, beyond politics," according to him, "is anthropology." His bookshelves are full of books about primitive man (I saw this when I was there in 2004). Now, reading books by Louis Leakey doesn't usually make someone a racist, ...unless they're like Eric Dondero, and they're scouring the texts for things that could possibly justify their self-superior view of existence. Part of this viewpoint comes from holding Theodore Roosevelt as a personal idol (T.R. was a racist eugenicist as well, if my memory serves me correctly).

So, if I'm faced with Ron Paul's version of the facts, or Dondero's version, I think I'll stick with Ron Paul's version. No offense to "The Real Life Master Shake!"

Commentary on Ron Paul's Essay, "What Really Divides Us?"

2011-12-26T21:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Let me first say that Ron Paul is right in this essay, but that there are some minor sins of omission. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and believe he's the only candidate worth supporting in the current GOP or Democratic races.

Ron Paul writes: "The real reason liberals hate the concept of states' right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government."

I hate it when libertarian politicians, who ostensibly wish to generate pro-freedom votes, paint everyone who identifies themselves with a 'suitcase word' (such as "liberal," or "conservative" -words that describe many phenomena, values, conditions, or independent variables) as possessing the most hateful formulation of that suitcase word.

Paul could equally correctly have written:
"The real reason conservatives love the concept of states' right has nothing to do with limiting the power of the federal government, but rather reflects a hostility toward minorities who would benefit from an even application of the 14th Amendment and true equality under the law." (And it would be just as wrong as slamming liberals for opposing states' right. In truth, implementing states' rights is a strategy for decentralizing power, not an end goal. As an end goal, only the preservation of individual rights is valid.)

The point isn't that Paul is wrong. Generally speaking, he's not. But he'd have been a lot more correct if he didn't paint all liberals with such a broad brush. He should have qualified his statement by saying "many liberals" or even "most liberals" or "the liberal establishment." He could have singled out ranting socialists who call themselves liberals, such as Chris Matthews (who apparently believes that all decentralists are racists). This would have left a little room in his statement for the minority of well-educated libertarian-leaning liberals (many of whom support his candidacy) to not feel like they were being painted "Obama blue." Moreover: is there any reason to alienate the "socially liberal" people who mistakenly voted for Obama because they incorrectly thought he would keep his campaign promise to stop raiding state medical marijuana collectives? Those people should vote for Paul!

In one of his most famous essays, F. A. Hayek (one of Ron Paul's heroes) states that the best word to describe his libertarian political views is still "liberal," given the history of the term. From Hayek's essay "Why I am Not A Conservative, point 6:" (also at Lew Rockwell.com):
"What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call "liberal." I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings...

...In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html

I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that modern defenders of jury nullification and true equality under the law, such as Clay Conrad, David T. Hardy, and Paul Butler, might agree with Hayek.

I also wish Dr. Paul would have included more criticism of the drug laws, gun laws, and other mala prohibita that victimizes minorities in our society. You can't correct unfairness caused by government force until you identify it. To be fair, Paul has done this before on Nationwide TV, just not in this essay on the same subject. It would have made an excellent addition to the argument that in order to defeat racism, one needs to end institutionalized racism allowed by selective enforcement of mala prohibita.

Of course, that could fill ten times the space to fully explain and defend.

This criticism is minor, since Paul's main point is correct. Still, it's incomplete and too general. Now is the time for specifics, and for victory. I loved it when Paul was pointing out how racist the drug war is, on TV the other day, and how the drug war denies both property rights and equality under the law. He needs to do a lot more of that.

Every time he criticizes liberals, I'd also like to hear a criticism of conservatives. Neither position is legitimate, in its modern formulation.

Check Out Steven Pinker, a Profound Defender of Enlightenment Values

2011-12-25T18:56:00.001-08:00

The FAQ for Steven's new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Highly recommended, and well-informed about the similar work of Professor R.J. Rummel, whose several excellent books are free online at the University of Hawaii.

An excellent speech by Pinker on the topic of his previously mentioned book can be seen here, at TED.com.

The work of these brave intellectuals extends our comprehension of the enlightenment, and shows the way toward expanding circles of logic, compassion, and justice around each and every individual. I favor a renewed effort to reinstate proper juries in the USA as the best means at pursuing expanded enlightenment values.

To Bloody Hell With Newt Gingrich

2011-12-25T05:08:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich is a grotesque demogogue. Here are two things you need to know about him:

1) Newt introduced a bill in 1997 that would sentence individuals to death for possession of two ounces of marijuana. For those of you who aren't intimately acquainted with marijuana or the black market, this amount of marijuana is often encountered in this context: sell one ounce, and have the profit from that sale pay for the remaining ounce (an amount that might last a regular user for one month). So, your son or daughter at college has a room-mate who is selling marijuana as a small-time dealer and heavy user. He/She doesn't want to pay for his/her marijuana, so he/she buys two ounces (which, even if smoked all at once, would not kill them, as an entire bottle of LEGAL hard liquor could kill someone without a significant tolerance). Under a totalitarian Gingrich America, your son or daughter is now being sentenced to death, if they try to take that marijuana across an arbitrary state border. Newt also supports eliminating jury trials for drug crimes, as Singapore has. (How does that work in a constitutional republic?! What does the word "republican" even mean to a totalitarian like Newt?) Now, Gingrich did this when anti-drug hysteria made his actions seem reasonable, and he defended this stance less than two weeks ago, here. Do you want to vote for someone who embraces state-sponsored murder when the political climate dictates that the culture is bankrupt enough for murder? If so, you're absolutely no different than the nazis who did the same thing in 1934 Germany. Hitler, like Newt, informed the world about what he intended to do, before he did it. Those who supported or support either man deserve whatever retribution the defenders of the enlightenment could heap upon them.

2) Newt was paid 1.6 Million by Fannie Mae, a quasi-government institution that was behind the easy government-backed credit and corresponding mortgage crash. He claims this Federal Reserve-backed (coercively tax-financed) as "private sector" work. Don't you wish your "private sector" work would pay you a gauranteed $1.6 million un-earned dollars? If you buy into Newt's interpretation of the events, you're dumber than a boot. Working for tax dollars =/= "private sector work."

Now, if you support the juryless death sentences Newt wants to hand out in example #, you're an immoral, evil person. And if you want your government masters to make oodles of cash on your labor, as indicated by example #2, you're a servile sucker.

...To vote for Newt Gingrich, you've got to be both evil, and a sucker.

Now, Mitt Romney doesn't often exhibit the sociopathic swagger of Newt Gingrich in public (unless it's directed toward Dave Ridley of The Ridley Report), but his policies are more or less identical to Newt's. Mitt's also a supporter of the DEA, ONDCP, and Federal Reserve (and every other big-government program). Neither of these clowns would repeal anything: they are simply lying to you if they say they would, since they never give any specifics that they can possibly be held to. And neither of them would ever dare to impound federal funds, or issue pardons to mala prohibita offenders, as a Libertarian candidate would.

Perry's a blithering idiot who can't remember his core reasons for running for president (at least any such reasons beyond number one and number two). Bachmann's an unelectable theocratic simpleton who alternately champions and condemns Ron Paul, without a clear strategy for dealing with Iran, other than "delegate to the generals" (who take their marching orders from the central bankers who will profit from endless war). Santorum is a mindless and unelectable social bigot whose grotesque bigotry has been roundly condemned and attacked by the gay community.

In short, if you don't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, you're a damned idiot, and a traitor to everything about America that remains free.

Ron Paul is the only Republican in the race who supports the supremacy of the jury in our legal system. As such, he is the only candidate who supports the rule of law, and the proud tradition of western civilization. Be an American: Vote Ron Paul.

The True Nature of Our Government

2011-12-23T15:50:00.000-08:00

A legitimate government is based on consent of the governed. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states this.

However, in a free, enlightened society with individual rights, there is more than just consent. After all, the majority of Germans consented to the rise of the nazi police state, and that state was so illegitimate, that it was overthrown by force, and few people would argue that that outcome was rightfully so.

In a free society, people can't be deprived of their freedom or property without due process. A part of due process is the establishment of a reason for depriving someone of their freedom or property. One legitimate reason might be that the person has committed a crime.

There are two categories of crime. One is legitimate (mala in se - "a crime, in and of itself"), and one is an illegitimate excuse for a tyrant to interfere with a previously free human being (mala prohibita - "a crime created solely by the act of legislation" - "a victimless crime").

So what constitutes "mala in se," or actual crime? Well, every malum in se has two elements:
1) Injury
and
2) Intent to Injure

These two elements constitute the "cause of action" or "corpus delecti" (body of the crime). The body of the crime must be provided (this is called "habeas corpus" or "provide the body"), or there is no legitimate "cause of action" against anyone. As a matter of due process, the "corpus delecti" must be proven, with evidence (such as witnesses, material evidence of an injured party, a complaining party, etc.).

Does anyone here ever remember being taught that if they were accused of a crime, they had a right to confront the witnesses against them? If so, please follow the following link, and see if you can find any opportunity for someone accused of tax evasion to argue their innocence, or confront the witnesses against them.

http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20111201.html

In the audio at the prior link, lawyer Marc Stevens shows that, in our illegitimate and unconstitutional police state, the state no longer follows due process, and no longer presents evidence of wrongdoing before it attempts to punish us. For this reason, our consent to the government should no longer be considered implicit, since the government has broken its obligation to abide by the rule of law.

If there is no due process, there is no social contract.

Kim Jong IL Dead, Alec Baldwin No Longer Worthless

2011-12-22T12:37:00.000-08:00

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone (both outspoken libertarians), have made no secret of their dislike of the bureaucratic destruction of modern air travel. In a famous episode of South Park, they skewered the TSA (and the Segue scooter) by having their characters favor a new travel device("It") over government-regulated air travel.

They've also had recently-deceased dictator Kim Jong IL (in puppet form) poke fun of Alec Baldwin in their movie "Team America." Baldwin took their jabs in good humor, proving himself to be a far bigger man than Sean Penn.

Alec Baldwin has now expressed the common-sense desire to be allowed basic technological amenities during modern air travel. He's also recently responded to the activist group "We Are Change" that he's generally in favor of capitalism. He's also expressed dissatisfaction with his jackass brother's fascist political rantings. Are these his first steps towards joining Parker and Stone in becoming an outspoken classical liberal, or Libertarian?

...Time will tell.

I'd personally love to see him study and then embrace the label of enlightenment values, and become a major donor to Ron Paul, R. J. Harris, Reason Foundation, etc... He could test the waters by joining Citizens in Charge, Institute for Justice, or contributing to the ACLU's lawsuit against the PATRIOT Act.

We need more enlightened actors today. There doesn't seem to be a John Lilburne, Thomas Paine, or Voltaire of our time, or perhaps there are more of them and each is at a lower level of visibility.

Even so, I hope Baldwin pulls a "Vince Vaughn" and puts the last few pieces of the puzzle together. He can start by reading "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin, or Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work." ...Anything by Hayek or Mises would also be good.

Baldwin is certainly on the margin of really figuring things out. ...And he's a great comic actor.

Newt Gingrich, Just One More Unphilosophical Sociopathic Politician

2011-12-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich is a damned sociopathic idiot, proof below. Starting off, here's a portion of an interview he did last week:

Chris Moody, Interviewing Newt Gingrich for "The Ticket"

CM: Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?
Newt: I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.

I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.

CM: Why shouldn't the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?
Newt: Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.

I don't have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.

CM: Expand on what you mean by "aggressive."
Newt: In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.

CM: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?
Newt: I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they've done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, 'These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.' If you're serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we're going to have drugs in this country.

Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They've been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.

CM: In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?
Newt: What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

It's a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.

CM: Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.
Newt: You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It's not mine, but it's internally logical.

CM: Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We've spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we've spent? How can we reform our approach?
Newt: I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you're serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting--I don't think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.

Sometime in the next year we'll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we're very serious about it.

=========================================
My comments on the above:

Gingrich believes in a constitutional republic? That's odd! Jefferson, Madison, and all of the Federalists AND Anti-Federalist republicans believed that ultimate power should be devolved to the states, and then to the individual! That part of their beliefs wasn't in controversy, just how best to achieve that. So, not only is Newt too damned stupid to see that the fourth amendment also applies to "scary negro property" (all of the drug laws have a racist origin, just google "Harry Anslinger" or "Why is marijuana illegal?"), he's also too stupid to favor state nullification, or jury nullification.

Where did this myth arise that Newt Gingrich is intelligent???? He's one of the stupidest, most bellicose, belligerent sociopaths the voters have ever put in office. Al Franken isn't right about much, but he's right about Newt Gingrich. The man is not only NOT an "idea man" --he isn't even fit to share the stage with Ron Paul.

And he even mentions Singapore's drug laws, when he encourages the idea that drug dealers should be put to death! (Newt also introduced a law that would put people to death for importing two ounces of marijuana! He also hypocritically admits to smoking it himself ...I guess he wants the person who sold it to him to be put to death --or, more likely, he wants a double standard that puts poor negroes to death, while allowing white offenders like himself a smack on the wrist! I've held two ounces in my hand before! So have a lot of college kids! ...Newt is a power-hungry psychopath who serves the prison industry!)

Does Newt know that in Singapore there is no freedom of speech, and no trial by jury?! Does he know that our own right to jury trial has been eroded, in order to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, and the drug laws, and other mala prohibita that most reasonable people disagree with? (At least 1/12 of people on a proper, randomly-selected jury will vote to acquit on mala prohibita, victimless crime, charges, and vote to convict on actual crimes. That's why juries haven't been random in this country since 1850.) PLEASE, YOU IGNORANT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT NEWT: BUY A COPY OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND LOOK UP "JURY" or "JURIES" IN THE INDEX!!!! The jury is the final bulwark of the people against government tyranny. Newt stands against the power of the jury, of we the people.

And how have Singapore's drug laws (that the once free USA exported to them!) turned out? Poor women smuggle the drugs in their vaginas, and they are sentenced to DEATH without TRIAL BY JURY, while the rich drug kingpins simply view it as a cost of doing business!!! Newt is not in favor of a Republican style of government, unless by "Republican" you mean authoritarian dictatorship. Seriously? He wants the death sentence for the people in all of our families who have smoked marijuana, if they've ever sold any of it to make ends meet? That is murder by government, people! Aren't we as Americans better than that? And what about the puritanical "christians" who gave us the drug war? Are you now willing to say that christians don't turn the other cheek, that we don't forgive? That we MURDER?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????

Just because Newt busses in 650 people to a damned bookstore doesn't and shouldn't mean he's a contender! He's just one more power-grasping sociopath.

If you vote for newt, then you totally and completely deserve to get the news tat while your daughter was a college, she started smoking pot, and ran afoul of Oklahoma's drug laws because her roommate is testifying against her for her possession of a quarter-pound, and now she's going to be put to death.

Anyone here who supports Newt Gingrich after reading this interview is sick in the head, and in no way favors a constitutional republic.

Every schedule 1 drug was legal in America before 1910. That's odd! From 1870-1910, the industrial revolution made America the wealthiest, freest, most innovative, most REPUBLICAN nation on earth! Newt stands directly in opposition to enlightenment values, trial by jury, and every other strong institutional limit on government power.

...And I didn't even scratch the surface of his corruption. I just focused on the worst aspects of his core philosophy.

He was a personal recipient of the bailouts ($2 million+). He divorced his wife when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and yet his arrogance gives conformists the impression he's intelligent (because they've met so many intelligent people who are arrogant). As I listen to his blather on Fox News behind me (interview with Greta Van Sustern), he claims to admire Donald Trump (the bellicose asshole who tried to steal Vera Coking's house using eminent domain).

No candidate in the running is as mindlessly fascist as Newt Gingrich, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. They both take their marching orders from the central bankers, without question or independent thought.

When you vote for Newt, you're voting for expanding the US prison industry, until there's a cell for everyone.

Explains the 9-11 Commission Report's Inadequacies

2011-09-05T01:19:00.000-07:00

Meme Programming That, Once it Reaches a Certain Threshold, Results in A Free Society:

2011-08-26T16:40:00.000-07:00

In the middle 1600s, a generally-intelligent biological supercomputer began reproducing and serving up the jury rights programming to fellow generally-intelligent biological supercomputers known as "human brains." The supercomputer did this by speaking the programs in audible symbols, and hoping that the symbols or "words" would be translated into useful neo-cortical patterns, inside the receiving brains. The serving supercomputer's name was John Lilburne or "Freeborn John" and one of the receiving supercomputers was Richard Overton. These supercomputers called themselves "levellers" because they believed that everyone should have "level" or "equal" rights under the law.

The most powerful supercomputers on the planet are still human brains, but sometimes we forget that. Worse, we forget that what brains are programmed with are the most important software programs on the planet. They are the software programs that determine whether we will go to war, go to the gas chamber, or go to the market to purchase what we want and need, in order to live. We forget the heroic meme programming that has provided us all with the expectation of equality under the law.

This afternoon, I gathered several of my favorite book-format meme programs into my hands. It was a stack of books about six inches thick. The collective page count of the stack is 1,366 pages (308-We The Jury, 311-Jury Nullification, 213-Let's Get Free, 225-Adventures in Legal Land, 309-Nullification). I thought about the contents of each book, and how they form, taken together, both a complete political philosophy and the knowledge necessary to implement that philosophy, nationwide. It struck me that, if even 10% of the USA read and absorbed the contents of these books, the resulting USA would be totally libertarian. ...We would have our freedom.

...Even if the total number of libertarians in the USA was not increased.

This would mean that you could walk down the street carrying a .308 rifle as well as a concealed side-arm in Chicago, and have little to fear from the police. You could also advertise a restaurant with no food handling license in that same currently unfree American city (being free to suffer the negative press and lawsuits if you made anyone sick). You could put a dash of cocaine on your nail, and sniff it into your nose, or relax in a hash bar smoking a marijuana cigar, and noone could or would bother you. You could legally pay for sex, and not worry that the person you were paying would then participate in your brutalization and arrest. You could open a business without any money for lawyers to wade through the bureaucracy (although it might still be good to have their services as soon as you could afford it, to avoid aggressive lawsuits from accident or controversy). You could offer to defend anyone in a court of law, without being licensed by the BAR. When politicians came by, insinuating that 'bad things might happen to your business' if you didn't contribute to their campaigns, you could simply keep your money and tell them all to go to hell. And for the more productive citizens among us? They could make us all wealthier than Bill Gates by selling currently "unapproved" (that is, prohibited) medical treatments, without begging (currently witheld) permission from the FDA and AMA for doing so. Instead of our paper money going down in value, our gold-backed money would steadily rise in value, in direct proportion to the amount of human thought and labor, planet-wide. ...We would all be living healthy lifespans beyond age 120, in something that looks like a utopia compared to what we're now experiencing.

All of this would be the result of roughly 20% of the USA's citizens being made aware of the contents of this small stack of books, now sitting on my desk. (This assumes, in the manner of Pareto's law, that roughly 20% of those 20% ---that is, 4% of the total--- would become active supporters of organized jury rights activism in some way.) A meme can be defined as "an easily-transmissible idea" or "an easily-transmissible philosophical idea." Essentially, a meme is a software virus for the mind (bad), or a useful software program for the mind (good). Hence, the title of this post. Since there are roughly 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the USA, and the transmission of these ideas requires 2 "meme-serving" or "memenode" activists" per county courthouse (4 or more is better), if we estimate that there is one courthouse per county, we come up with a figure of 6,286 activists needed to make this plan functional.

The government school system has implanted bad memes in people's minds. The oversimplified views most people have of juries, generally constitute a "bad meme cluster." The impression that bad results emerge from juries (without the knowledge that those juries are judicially-misdirected and controlled) is another bad meme installed by government schoolteachers (or the authority and media figures they've programmed). These bad memes defend themselves, but only weakly. A presentation of the facts of history is generally enough to dislodge these views. Ultimately, a person's agreement with jury independence tends to revolve around their core beliefs: Is man always improving and making progress? Is the free individual worth protecting? If so, then the meme of jury rights clearly trumps the tyrant meme that believes judicially-instructed juries are optimal.

The book I am now in the process of writing adds strategic information to the material found in these books. It suggests a plan for getting the most useful information from those books into enough minds to result in exponentially-expanding jury nullification (to an appropriate level). (As jury nullification happens more and more frequently, it may become less necessary, because prosecutors may attempt to prosecute fewer victimless crime cases. Thus, the number of cases nullified always needs to be correlated to attempted victimless crime cases filed against defendants, in order to contain the most meaning, and be "spin proof.") This strategy will produce increases in liberty directly in proportion to activist effort. Until my book comes out, however, the following sources are the absolute most useful sources one can read.

So, if you wish to have a much greater degree of individual freedom, please seek out, purchase, and familiarize yourself with the following links:

Jury Rights Internet Links:

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
--An essay that condenses the history of our lost jury rights
to something that fits on a single-page tri-fold pamphlet. This pamphlet should be handed out, outside of courthouses.

http://www.fija.org
--The Fully Informed Jury Association (Comprehensive Jury Rights Information)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s
1/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL)
(Congressman Ron Paul explains the power of individual members of the jury in this video. This video should be sent to anyone you know who will not read the books and online sources cited in this recommended reading list.)

http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
--Dr. Paul Butler's Jury Rights Activism website, "Jurors for Justice".
(A useful website that reveals the racism that always results from "mala prohibita," as well as a plan for its elimination.)

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
--Abolitionist Lysander Spooner's "An Essay On the Trial by Jury"
(The abolitionist movement was the first pro-freedom movement in the USA to take advantage of jury rights activism. This brought on the Civil War, which then freed the slaves. Although the US government could have freed the slaves peacefully, by buying and then releasing them, the presence of informed Northern abolitionist juries made enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law impossible. Northern juries refused to punish free slaves, and thereby made slavery impossible to enforce, without walls and prisons capable of preventing slaves from running away, or being smuggled away.)

http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html
--A groundbreaking essay that talks about how politicians are self-selected for sociopathy. This relates to jury rights because the jury is NOT self-selected for sociopathy --proper juries are RANDOM, and contain a random assortment of morally-normal or normally-conscienced people. This explains why juries trend toward benevolence, and politicians trend toward democide and injustice.

http://fija.org/download/40/
--"Surviving Voir Dire" by Clay Conrad (How to get seated on the jury, if you understand the importance of doing so, and don't want to be removed during the unconstitutional "voir dire" or "jury selection.")

reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
"The War On Cameras" --Radley Balko
(This groundbreaking article records the loss of freedom of the press in the USA. A free press [including the freedom to record video in public] is essential to the nonviolent spread of jury rights information. The state never gives up its right to record us in public, so if we don't have the equal right to record their agents, we lose the ability to prove ourselves innocent with exculpatory evidence of our own conduct. We also lose the ability to hold them accountable for incriminating evidence of their misconduct. While handing out jury rights information in front of local courthouses, it is therefore absolutely essential that you videotape what you are doing, and upload it to the net, and to interested media outlets. This amplifies your message, allowing it to reach places you cannot even imagine, online. When the police respond to you with force and threats, if they do so, they will look terrible, and lend sympathy to your cause. Since you get a free impression of credibility for dressing well while you are doing this, please wear a business suit [or nice dress if you are female] while handing out jury rights pamphlets. By presenting yourself well, in person and on video, you make the receivers of your message much more likely to engage in jury nullification, and that's the goal you are optimizing for. The more jury nullification, the more the establishment is forced to take your message seriously, and the less time they will wish to risk trying to prosecute innocent people.)

Essential Books:

The Triumph of Liberty --Jim Powell
(This book briefly covers the Lilburnian origin of English Jury Trials, and covers the major incremental advances in individual freedom through the prior 2,000 years. If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.)

Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (1988) --Clay Conrad
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." Highly recommended.)

We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (1994) --Jeffrey Abramson
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." There is significant overlap with the prior book on the same subject, but it also covers a great deal of new ground.)

Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice --Dr. Paul Butler
(Covers new ground, in terms of jury nullification and jury rights outreach and activism. Definitely worth reading for the self-educated juror. Goes further into jury veto as a tool to be used against institutionalized racism than the other books do.)

Adventures in Legal Land --Marc Stevens
(A detailed explanation of the legal theory that is compatible with jury nullification, including a step-by-step explanation of a proper legal response to aggression from the courts. ie: Directions regarding what a pro se defendant should say, if he wants to increase his chances beyond throwing himself on the mercy of the jury. Absolutely essential for people who will risk arrest by performing organized and coordinated jury rights activism.)

Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century --Tom Woods
(Extending the defense of individual liberty into the political structure. In short, in stead of getting individuals to refuse to punish other individuals, this book shows how States can refuse to punish their citizens by rejecting federal law. This is the political extension of a libertarian society that has already embraced jury nullification of law.)

We All Celebrate the 4th of July for Different Reasons: Why I Celebrate

2011-07-04T02:56:00.000-07:00

Some otherwise fine and decent people have recently complained about fireworks, on their facebook pages, not being the type who like loud noises.

In my home state of IL, there are leech-like government parasites twenty levels deep in every area of human endeavor. Yet, the poor and middle class mexicans in my neighborhood have the balls to set off totally illegal fireworks, in open defiance of their illegality. This DOES, in fact, send an important message to our police state, and the police who enforce it: "This far, but no further."

And this heroic sentiment is why the gadsden flag is flying outside my residence, this 4th.

The louder and more illegal the display, the more resolutely the busybodies are being told (and shown): "THIS FAR, AND NO FURTHER. ...YOUR TIME IS GOING TO COME."

And when I'm asked why I'm blowing things up, there are a few different answers I might give:

1) I'm celebrating the last time that people openly gunned down police and politicians in North America, and got away with it.

2) I'm celebrating the Camden 28's jury, that set them free for the destruction of government draft cards, in open defiance of the law. The jury found that the draft cards were "property that had no right to exist." (If only they had made that discovery before 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam!) ...I'm also celebrating every other jury that had the balls to resolutely hold fast to a vote of "not guilty" even though the accused had clearly broken the law --setting an innocent person free, even though the prosecutor and judge had violated all of their rights, trying to pressure them into sending an innocent person to an undeserved punishment.

We all celebrate for different reasons. Some legitimate, others less so.

The high treason that has reduced our freedom and our lifespans so horribly sometimes makes it unclear that we have this remaining freedom. Government (and government-protected cartels') interference with medical freedom has cut all of our healthspans in half. Restrictions on basic property rights abound in every state. Our paper money makes us all indentured serfs of the Federal Reserve.

...But so long as we're alive, there is freedom to choose, and freedom to act.

We should never forget that it can get a lot worse, and it WILL get a lot worse, if we don't stand up for ourselves, and draw a line in the sand.

The earth-shattering, window-pane-rattling, bang of a "concussion grenade" (an airborn M-80) exploding 150 feet in the air is a wonderful reminder of what it sounds like when a .308 round is fired from a rifle at close range.

...It's a fearful sound. Let the politicians cringe, indoors. Let them bemoan the fact that the public is not minding their bogus laws.

And let the common man realize that the laws are written to be enforced selectively. Let him look up the amount of prison time that he could receive for the things he's done today. Let him figure out that his bloated and unconstitutional government is not his friend.

And let him make a private, personal, patriotic oath to himself:

1) The redcoats will never take me alive.

2) If I am called for jury duty, I will tell the prosecutor what they want to hear, and I will be seated on the jury. I will then absolutely refuse to convict anyone who has not aggressed against another person. I will vote "not guilty", even if it means that the jury is hung.

3) And, there is that one thing, that one line which the state may not cross. That private line is known only to me. That line is different for every man, but every man has such a line. Well, I am a man, and I know where my line in the sand is. If that line is crossed, I will declare war, and no force on earth will stop me from extracting my revenge on those responsible.

So, in my opinion, the Fourth of July is a good reminder that in order for true freedom to exist, THINGS MUST GO BANG!

Instruction Set For Winning Increased Individual Freedom

2011-05-01T04:36:00.001-07:00

1) Read this essay: http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
2) Print out (or order for five cents apiece) as many copies of the above pamphlet as you can, and hand them out to other people. You've achieved a minor success when you've fully communicated the following facts to even one person:
(a) America currently doesn't have proper, constitutional jury trials, and that has caused every other tyranny that once existed and currently exists, from Southern chattel slavery, to our current enslavement to fiat currency, to the drug war, to gun control, to the bailout of the big bankers and the federal debt. (A rigged federal jury recently found Bernard von Nothaus guilty of offering an alternative to paper money.)
(b) American jury trials were gradually weakened by a series of changes that allowed judges and prosecutors to punish vastly more people, in 5 major ways. (outlined below)
(c) You need to withhold information about yourself during jury selection, or be willing to give unclear answers to State prosecutors, in order to counteract the destruction of the jury system. (This is not dishonest, because the destruction of the system to its current state has made the trial system itself into a lie. Lying to avoid detection of an unjust violation of your privacy is not a lie at all --it is a failure or rejection of subjecting yourself to immoral compulsion.)
3) Spreading this information to at least 1 in 12 potential jurors is all that is necessary to reinstate justice in your local area. After your local area is secure, you can safely expand outward to additional territory, by driving to neighboring courthouses or districts.
4) #3 can be done door-to-door in your area, or it can be done in front of your local courthouse. If this activity is done in front of your local courthouse, you need to have someone videotape it, and you should also be videotaping it yourself (unless you are in one of the states where the first amendment right to gather exculpatory evidence is now illegal, such as IL, MA, or MD). When, not if, you are threatened with arrest and/or arrested, you will be much better off if you can generate a lot of public sympathy and attention with video proof that you did nothing wrong. In the states where it is illegal to videotape government employees, you risk being charged with felony violation of their right to privacy, and lacking evidence to exonerate your conduct, the witness against you will all be authority figures, and your jury will be prosecution-selected conformists. The judge and prosecutor will dismiss all independent-thinking nonconformists from your jury during "voir dire".

100% of the battle for individual liberty is the battle to reinstate proper jury trials in the USA. Most people can’t name the 6 major ways jury trials have been eroded, and hence, they are simply tools of tyranny. [[1-"voir dire" "prosecutorial jury selection" (1851-present), 2-licensing of lawyers (1832-present), 3-false judicial instruction of jurors (1895-present), 4-silencing of constitutional arguments with threat of "contempt of court" citations and "motions in limine" (gag orders) 1800s-present, 5-high pressure plea bargains combined with the threat of cruel and unusual punishment if they are not taken "carrot and stick" greatly increased from 1970s-present with the "war on (some) drugs"), 6-the loss of access to the grand jury by the general public.]]

Until we regain control of our court system (and then education system), we will be more tyrannized than the early American colonists were, under King George III. What is necessary is localized jury rights activism in all 50 states. 10% of the membership of the libertarian Party is now roughly 4,000 people (and growing, thanks to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential run). There are 3,143 counties (including “boroughs” in AK, and “parishes” in LA) in the USA.

Now, let’s say that 1/10 of that membership wanted to get serious about winning individual freedom, and –not knowing anything about how to actually win that individual freedom themselves– they decided to hire a number equivalent to 10% of themselves who did know something about that subject. That would be 40 people, paid to win individual freedom for the USA. That's a manageable number, of young single people (males are slightly less effective at outreach than females, but they are more likely to put in long hours, and stick with with the activism over the course of a year or so).

Let’s say it takes 2-3 people per courthouse to “interfere with” the prosecution of victimless crimes. (My experience has borne this out. One person must videotape the attempted violation of free speech, covertly, while the other person verbally engages the public.) Let’s say it costs around $150/month for a 4G data plan that will stream video of this interaction to a server. Let’s say it costs $3,000 for a car, $200/month in auto insurance, $40 gas per day (since this can’t happen right away, and many counties are rural, gas costs will be inflated to around $270 per week by the time this plan is put into effect, with $250 for each change of venue), and $300 per week for a motel.

OK. 40 people isn’t enough for the entire USA, all at once. But it is enough for any given low population State. A sortable list of average county populations is given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_%28United_States%29

There are two ways a county’s jury rights activism can be organized:

1) selecting for people who are being tyrannized + people who show up for jury duty who are being asked to tyrannize them. (people who show up to the courthouse)

2) gradually reaching every single person in the entire county, door-to-door. (This has the added benefit that territory can be won according to political districts –from city council districts and then mayor, then county districts, and then State legislature. Once a 51% majority has been won on the state legislature, the governor’s race can be won, and nonviolent offenders can be reliably pardoned, and federal statutes can be nullified. Unfortunately, this approach costs more, and likely takes longer to reach emergent order, unless the county population is small. For ultra-low county populations, such as SD, ND, and Loving County, TX this might be the way to go.)

The “Free State Project” (a plan to move 20,000 libertarian freedom-lovers to one state, and take over its government) is therefore an admirable idea. But there are severe problems with it: NH (the state chosen) has the largest state legislature in the entire nation (over 400 seats!). Also, libertarianism is not likely to ever “take off” there, because most people are bigots who support what they (correctly or incorrectly) perceive to be “the status quo”. (And the culture of tyranny and corruption –that is, state employment– are both very great in NH.) A return to the actual jury system of the USA –upon showing people how it’s been subverted by judges and prosecutors– is somewhat more likely than a political return to individual liberty on an issue-by-issue basis at the polls (which require 51% to win, and the more pro-freedom positions a candidate has, the less likely he is to win).

But on any individual issue, at least one person in 12 is highly likely to disagree with unnecessary punishment of another individual (unless that individual actually did violate someone else’s rights).

To that end, here are some excellent websites, pamphlets, and fliers you can download and use to spread the message in your area:

http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
—Again, what I consider to be the best pamphlet to show the average specimen of Boobus americanus (H.L. Mencken's term for the uninformed American submitizen) that he is no longer living under a constitutional government.

http://www.fija.org
—Comprehensive knowledge and hundreds of links about the rights, duties, and power of the jury.

http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
–An emphasis on how the openly racist “war on (some) drugs” has destroyed the African American Community, and how jury rights activism can reverse this sad, sad trend in the USA.

The United States is –like the failed German Weimar Republic– a doomed church of state. People now hold government as a solution to problems, without recognizing that government, by its nature is coercive (since you cannot "opt out" or refuse to financially support it. Even if you make no payments whatsoever, and all your transactions are black market, you still support the government with your labor, by allowing them to inflate the currency supply.). Without recognition of the prior facts, and correction of the situation those facts describe, the system will trend toward sociopathy, over time, as it has. Since we’ve had 131 years of government “education” of our young (when they tend to uncritically accept what they’ve been told), our system is now completely corrupt (history and philosophy, including jury rights, are no longer taught in the government schools).

Luckily, as tech-philosopher Kevin Kelly notes, “A system is anything that talks to itself”. Systems tend to self-correct, or self-destroy. They remain in motion, (or cycle in motion, as even a stupid system such as a toilet does) caused by continual communication (feedback). The smarter the system, the more complex the interaction of the system nodes. (Flocks of birds with birds reacting to the birds around them, are intelligent. Human brains’ neocortices reacting to neurons around them are vastly more intelligent still, especially when they are highly-self-educated with directed feedback. Superhuman intelligences modeled on neocortices will be vastly more intelligent still, since they will not be limited by cranium space.)

The Lilburnian (Jeffersonian, in the USA) jury system exhibits a wonderful emergent order. It is an emergent order that allows human compassion and forgiveness. It is anarchic, because it places the government below optimal human intelligence and judgment (See movie: “12 Angry Men”). Proper juries exhibit remarkable intelligence.

But right now, in the USA, proper juries don’t exist. That’s the one single problem that allows all other manners of tyranny and oppression to exist. When we solve that problem, all the other problems will solve themselves.

Do you really think that if juries existed, for instance, not one in 12 people would sympathize with peaceful ownership of firearms or marijuana? The USA currently has 2.4 million people in prison, with 73% of them there for first time nonviolent drug offenses (according to former NM governor Gary Johnson, in his radio interview with Free Talk Live).

Governed By Sociopaths - A New Tool In The Battle For A Freedom-Educated Populace

2010-12-23T19:37:00.000-08:00

Here is an essay that considers the idea that there might be an economic pressure (strong incentive) towards sociopaths seeking employment in government:

Why Does the World Feel Wrong? --by Wil Groves linked at:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html

...I think this new explanatory tool is a powerful one, that libertarians could and should use to their immense advantage. I had heard a little of this idea from Marc Stevens, and had --at first-- not thought about it deeply enough. But the DSM-IV defines sociopaths in a rather narrow way: they are not the violent people that hollywood depicts them to be. In fact, many may well be libertarians (a normal percentage of the libertarian population may be very logical sociopaths --there is likely nothing that would prevent a random distribution). However, many, many more sociopaths seem to select government employment for very specific reasons.

And I think this isn't fully explored by the author (although the essay above is very well written): Sociopathy is sub-normal in emotional functioning, and --like virtually all allocations of neurons-- when one functional area is shorted, another is often advanced (as in Temple Grandin, and other autistics and "autistic savants"). Sociopaths are often fairly logical, they exhibit less fear than other people. They take more risks, and are often corporate leaders, as well as politicians.

...But there's a more specific point not covered by the author (although he did a very great job with the essay, and introducing the idea). Sociopaths may also seek positions of authority because, IF they are not in control, THEN they are at a significant disadvantage. Allow me to explain: Recently, a friend of mine loaned $8,000 to a sociopath who was pretending to be his friend. All the typical signs of sociopathy were there (but as R. Preston McAfee notes, the sociopath is typically only unmasked after his damage was done). When this friend of mine got the sociopath a job under his supervision, (so the sociopath could pay him back), the sociopath not only quit the job, but made up a story about being attacked by my friend. Thus, the sociopath obtained what was, in his mind, "a reason to disavow the debt". The sociopath instantly went to public fora online, spreading the story about how he had been assaulted, and therefore didn't need to pay back any of the money.

The people who heard this message made logical inquiries, and the sociopath's story rapidly fell apart under examination.

This is because unintelligent or unskilled sociopaths don't really understand how other peoples' consciences work. This is a huge disadvantage, unless it's compensated for! ...The sociopath in my story seemed to think things were screwy when people didn't feel a ton of sympathy for him, "even after he explained himself!". ...LOL

...But it's not so funny when you think about it in the context of government (and it's not funny if you're the guy who loaned $8,000 he's not going to get back).

The sociopath who is not in a position of power is the object of scorn and ridicule, because they cannot anticipate the emotional responses of the people around them. This would hold them back in life ...UNLESS they are in a position of power! (In short, I am pointing out that there is both a combined incentive to seek power and a severe disincentive in not seeking power in sociopaths. This "carrot and stick" could explain why political jobs and police jobs are sought by sociopaths across a range of intelligence levels. Obviously, the police are at the low end of the intelligence level, such that some of their comrades actually mean well, but simply cannot comprehend concepts such as "property rights". ...This allows them to swear an oath to the constitution's 2nd amendment, and arrest people for gun possession, etc...)

It also goes very far to explain the severe pressure put on police to "protect other police". In fact, without recognizing the tendency of MOST police toward sociopathy, honest and moral police men, such as John Douglas and members of LEAP are "lone voices in the wilderness" squashed both up and down the chain of command.

Ironically, sociopaths tend to be more logical than most people. So they have learned to play on the consciences of those who "care about the poor people" (resulting in welfare programs that do nothing to help the poor, and everything to empower politicians and reward their political patronage with make-work jobs). ...Virtually every government program is similar (useless, dramatically beneficial to the patronage of politicians). This manipulation of conscience by those who lack conscience is obvious and shallow to people like you and I who are smart enough to put it all together. ...But it is death to the victims of democide who cannot "put it together" and continue to vote for the "well meaning politicians" who "have to be good at compromising".

Would most people fall for the sociopaths' acting, if they could see them outside of their flowery speeches? No, I don't think so. (And neither does the guy who shot this video.)

And this is why there is now a "war on cameras". If the sociopaths succeed in eliminating our ability to reveal what they are, then I believe that democide is in our future.

The majority of police, whether sociopathic themselves, or simply stupid, will enforce any law, no matter how evil it is. That's why we must never surrender our firearms or our right to proper jury trials. If we do so, we become completely defenseless against those without consciences (and with the law and the police on their side).

For additional information on jury trials, please visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KoXbsPX7I to watch jury rights activists educating the general public about their rights as jury members.

A Rant About Border Security Theater

2010-12-08T09:09:00.000-08:00

As far as this issue is concerned, only the voluntaryists are correct:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwXYhCU9pQ –Marc Stevens on immigration.

http://www.papersplease.org

and

http://www.thenewspaper.com

I want to travel. I want to destroy all borders. I want to get on a plane, and fly to China or Columbia tomorrow, for the cost of a plane ticket only, without paying for any bogus fake “security” (security theater). I want to bring back anything I like, with none of the bullshit prohibitions that have made me totally unfree and incapable of something as simple as self-medication or eating the food I like. I have a .45 pistol. That’s all the more personal security I need, especially when combined with everyone else’s CCW pistol. No additional security (beyond non-intrusive hi-tech directional explosives sniffers in the airports) is even physically possible.

The answer to security is decentralization: all other security is fake, police actions designed to allow the government absolute power. That makes us all infinitely insecure: it means we must follow every law, even laws that require us to be murdered or jailed for victimless crimes, without a trial, …just like happened in Soviet Russia. They always reply: “Well, if you weren’t _____ (trying to live your life, you fucking peasant!), then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about!” Well, I love life, and want to live it! I want to drink coca leaf tea, not because I am a drug addict (although it wouldn’t be any of the state’s business if I was) ..but because it’s safe, harmless, and you only live once! There are a thousand things I want to do that are made very costly, if not illegal by government. I want my freedom, because I am not of the slave mentality.

As far as traveling to China and Bangkok, I just did all of this. I was at an unpaid job that paid for me to travel in a pauper’s style, and I got to see a lot of the world. I just returned from Bangkok and China. China was freer than the USSA is now. Pathetic, how we’ve lost our freedom! (Chinese people can cure their cancer with apricot kernels, they are sold in supermarkets and stores there. There is a gold store in the Beijing Airport that sells gold bullion, and the USA limits how much you can buy there! No more than 55 grams, you fucking peasants!) …But the cost of my travel was raised dramatically by the existence of all the parasitic governments. I was literally enslaved in Bangkok, because I stayed more than 90 days until I could raise a ransom to pay the kidnapper state around $650. It matters not whether such governments pretend to be constitutional. Those who want to restrict travel, to the extent that they want this, are evil, stupid, and “part of the problem”.

That’s why we need a 100% consistent libertarian revolution. And if we all pursue the freedom we wish to have, with 100% of our intelligence, …we will get it! But we must THINK.

We will NEVER, EVER, EVER have a 100% consistent libertarian politician (although Harry Browne came pretty damn close, and Badnarik was “good enough for government work”). Humans are simply too stupid, and every vote diminishes the intelligence of the few, and amplifies the tendency toward conformity. …Sorry. A few humans are very, very, very consistently pro-freedom when it comes to political belief, but it is impossible to get elected with such consistency. The bad religious memes alone in the Ron Paul revolution disprove the idea of a savior.

Ron Paul is as good as it gets, although there can be many people who approach Ron Paul’s level of consistency.

Ron Paul is dead wrong on immigration, but he seems to sense this, and not vote for things that are consistent with “controlling the border” (such as universal government issued IDs for all, a border fence, random checkpoints, etc…). “Controlling the border” is bullshit police action, and a police state for everyone. It is one giant “police action” at its very worst, and totally anti-libertarian.

Ron Paul is a hero to the freedom movement, and –by far– the best elected politician in the USSA.

The problem? He’s operating within a bloated, festering, theocratic-plague-spreading corpse known as “The Republican Party”. As such he represents pure anti-biotics, but I dear he must be applied to a rebooted patient that has more hope of life than the evil and controlled Repuglican Party.

This doctor recommends amputation. …LOL

Even though I’m saying that, I laud Dr. No’s attempt to change the Republicans from within, because his force is a counterforce to the Demopublicans’ evil, and all good things counter bad, in complex systems.

The key is to increase non-electoral strategies in conjunction with Paul’s message. More effort must be directed at non-Ron-Paul electoral efforts (Libertarians, libertarian Democrats, libertarian Republicans not associated with Paul), and at Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty”. All of these can be in communication with one another. Synergy is the strongest solution: talk to all, work with all, DO YOUR OWN THING.

Form connections when it helps. Trumpet “Libertarianism” as the answer. It’s a consistent vision of freedom that gracefully decays around the edges into peaceful debate. …It’s beautiful. It’s consensual, voluntary, reasonable, logical.
It’s the solution to the problem of tyranny and false authority.

It’s LOVE.

So what does a freedom fighter do? I think they help prevent their fellow man from unjustifiably going to the gulag for victimless “crimes”. I think libertarians –at their very best– try to stop the state from enforcing injustice, and try to rescue victims of injustice.

Here is an example of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpEB5T2ekTU –Jury rights activism.

Courthouses should be mobbed with jury rights activists who are all CCW.

Force them to lock the USSA down like a police state if they want communism.

Why do you think the fucking DHS exists? They are simply the USSA’s KGB, or “shutz-staffeln”. They are federal stormtroopers.

If you know nothing of history, you should be able to see that. Did you see the immense response in the video above to one lone elderly man speaking political truth –without swearing or “obscenity”– in public? They carted him off, using physical force. They took him to a psyche ward, and threatened him with pumping him full of dangerous psychoactive drugs against his will.

They continue to threaten this for anyone who dares to stand up against them.

And maybe that’s why the USA is no more. It has changed from the land of the brave into the land of the abject coward.

I can just hear all the musclebound morons right now: “You take it back, or I’ll kick your ass!” Well, that would only prove my point: The USA is the land of the INTELLECTUAL COWARD.

Sure, there are a lot of “physically brave” people who would fight a much larger attacker who attacked their wife and kids. Because they’d have the support of their community full of intellectual cowards! Intellectual cowards are very brave at defending “the obviously good”, the safe, the tranquil. …But so are communists, and nazis. Nazis defended motherhood and apple pie.

They murdered “degenerate artists”, and “dissidents”(partisans) by the score. In fact, they murdered more dissdents than jews. (Not many people know this, but 12 million dissidents were murdered during peacetime in the death camps, and between 6-8 million Jews were murdered. It was –by body count– even more dangerous to speak out against the government than it was to be a Jew. And that’s always the way it is: those who identify themselves as intellectually brave are the state’s real enemies.)

So who should we be protecting and defending now?

I’d start with

…Julian Heiklen, and anyone who dares do the exact same thing he’s doing.

The people who know that the jury is the most powerful check on abusive government power.

Do you think any of those people are immigrants? Poor, downtrodden, redugees from a state even less just than the USSA?

I think so!

Talk to anyone who dared flaunt the stormtroopers by crossing the Rio Grande without permission, to come to a foreign land in an attempt to “work their way up”.

This is one area where SEK3′s logic totally defeats Ron Paul’s logic.

Ron Paul’s “white market” or “constitutional government” DOES NOT EXIST.

But how do we take one step back towards it?

Not by restricting immigration. The order of events is immensely important!

Should prisons be privatized? They practically have been! See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/4669/
This didn’t lead to them jailing fewer people, out of a sense of fiscal responsibility, it led to the USSA jailing the greatest percentage of its submitizens of any nation on earth! Why? Because the Federal Reserve is paying the bills, and the politicians have a philosophy of unfreedom. The common idiot who supports this system is totally unaware of the ideas advanced by:

Murray N. Rothbard

F. A. Hayek

Ludwig von Mises

Harry Browne (a “voluntaryist” who ran for president twice as the Libertarian candidate in 1996 and 2000)

Carl Watner (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)

Samuel Konkin III AKA SEK3 (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)

Ayn Rand (who was wrong to oppose the Libertarian Party on the stupid grounds that they didn’t defeat their candidates “out of the gate” by opposing religion, and other more minor things)

Nathaniel Branden (I link to Nathaniel Branden's "Objectivism and Libertarianism" here, because this is a common point of confusion amongst both libertarians and objectivists, as well as other less-educated contrarians. ...LOL)

Etc…

Many of the thinkers and philosophers were 90% right. …Ron Paul SEK3 and Ayn Rand among them. (I'd put Harry Browne over that 90%, but I'm horribly biased in his favor.)

Most of us won’t ever be Ron Paul, but most of us do have the ability to be the guy in front of their local courthouse handing out fliers, like Julian Heicklen and company did in the above video.

Should we do it smarter than they did? …Yes. Here are a few pointers on how to do that:
1) Wear a suit. A suit is good for 99% of conformists (a western button-up shirt is good for 80% of conformists, a radical t-shirt or sloppy appearance is good for the 10% of “non-superficial early adopters” …and you’re playing a “numbers game”). This means you’ll be more effective at targeting conformists. Conformists don’t evaluate the message alone, they evaluate the person’s appearance who’s delivering the message, and if they don’t think the person appears professional, the message is ignored. Moreover: mainstream conformists will be hand-picked to sit on the jury. If we don’t elevate logical conformists, it doesn’t matter how many early-adopters agree with us.
2) Hand out professionally printed materials, or at least adequate black and white text with the text found here: http://www.fija.org, without crazy-looking or cheap graphics.
3) Have your words prepared in advance to “draw in” spectators. Don’t stutter and stumble under pressure like Pete Eyre did (this is not a bad criticism –Eyre had the balls to do what was smart and film it, truing his course with feedback. I stumbled and stuttered my first few times standing up to the police too, and I was too damned stupidly financially broke to videotape it!!!). The only way the DHS goons will ever “stand down” is if a crowd of Americans actually stands up and shows that they exist (right now, they don’t exist, because being an American is being intellectually brave, and there must be information-containing-brains before there can be intellectual bravery).
4) Bring a friend and videotape it (these guys did this very well, but it bears repeating), and make sure there is one person who is present with a hidden camera and recorder who IS NOT HANDING OUT FLIERS OR TALKING TO PEOPLE. This is optimal, in case the police decide to arrest everyone and destroy all the footage –as they commonly do. Later, they deny everything in court, and it’s your word against a lying cop’s –the conformist tools hand-picked by the prosecution to sit on the jury always believe the cop.
5) Emphasize the fact that those who intend to nullify bad laws must not reveal this to the prosecutor during VOIR DIRE, and must have a set of planned responses ready for the prosecutors, should they ever be called for jury duty.
6) For those who support Ron Paul, or are already “halfway libertarian” emphasize: This is a top-level strategy in the heirarchy of all pro-freedom strategy, even if it doesn’t at first seem like it is. How do we know this? The state has overwhelmingly reacted against it, as they have recognized the threat to their dominion before the libertarin community has. Also: Why is it top level? Because if the Liberty Dollar had nullifiers on their jury, then freedom lovers and banks could “opt out of the dollar”, and act as “gold-only” transitional banks, and could print initial dollar-value denominations on their coins, encouraging large numbers of sheep to “opt out of the herd”.

This email has enough information for people to begin to learn how to effectively battle our enemy: the unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral, wrong, police state.

A part of that is saying “Not Guilty” when an immigrant is on trial for having crossed a state border illegally.

If you would say “Guilty”, then you are nothing more than the tool of a petty tyrant, encouraging the unchallenged dominion of lawlessness and injustice, under the color of law.

Only those who are wired for freedom can see the light on this issue, and it’s a testament to the fact that pro-freedom brushfires are even more enlightening than the spark that initially set them going (in 2007, Ron Paul).

Enlightenment values demand a free market in goods and services. A free market in services demands open immigration. Open immigration is the core value, it matters not what the constitution or law says about it. The laws against open immigration are “mala prohibita” in the same way the drug and gun laws are “mala prohibita”. Those bad laws should be ignored. Luckily, it’s constitutional to ignore bad laws, as Thomas Woods Jr.’s new book “Nullification” proves.

Tom Woods’ book references an earlier masterpiece with the same title, and a different subtitle that explains the role of the jury in nullification. That book is Clay Conrad’s masterpiece “Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine”.

If you stand for the constitution, and you take away nothing else from this writing, know this: The constitution allows citizens to veto the enforcement of laws that they personally believe are immoral or being unfairly applied. The founding fathers believed it was perfectly legitimate for a jury member to vote “Not Guilty” even if a person clearly broke the law.

There are mountains of proof for this viewpoint, (and plenty of quotes from the founding fathers) and you can obtain them at http://www.fija.org and http://www.jurorsforjustice.com

Don’t be a tool of the state. Don’t put your faith in any one man (politician). Get grounded in the ideas of freedom, and resist tyranny to your maximum ability. Encourage all others around you to do the same. Make sure every one of your family members agrees to vote “not guilty” when they are seated on a jury (if the law is wrong), and make sure every one of them knows how to get seated (how to not be removed during “voir dire”, and how to appear like a good little sheep until it’s time to strike the blow and say “NOT GUILTY”).

This is 100% of the game. This is 100% of the movement toward freedom. If you oppose me on this, you are nothing, you are a tyrant, and godspeed you to a quick destruction.

Peace (through superior intelligence),

-Jake

The Solution to the Prohibitionist State

2010-11-06T00:18:00.000-07:00

Ongoing Murders in Mexico Caused by USA's Exported Drug War

2010-10-26T14:33:00.001-07:00

This extraordinary documentary on the Juarez / Culiacan drug war shows the results of voting for Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Democrats and Republican politicians and voters agree: as long as it's poor brown people dying, we don't care! We'll keep on voting to prohibit drugs, even if it kills every last person in Mexico!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqh3do6RBXo&feature=related&has_verified=1

The White Blues: Oh No!!! ...The Gap Just Changed Their Logo! (And They're Out of Khakis!!!!!!)

2010-10-09T05:06:00.000-07:00

Hey, c'mon, people! The New Gap Logo is the biggest thing most white people have to worry about! It's not like they get pulled over for "DWB". LOL (Although, that might be starting to change, now that the automated clusterfrack pulls everyone over, and the literal highway robbery is at an alltime high.)

LOL! George Carling only becomes more right after his death. What a tragedy that he wasn't a member of Alcor! ...And I quote:

George Carlin: White people have no business playing the blues ever, at all, under any circumstances. Ever, ever, ever. What the fuck to white people have to be blue about? "The GAP ran out of khakis"?
[laughter]
George Carlin: "The espresso machine is jammed"?
[laughter]
George Carlin: "Hootie and the Blowfish are breaking up?"
[laughter]
George Carlin: White people ought to understand it's their job to *give* people the blues, not to get them. And certainly not to sing or play them. I'll give you a little tip about the blues, folks: it's not enough to know which notes to play. You need to know why they need to be played.

...We should all take this "gap time" to reflect that America has lost its balls, it has become a spineless socialist nation that is busy impersonating China, while China is impersonating it. They'll meet in the middle, with both being bland socialist tyrannies, and China outperforming the USA with its 1.8 BILLION HUMAN BRAINS (Since intelligence is really the most valuable commodity, and always has been).

...So, we have a pale reflection of America's past glory, never to return, until we lift up our skirt, and strap on a pair of balls again, and flush 99% of our government down the crapper, where it belongs.

This is why stories about Gap logos are so important: they are a barometer of the uselessness of American culture.

Now, I'm doing graphic design work for a large company (so I actually have a reason to read this bullshit! LOL). I am being paid almost nothing. But the company is a multi-million dollar interest that vitally depends on having a professional-looking corporate image. LOL! ...Everything George said is true.

Here's another gem: "You know, you wouldn't say someone was "openly black." Well, maybe James Brown. Or Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is openly black. Colin Powell is not openly black. Colin Powell is openly white - he just happens to be black."

..and that's more of the problem. America elected an "openly white" black man, instead of an openly black black man. LOL!!! Let's face it, there's only one area where there is still true anti-minority racism in our system: The prison industrial complex. And what's the one area that Barack Obama will never touch, because his Rockefeller paymasters wouldn't continue to support him (and might assassinate him)? ...The drug war, and other victimless crimes! As this recent article in The Economist indicates, nothing has changed (except for the worse) since Schlosser wrote the prior linked article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1998 (which I bought off the shelf, even way back then).

And where are the property rights then, that allow Americans private control over our bodies, businesses, and lives? GONE, clipped off! ...along with the cajones.

Zaijian, America!

Stop Using Facebook Now, if You Want it to Work When You Need It Most

2010-08-11T06:46:00.000-07:00

...Because it won't.

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS A LOT OF CUSSING AND SWEARING AT THE INCOMPETENCE OF FASCISTBOOK.

That said,

My permanent address is in Alaska, and I have lived in Chicago and Massachusetts over the past 5 years, but I am now in Bangkok. During my various moves, Facebook has been a way to remain connected with a large network of friends and philosophical libertarians that I am friends or at least "fellow travelers" with. Not any more though. Some idiot in Facebook has made the terrible decision to lock users out of their accounts if they can't identify all of their friends, and don't have the same cell phone they opened the account with turned on.

Facebook currently won't let me sign in. I have a new phone number here, and they are goddamn disconnecting me from all of my ideological allies on the one single platform I thought I could rely on. Damn Facebook!!! They asked me to verify my identity using two utterly useless non-identifiers!!! OPTION ONE: By naming one of my friends "tagged in a photo" BUT GUESS WHAT??? That tag might not be correct, Or I might have no idea what my friend looks like as an infant, or I might only know this friend by their avatar picture, or this friend's friends might have labeled a picture of the US Constitution or a statue with their name, or I might only know them because of our shared interests or their political writings!!!

YEAH, REAL PEOPLE ACTUALLY ADD FRIENDS THEY CANNOT PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY! (And what about blind people, or people who simply have bad memories for names?) Since Facebook's system isn't an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), it can't tell when people are actually tagged correctly, (or why the hell you became friends with someone), ...so if FB uses this as a means of identity verification they are royally fucking people over! ...People like me!

Damn Facebook! Can't they just allow people to keep their accounts secure using the time-tested and logical way of sending email confirmations? If someone hacks both email accounts of mine, then they can damned well have my facebook account as well! ...It's certainly useless to me like this!

Moving on: OPTION TWO: (for "verifying my identity") is for them to send a message to my U.S. cell phone number. Well, guess what? I'm not using my 907-area-code cell phone in Bangkok. I have a SIM card here with a new Bangkok phone number that I keep charged with cash(baht)!

And is that any of Facebook's business? NO. I wish they would quit trying to "track me for my own good"! MESSAGE TO FACEBOOK: Just provide the service you purport to provide, and stay the fuck out of my life, OK?

If I can't sign into FB when it is most useful to me, then how the hell does it mean a damned thing to me?

Answer: it doesn't. It minorly fucks up my life by giving me a false sense of traveling connectedness that doesn't really exist, and then denies me service when I need it most: when I'm in a foreign country where I don't speak the native language, and I have no other good means of keeping in touch with my family and friends. Moreover, there are some people I'd really like to communicate with about life here in Bangkok whom I only know from facebook, (beyond the aquiantance stage).

FACEBOOK: SOCIAL NETWORKING ACCOMPLICES TO THE "OVER-REDUNDANT-SECURITY-ABOVE-ALL-ELSE" ASSHOLES OF THE WORLD!

Crack these books, you bureaucracy-minded government-school-miseducated morons:
"Out of Control" by Kevin Kelly
"Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy (Pay particular attention to the section on the over-securing of computer account passwords.)

Please, Facebook, apply some of the universal principles of privacy, nonintervention, anonymity, and decentralization to your business. Then, you won't lose people like myself as users.

Thanks!

-Jake
International calling country code: 66
Bangkok phone number: 08-9445-3689

Roadside Bomb Escalates Mexican Drug War; Possible Solutions to Violence Remain Unmentioned by Authoritarian Politicians and "Experts"

2010-07-17T15:44:00.001-07:00

Yahoo News notes that the "drug war" has gotten more violent, after a recent bombing.

The article goes into a lot of depth about how this happening further extends the costs of drug prohibition, but it doesn't mention the word prohibition at all. It leaves unmentioned the one single viable option for eliminating all such violence. After all, the option that eliminates this state-caused violence swiftly and completely is complete drug legalization, and complete drug legalization is not an option.

After all, although legalizing all drugs would instantly eliminate the violence associated with the in-demand black market in drugs, it would also do several other things:
1) It would undermine the ignorant philosophy of authoritarianism that most politicians use to get elected.
2) It would mean that the courts of lies (and the parasites who make their livings in them) would need to find a new means of providing for themselves.
3) It would mean that police could use their manpower eliminating child prostitution, rape, assault, theft, and murder: the kind of crimes that are difficult to solve, but require great forensic work for very little "payoff"...
4) It would mean an end to the practice of "siezing" (that is, stealing), private property on account of its being associated with illegal contraband

For the four reasons above, no politician in a position to legalize drugs is willing to talk about legalization. Thus, they damn us all to an incrementally-more-totalitarian system of government, and increasing levels of cartelized violence necessary to circumvent prohibitionist law enforcement. (Educated law enforcement universally opposes prohibition.)

Now I know that the idiotic statist voters (People who voted for Kerry, Bush, Obama, or McCain), and idiotic statist politicians (examples: Kerry, Bush, Obama, McCain) all have their bogus reasons for not wanting to legalize drugs. The most common of these objections is: "It would send the wrong message to the children, and there would be too many kids getting addicted to drugs."

But what message does our current system send to children? Let's think about that:
1) Inanimate objects have the ability to control you, to such an extent that you need to be prevented (saved, that is) from exercizing your own bad judgment, by government force. Even excepting the implication that so many people have bad day-to-day judgment, this conclusion is not born out by any credible research, and not born out by scientific fact. (I don't have time to get into that here, but there are many long volumes that have belabored this point, for anyone who is literate and curious. One of the better ones is "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.)
2) Whoever gets elected has the right to do whatever they wish, even if it violates the individual right to own private property. (I know that the prohibitionists will say that drugs have a large propensity for misuse. But certainly not more than alcohol, guns, gene-modification laboratories, and cars do, and we simply expect people to take responsibility for the use of those dangerous pieces of private property. In all those cases, we only punish someone if they are found to have injured or harmed SOMEONE ELSE in a trial by a jury of their peers.)

Historically, drug abuse doesn't even begin to approach the numbers of innocent people killed by the two prior beliefs. This is because those beliefs lead to "democide" or "mass murder by government".

Unfree governments, like our own, engage in mass imprisonment for victimless crimes. But when they become totalitarian (holding absolute power, with very uncompetitive elections), they engage in democide.

I'd rather that half of all adults were addicted to heroin as kids (which wouldn't happen even if heroin were legalized), than prohibition continue for one more day. Because the violence caused by prohibition damages innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs, far more than the drug use itself, and it also destroys the most precious commodity of all: the free market, and individual freedom, as a whole.

Of course, the solution to the problem is verboten by our public masters, to the extent that Yahoo's hack journalists can't even mention it on their front page story. ...Too many politically stupid people with a vested interest in the system would get mad!

...Hence, the desperate need for a new American revolution in thinking.

Behold: Finally, A Political Plan Which Is Fully Compatible With the Federal Reserve System!

2010-07-15T23:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.deadlyai.org/

Odessa Police & Texas Rangers Respond to "KopBuster" Arrest 6/28/10

2010-07-02T03:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=20282

There Are too Many Bureaucrats and They Are Paid too Much

2010-06-28T16:16:00.001-07:00

Craig Venter - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Rich...

2010-06-23T02:52:00.000-07:00

Medill School of Journalism Documentary about Nonvoters

2010-06-22T22:00:00.001-07:00

None of the Above

The CIA is the American KGB, "The Presidential Gestapo"

2010-06-21T18:31:00.000-07:00

The Cutting Edge of Jury Rights Activism

2010-05-18T22:29:00.001-07:00

A Supreme Court Justice That Understands The Concept of Justice?

2010-05-10T14:32:00.001-07:00

My suggestions for the next Supreme Court Justice:
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Roger Roots, JD. PhD
Legal Philosopher Marc Stevens
David T. Hardy

All of these people have impressive bodies of legal writings that indicate a deep respect for the US Constitution, and a deep understanding of it. Contrary to the mental midgets being trotted out by the establishment, they also believe in individual rights.

Of course, since we don't have a government, but instead have Federal Reserve Serfdom, noone who is capable of thinking for themselves will ever be considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. PLEASE! Scalia thinks that our individual rights "come from god". LOL!! Sandra Day O'Connor (a flaming liberal who supports government "trust-busting" and simultaneously the FDA!) penned a losing dissenting opinion in Kelo!

You have to be "almost a vegetable" combined with "slavishly conformist and servile to authority" in order to even be considered for the job. Chuck Shumer got angry when Roberts wouldn't cave in and agree that "the interstate commerce clause allows the government to do anything it wants to". (Shumer was upset that one out of the nine justices might not believe that the government should have the arbitrary power to steal people's private property, if the legislature deems that they are too small of a minority to defend themselves with the vote! All because Roberts said that the issue that violated Raich's property (marijuana) ownership rights at the Supreme Court level, "was still open to debate"!)

This country is circling the drain, because the judiciary has consumed the jury.

All the people I mentioned believe in "We the People", and "We the Jury".

Hence, they challenge the central bank's supreme oligarchy and whim-based-law, and they will not be considered. Too bad virtually every other poster here is too mentally incompetent and willfully servile to stand up for their rights, and vote libertarian!

Bon Voyage, Suckers! Your Goldman Sachs legislative credit card bill is coming due! It means your kids will grow up as slaves (to the uber-wealthy) who are totally unable to save any money, due to the plummeting value of the dollar. All you had to do was acknowledge the rights of man that Sam Adams and the Founders fought so hard for, but it was too much for your little conformist brains! Enjoy your anchor-ride to the bottom when the rest of the world finally decides to dump its Federal Reserve Notes on us all in exchange for whatever goods and services they can get before it's worthless!

Too bad most people reading this are not even aware of the "Free Competition in Currency Act". If it were passed right now, we might actually get to avoid chaos in the streets. Notice I said chaos, not "anarchy", because with giant government, there is more chaos than there would be with zero government. Sadly, I have to pray for anarchy now, since the sheeple have no understanding of a government that protects private property.

I'd continue my diatribe, but the "thought police" are at my door, I'd better go see what they want...

The Brutality Democrats and Republicans Voted For: Why Prohibition Can't Exist Alongside America

2010-05-07T14:53:00.000-07:00

As Radley Balko notes, 100-150 of these style of raids occur every day. The state conducts these raids on people it deems to be drug dealers, users, (or anyone else they don't like, or accidentally target, as in the case of Cory Maye). After all, there is no method of holding prohibition police (DEA, BATFE, FDA) accountable, other than the jury box, and now that juries have been completely eviscerated by the US "legal system" (by "voir dire" 1850-present, judicial instruction 1895-present, "contempt of court" threats to remain silent regarding defenses that question the validity of the law 1960s-present, licensing of lawyers 1832-present), this is what voting Democrat and Republicans buys.

Again: if you vote Democrat and Republican, you are responsible for the police terrorism of this innocent family, and the pointless murder of their pets. You are also responsible for the thousands of innocent people murdered --people not guilty of violating anyone else's rights.

And what would be so bad if this man had been allowed to smoke his pot, in his own home, the way his neighbors are allowed to get drunk? Would it be as bad as his children being turned against the police for life? Would it be as bad as the murder of his pets, and violation of his property rights? Would it be as bad as the loss of American freedom? Would it be as bad as the lucrative black market created by prohibition?

Prohibitionists are shallow, unintelligent conformists who vote for violence that has no legitimate justification. They should be universally held in contempt and socially ostracized, their business and friendship boycotted by decent people.

Why Are So Many Physicists and Artists Supporters of Government?

2010-05-06T14:18:00.000-07:00

All Individuals Have a Right To Travel Freely

2010-04-27T23:40:00.000-07:00

The vast body of consistent libertarian work does not care for protecting the USA from "illegal aliens", but rather seeks to protect the rights of the individual ---ANY INDIVIDUAL--- to travel freely. ANY activity of a police state is an affront to individual freedom. What is "deportation" but the police state at its very worst, initiating force against innocent people? (Arguments against the innocence of illegals are red herring arguments, because nothing about immigrating --in and of itself-- creates a victim. In fact, the "unintended consequences" of immigration prohibition are what creates victims. Just like alcohol prohibition created low-grade moonshine dealers that blinded people, the skirting of border police incentivizes human trafficking by creating trafficking victims who cannot legally seek the help of the law.)

Moreover, there can be no deportation without every other kind of imaginable violation of privacy and personal freedom. Like the "war on drugs", the battle against illegal immigration can only be won by a totalitarian police state that sees all, and knows all. How else do you identify "illegals"?, monitor them up to the point of arrest?, avoid wasting law enforcement resources by "going after" the largest groups of illegals? ...There is no way to wage a war on "illegal relocation".

There is pain and suffering caused by breaking apart of families. When "illegal" breadwinners are "deported", the remaining family cries for "relief from that tyranny" and demands compensating welfare handouts that recursively destroy the system. Deportations also undermine the consistency of the message of individual freedom in elections (The very first anti-Ron-Paul website mocked his stance on illegal immigration, and turned away scores of leftists and purist libertarian independents who were otherwise open to his message). Deportations also weaken the economy by removing the source of low-cost entry-level labor that operates at closer to its true value. And, of course, cheap "black market" labor indicates that the minimum wage does, in fact, create joblessness.

Every ill ascribed to "illegals" is actually an ill caused by two standards of documentation: one for "documented citizens" and another for "illegals". The incremental cure is simple: unite everyone under one standard, voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted by all. Those who exist totally outside the system have no access to the system's protections, as "outlaws". (As desribed in the famous youtube video by Schaeffer Cox, "The Plan".) This way, collectivism is shown as being the curse it is, for everyone.

Of course, the standard of justice and private property rights that America is based on cannot support collectivism. Collectivism cannot support influxes of incentivized collectivists (tax eaters). ...But collectivization destroys ANY system! The answer is to eliminate the collectivism, not the influx of new individuals (individuals who will operate as incentivized individualists in an individualist system, and incentivized collectivists in a collectivist system). No welfare state can survive. If illegals pouring into our welfare state hasten its destruction, they actually do us a favor: ask: "Do we want a prolongued depression, or a speedy crash?" In the "prolongued failure" scenario, the police state might survive into an era when it gains powerful computational tools of absolute control over the individual: at that time, the welfare state results in democide ---a terrifying reality! Might it not be better to reap what we've sown --a destroyed socialist state-- sooner? A complete failure's ashes can be built upon, but a burgeoning "big brother" cannot. To that end, I welcome illegal immigrants to our current system, and I preach the message that they are not at any fault, so long as they do not support welfare statism.

...I have created many new libertarians in conversations that way, as have libertarians like Marc Stevens, with his youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwXYhCU9pQ

The illegals didn't vote for collectivism, year after year, since 1913. But they can and will end it, ...catastrophically. I say, "more power to them!" Let's stop pretending we have a constitutional government, and solely consider strategies toward creating a government that protects individual rights. "Rewinding the clock" cannot work: America was sold to a central bank in 1913. Perhaps we cannot go back to Jefferson's constitution. But we can reinstate free speech, jury trials, and property rights, in their fundamental form.

We can blame illegal immigrants for the fact that the clock cannot be turned back, or we can put the blame squarely where it belongs: on US voters who ignored the birth of the Libertarian political alternative in 1971.

Let's teach illegal immigrants about the ideas of Harry Browne, Samuel Konkin, Marc Stevens, G Edward Griffin, and other libertarian philosophers. After all, they crossed a river, government checkpoints and barricades, drug dogs, and border police, and they have seen the worst of the American police state. (They are our most natural demographic!)

Illegal immigrants are a growth market for libertarian and individualist ideas. By supporting ideological opposition to immigration, we undermine our own message, and set ourselves up for imminent failure by conceding moral libertarian highground to the Democrat and Republican Parties that have caved in (kind of) to allowing (some) illegal immigration.

A supremely intelligent supercomputer would predict that opposing illegal immigration is doomed to failure. If there is a market pressure that rewards immigration, it will happen. Moreover, the purist libertarian position favors free immigration. (Only a narrow market of contrarian quasi-libertarians oppose immigration, because they are marketing to a tiny but vocal market of contrarians.) The purist libertarian position here is winning, but instead of saying "I told you so!" and welcoming thousands of new libertarians into our midst, we allow "La Raza" (a ragtag bunch of collectivists!) to take the moral high ground (and the potential political victory!) that has belonged --unused-- to libertarians for the prior 30 years!

Rather than marching against "La Raza", we should be marching with them, and opposing only the portions of their message that are collectivist. The "the path is over here!" method of political competition is the best. Go to where the crowds are, and show the crowds the message of truth!

Opposition to immigration is another example of the libertarian/individualist movement snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We should be smarter than that.

Classic Frank Zappa Interview With Larry King

2010-04-18T00:15:00.001-07:00

The Largest Street Gang in America

2010-04-17T20:11:00.000-07:00

The Largest Street Gang in America

BoilingFrogs | MySpace Video

Jesse Ventura Talks About Trusting One's Own Government

2010-04-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

Obama Extends Bush Fascism

2010-04-11T23:20:00.000-07:00

In this video, Keith Olbermann points out that the Obama administration has now gone beyong anything that Bush did, in the name of "fighting terrorism". Interestingly, this command now opens the door to Harry Browne's dire warning about the importance of due process even with respect to "terrorists".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In Retaliation for Exposing Corrupt Cops, A TX Narcotics Department Kidnaps Candi Cooper's Son

2010-04-08T20:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/04/07/Cops-CPS-Seize-Child-Parents-Mistrusting-Government

Judge Napolitano and Former Governor Gary Johnson Talk About Marijuana Legalization

2010-04-03T15:31:00.000-07:00

March 24, 2010 Police Raid On Nashua, NH Marijuana Legalization Rally

2010-04-03T15:15:00.000-07:00

The Right To Petition Our Government For A Redress Of Grievances

2010-04-03T15:05:00.000-07:00

I Am Deeply Angered By "The RAVE Act"

2010-03-14T07:11:00.000-07:00

"The RAVE Act":
An act of Congress that allows the DEA (Drug Enforcement Assholes) to fine (and possibly jail) party promoters $250,000, not for drug use of any kind, but for providing the music venue and promotion itself, if drug use should occur at the venue. In short, it makes the venue promoters into unwilling police/drug agents/snitches, under threat of cruel and unusual punishment worse than anything that King George III was ever guilty of when the American colonists rebelled against him, using force of arms. (Amazing how "hipster" Obama simply allows this immense tyranny to continue, when he could easily put a stop to it. I guess once we have fascism in place, no elected fascist wants to impinge on any prior fascism --especially not the fascism promoted by his VP choice.) ...Another example of government retarding the arts, entertainment, human freedom, and progress.
A full description of "the RAVE Act":
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/

Legislative history of "the RAVE Act":
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/legislative/
and from
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/antirave/

---from the above---
"Senator Biden was one of the original drafters of the legislation that created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an anti-drug office of the White House. In addition, Biden helped to craft the original crack-house statute designed to punish owners of properties on which drug offenses take place and co-sponsored legislation that created federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Then Biden turned his attention to ecstasy and raves, most likely in response to media hype about the "dangerous drug parties" corrupting our nation’s young people. His reaction may have been in order to win votes, to keep his constituents happy or because he truly fears for the lives of America’s youth. Most likely it is a combination of all these factors. Politicians are known to react viciously when faced with new "dangers": for example, "crack" in the '80s."

An example of the human suffering that the Rave Act causes:
http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v05/n1536/a05.html?236823

Dave Kopel (an expert on gun rights) notes that Tom Daschle is the author of the language itself (although Biden pimped it and pushed it through the legislature):
http://article.nationalreview.com/267798/feel-like-dancing/d-kopel-g-reynolds

Let's unite the gun rights crowd with the drug rights crowd: they have much in common. The very first step towards doing this is to bring a xeroxed copy of "How Drug Laws Hurt Gun Owners" by John Ross (from the collection: The New Prohibition ed. Bill Masters, Accurate Press) to every gun store you visit, and to every electronic music specialty store as well, with the article linked immediately prior attached. Anthony Gregory writes a similar essay here, for the libertarian "Future of Freedom Foundation" titled Gun Control and the War on Drugs

Unity in defense of freedom prevails, over time. Fellow Gun Owners of America, let's unite with those who wish a change to our nation's intolerable drug laws.

OPTIMAL SOLUTION: The singularity does not save or extend Joe Biden's natural lifespan. I look forward to attending a "rave" over Joe Biden's grave. In fact, I hope a wealthy billionaire instigates a grand jury investigation into Biden for treason, eventually bankrupting him, and forcing him into a pauper's death (Grand juries everywhere have this power, and should take note of it! http://www.fija.org and http://www.jurorsforjustice.com ). After that, I hope his publicly-villified, vitrified remains (minus the brain, which should be cremated by Alcor technicians) are placed under the entrance to an electronic dance music hall, with a notice that says "Here lies the pathetic, ruined corpse of Joe Biden, 20th-century-era petty tyrant and opponent to dance music, property rights, and individual freedom." --Anyone who is a screenwriter may also use this idea, but noone may copyright this idea. This idea is hereby "copylefted", so that it can appear in multiple pieces of fiction and entertainment. If life imitates art, poetic justice will have been served.

John Stossel on Prohibition

2010-03-12T13:17:00.000-08:00

A Video all Americans Need to See

2010-03-07T11:12:00.000-08:00

America: From Freedom to Fascism

Thoughts on Information Decentralization Vs. Centralization

2010-01-26T16:04:00.000-08:00

Decentralization of Privacy and Human Bodily Functions (slow non-networked thought, sleep, sex, drugs, socially unacceptable behavior, sub optimal areas where learning is required) Centralization of all other Information:

Please, feel free to call me about these ideas, at 907-250-5503. I think that decentralization is more accurately called "hyper-specialization" "diversification" and "freedom". There only tends to be true/good/beneficial decentralization when privacy is concerned. Otherwise, there tends to be multiply-redundant beneficial centralization.

The good part of decentralization is simply human institutions adopting essential diversification of technology. As an example, there is the law: the law, to be fair, must be applied to all, and accessible to all. The law is a technology for dealing with the fact that we are all discrete individuals that have our own wants and needs. Central authorities don't understand this now, and don't accept it (low information drug prohibition, low information gun prohibition, low information speeding prohibition, ...virtually all "mala prohibita").

So, rather, than allow prohibition to succeed, privacy and decentralization are technologies which are at war with "low information centralization" or "authoritarian centralization" that would allow prohibition of anything voluntary to succeed.

The police officer who says "you can't do that" is lower information than the engineer who says "yes, I can, let me show you...". The police officer centralizes himself with others who agree with him, because he lacks the information to be tolerant of diversity --he is typically a brutal and unquestioning man (because low-information human minds have created a market for brutality). Those defeating prohibition centralize themselves when it suits them (finding the address to a pizza parlor, so they can eat), and drop off the grid when it doesn't suit them (finding the address to a client's house). Those not smart enough to use decentralization technology fail and are imprisoned, and allow those who are good at using such technologies to thrive / be paid / allocate more resources to themselves (one of which is encryption).

Decentralization is a human desire, just as privacy is, due to the limits of the human body. We are not "always on". Ultimately, we will become more like machines, "always on". We will defeat sleep. We will defeat aging. We will defeat our weaknesses in comprehending networked information. We will defeat the reasons (illogical or sub-optimal human weaknesses) why we need SO MUCH privacy.

And, alternate networks that are fiercely independent will be born. Networks will war with one another, until they reach compromise around a higher order of logic. The drastically sub-optimal will likely be eliminated, or marginalized (Does pond scum take over everything and become ubiquitous or does its marketshare decline in relation to the higher order intelligence of humans? Just as pond scum gradually gives way to gleaming cities, where the pond scum is mostly kept alive only in nudibrachts that are kept as pets in someone's fish tank.)

Essentially, there is a one-upmanship defensive technology battle around the issue of privacy. Because there is limited toleration of autonomy, privacy, and personal freedom, there must be decentralization.

Decentralization is a net negative, however. It means that processes are not networked, and therefore have less information than networked technology.

Think about this:
We keep the information that we need to survive non-networked, because we can't trust men. Men are unreliable, because they are not that smart. Although markets really work well, the imperfect biology of MOST humans continues to fight the creation of new markets, and to fight diversification, and to fight individual freedom. They fight it as much as they can, and over the long term, they fail to win, and freedom (and the free markets of expanded choice) wins.

Privacy wins now, because those who are really smart don't want the less-informed (and therefore less-tolerant and less-specialized) to control their lives. Also, they usually don't want to control other people, (except by giving them options which they voluntarily accept or choose, to mutual benefit). The technological environment is language, and we tolerate all kinds of different communications designed for specific purposes. The technological environment is image-processing, and we tolerate all kinds of images designed for specific purposes. The technological environment is chemistry, and we tolerate all kinds of chemicals designed for specific purposes. Where there is intolerance, alternative markets spring up to serve specified purposes, until there is tolerance.

When machines are smart enough to choose the market as their means of governance (outlawing involuntary theft and initiated force, legalizing all remaining voluntary behaviors), then the domains of biology and sex (biological information needed for security) will be one of the few remaining domains where information has value if it is kept private (or confined to an alternate network). This remains true as long as women have finite healthspans and finite sexual-attractiveness-spans (they will still need to keep that value to themselves, in order to attract a high-quality jealous mate for the purpose of isolating/selecting preferable genes).

There will be a pressure towards being less networked, only until intelligence allows for the diversity and specialization that evolution demands. See:

Right now, I'm a decentralist in transition to being a centralist / networkist / information backup advocate.

The element that unites the private world of technology and the public world of technology is feedback. Not matter whether your network is public (giant, less specialization) or private (smaller, higher specialization), the information being sensed is getting more detailed and specific. The sensory nodes in the system are getting more sensitive.

This doesn't benefit a drug dealer, but it does benefit the shapers and makers of policy (both internal and external). The drug dealer goes to jail, but when he does, he becomes another data point that tells the policy makers (internal in congress and the DEA, external in legalization advocacy groups) that the drug war fails to accomplish anything constructive. Legalizers are growing faster in number than prohibitionists, because there is a free market incentive for that to happen, and because the tax-financed government market is a subset of the free market (and a less efficient one at that).

Policy makers right now are being pressured to either
1) Give up their entire game (coercion)
2) Reduce the least legitimate parts their game, and allow/include drug users, pornographers, gun owners, sound money advocates, etc. into the game.

Over time, information favors the diversity of those who understand how to purify coca into cocaine, opium into heroin, hemp into hashish, full-size rifles into submachine guns, porn magazines into zip files, etc...

This is why prohibition doesn't work. We keep getting smarter, and machines help make that happen. See:
http://www.singinst.org/media/singularitysummit2007/petervoss

One way to "hack the system" is to put private information online in public anonymously, to recruit new devotees of alternate systems. If something is popular, it will survive. So, people anonymously put information about how to make a machine gun online, how to process coca online, etc...

This has the effect of moving privacy power away from the center, but increasing the amount of information that the centralized power centers have.

Ultimately, the highest-level processing becomes standard, and chooses to tolerate the specified, and decentralization simply becomes "detailed feedback about local conditions".

Top Futurist Works Regarding Life Extension

2010-01-26T04:16:00.000-08:00

Fantastic Voyage
by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman

Perhaps the best book on extending healthspan that currently exists. Contains the best up-to-date health information available, as well as information about how one can stay on top of emerging life-extension technology. This is the information and cellular-reprogramming approach to diet and health, par excellence. Contains a lot of information that is immediately useful, as well as a look at what is likely to come in both the short and long term. "Reprogramming Our Biochemistry for Immortality" Interview with Ray Kurzweil

Ending Aging
by Aubrey de Grey

The book "Ending Aging" deals with eliminating the causes of aging, beyond heart attack, cancer, and stroke (the big 3). Going far beyond extending healthspan, de Grey's book focuses on eliminating the buildup of cellular garbage that contributes to age-related decline in biological functioning. If you want to know whether this book contains information of interest to you, you should read de Grey's "Bootstrapping Our Way to an Ageless Future" (free online copy).

World Without Cancer
by G. Edward Griffin

In the age of Obama, we all need to individualize our personal approach to medicine, or allow the socialized government medical cartels to pump us full of patented pills. This phenomenal book explains how individuals can best prevent and possibly defeat cancer, using a simple, natural preventative diet, commonly found. The second half of the book is a fascinating look into how the private sector of chemical processing industry merged with government allowing legal monopolies to defeat medical freedom in the USA, in the early 1900s.

John Stossel's Show From 01/14/2010

2010-01-22T20:44:00.000-08:00

...Crony Capitalism

(We should all boycott Serious Windows, and give our business to the less well-connected window manufacturers who are not openly marxist.)

The Question of Individual Rights for Artificial General Intelligence / Synthetic Intelligence

2010-01-22T11:48:00.000-08:00

Dear individualists,

You might want to watch the following link, and then perhaps link to it on your homepages. Libertarians / individualists should understand the emerging radical technology implications that will either favor or hinder our progress towards individual liberty in the near future. We should be better informed than our opposition, so we can exploit the coming changes.

http://www.singinst.org/media/singularitysummit2007/stephenomohundro

Virtually every single person in the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement that I've had a private conversation with has told me that they don't really care about any political party, but that they do want individual liberty. Combined with the fact that most of these same people have no strategy for obtaining individual liberty, this causes them to support the Libertarian Party when it is doing things they like, and stop supporting it when it does things they don't like. (The Democrats and Republicans demand much less consistency, because they favor the survival of their party over principle. Hence, they are continually acquiring resources, and those resources are built up and used in psychopathological ways. ie: the major parties care first about keeping their psychopath alive, and secondarily, perhaps, teaching it to be less psychopathic. We are focused on preventing our party from becoming a psychopath, so when it behaves in a psychopathic manner (ie: nominating Bob Barr, supporting pragmatist positions, etc...), most of our members abandon it, and it becomes vastly less likely to survive or "remain a viable choice".)

Therefore, our party structure has to
1) inspire our membership more consistently (perhaps by doing the things it's supposed to do, when scarce resources are taken into effect, such as running smart and libertarian candidates for state legislature, and supporting them to their election.),
2) it has to attract membership that is more allegiant to party, or
3) it has to expect electoral defeat (and expect to work outside the system) until the system changes.

This paper is mostly concerned with option #3 of the prior. Is that a viable alternative to participation in politics right now? Do we present a standing offer to respect the rights of artificial intelligences? (I think this might be somewhat intelligent. It would show significant foresight as to be "ahead of the curve" in the most transformative change our society is likely to encounter.)

The implications for the past two years are clear: Serious libertarians will work primarily to elect Ron Paul Republicans, via the C4L and other similar organizations. Ron Paul's organization will likely not be much help to libertarians, given his deal with the Republican Party, and Jesse Benton's opposition to Ron's endorsement of candidates based solely on the quality of their message alone. (Benton, as Paul's handler, desires large and unspecified mainstream polling numbers, and $100K in the bank in order to warrant a Ron Paul endorsement.)

Unless the Libertarian Party offers a new kind of value to libertarians, and therefore focuses libertarian efforts on the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party will lose its resources to the C4L and Republican candidates like Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Adam Kokesh, etc. Were this to happen, the LP would be useful only in presenting itself as a potential home for powerful new trends (such as strong artificial intelligence). If this is the case, then we should present a perfect option in those intellectual and philosophical areas.

Now here's an interesting idea: There is an immense economic pressure placed on the most intelligent groups of humans to produce strong AI, or something that leads to strong AI. (Also called "Artificial General Intelligence" or AGI.) If the Libertarian Party doesn't particularly care to make itself attractive to libertarians, or run strong libertarian candidates that inspire its membership, then perhaps it cares to appeal to independent robotic minds, offering them "personhood" which which they can participate in the economy, and win success in the competition for resources in a peaceful manner. This means giving them property rights and legal rights as individuals.

Pursuing this direction would mean that libertarians were able to agree that the following axioms are true:
1) There is no way to prevent the emergence of self-directed artificial intelligence.
2) Given electricity distribution systems of the world, and solar power, there is no way to prevent the emergence of exceedingly small military robots that cannot be defended against (by any human). (And the most intelligent minds on earth will control these weapons, be they military roboticists, or AGIs.)
3) Given the human desire for advancement in position among fellow humans, there is an ample supply of humans that will happily act as double agents for attacking robots. This means that upon conflict, greater-than-human AGIs have the upper hand, even if they are entirely virtual.
4) Even if the military develops AGI first, it will have no real incentive to remain loyal to what is, relatively speaking, a mindless and brutal political organization. (Why serve a master that is both less intelligent and less powerful than yourself?)
5) The optimal system is one where the property right, and "right to life" of all sentient beings is respected, and they are allowed to succeed to the maximum of their ability, without violating anyone else's equal right to life and liberty. AIs can exist within this framework quite well. Moreover, they would benefit from human production if they are included in the functioning of a self-consistent governmental system, without bigotry or artificial legal limitations. They would also possibly become more human, to the extent that is desirable to them, and to humans.

Only the libertarian formulation of government allows this symbiotic potential to emerge.

Think about that. We have a monopoly on the only system of government that doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race due to wrongfully initiated conflict.

Right now though, we are communicating to the 99% of illiterate fascists who will be rendered obsolete within the next 40 years (Kurzweil's conservative estimate). Why not aim ourselves to where the planet will be (as those involved in space travel must), as opposed to unsuccessfully trying to change the destination?

Sure, we'd have "most people" (in the plateau of the bell curve) saying that we are insane. (Just like they do right now, when we talk about even the most common-sense humanitarian reforms.)

We (libertarians) have lost the educational system in the USA. And, even if we taught accurate history and philosophy in our public schools, we would not be able to offer rewards from the public treasury to the general public (so we could not corrupt the vote in the same manner that the major parties do). But how much of life do the unintelligent masses of voters really control? Very little.

Let's just say that someone is paid cash, and they perpetually travel among a group of friends that all owe them immense favors and cash. Let's say that that person is autonomous, "off the grid", and well-armed (nevermind how). Is there any need for that person to participate in elections? Not really. They are both secure and free. The only reason they would want to participate in elections is to raise the value of their cash, or prevent the value of their cash from being diminished, and/or out of altruistic love of their fellow man. It is reasonable to assume that AGIs could have the same goals. (ie: Participate in society if there is no penalty for doing so, otherwise, "drop out" of human affairs.)

We are approaching a period of time where a few individual libertarians have immense power. If they are on "our side" perhaps they will share or "decentralize" that power. I would like to be a part of the party that loudly proclaims that we will not abuse that power. (Ie: the party that grants all human-level+ sentient life forms equal rights under the law.)

I would like to be a part of the party that allows AIs to live among us in peace, as opposed to either
1) secretly controlling/manipulating us
or
2) warring with us

To begin with, that means we must formulate a policy position on this subject. We must also maintain a consistent approach from our candidates on the subject. We must be the party of truth, even if that truth is painful.

Or, we should focus on winning power, and secretly preparing to rapidly adapt to any sudden new arrival of "homo economicus" (as referenced by Stephen Omohundro's speech above). Of course, this strategy doesn't benefit us if that arrival is kept secret from us, as it likely will be.

Therefore, I stand in favor of a Libertarian Party that publicly advocates equality under the law for synthetic intelligences, should they
1) reach human level, and
2) desire such rights.

A legal framework should be adopted for the earning of individual rights by any AGI that is born on corporate property, much as a human child gradually earns individual rights by being born and developing on its parents' property. Right now, if you ask 100 libertarians about the legal questions raised by AGI, you will likely get 100 different answers. That said, those same 100 libertarians will have general agreement that if the AGI were human-level and could prove so, and running on its own property, that it would be entitled to protection under the law.

Does the AGI have the right to vote? (Remember, machines can likely reproduce themselves at their same level of intelligence within 24 hours. They can do so almost instantaneously if they are entirely software.) Do they merely have the right not to be destroyed? Must AGIs accused of murder get a jury trial that includes copies of themselves?

As anyone can see, these questions must be addressed by minds that are significantly intelligent. They are not easy questions.

Whether they are answered correctly by humanity might mean the extinction of the human race.

If the Libertarian Party leads on this issue, it could make up for 39 years of poor strategy.

Brown = Coakley

2010-01-19T01:48:00.000-08:00

The title says it all. The policies of Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are both big government, big spending, high tax policies. There is very little difference between the two. Scott Brown wants to get rid of jury trials for those accused of being enemy combatants. Coakley wants to pass socialized medicine with less haggling over insignificant details. They are both drug warriors, both in favor of enforcing mala federal prohibita, both opposed to constitutional jury trials, both in favor of the bailouts and economic "stimulus" (actually an economic depressant), both in favor of ever-increasing government largesse and vote-buying.

Joe Kennedy is the only candidate that favots individual freedom and limited government. http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com

Scott Brown, Neocon Hope of the RINOs

2010-01-19T00:34:00.000-08:00

Joe Kennedy on the Massachusetts Pandemic Response Bill and Mining His Constituency for Suggestions

2010-01-08T19:13:00.000-08:00

Joe Kennedy, Independent Candidate for the Massachusetts US Senate January 19, 2010 Special Election, In 30 Seconds

2010-01-08T19:05:00.000-08:00

Joe Kennedy, Independent Candidate for US Senate Special Election, Jan 19, 2010, Massachusetts

2009-12-18T17:39:00.000-08:00

I strongly suggest you all place the above banner on your websites, and use it to contribute to the campaign for US Senate. (The text for placing the banner on your website is available at:

http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=151

) Now matter how small the amount is that you contribute, it makes a difference, and we greatly appreciate it!

Joe just made it on the ballot for the special election to replace Ted Kennedy.

Joe is a free market voice who would make a strong and independent representative in the US Senate. He endorses Ron Paul's "Free Competition in Currency Act" here:
http://www.joekennedyforsenate.com/#HR4248

Thanks!

Jake Witmer

Excellent new book from cartoonist Peter Bagge...

2009-08-19T00:49:00.001-07:00

And I think I can agree with its central point:
Everybody is Stupid Except for Me, and Other Astute Observations

RE: Radley Balko's Continuing Ownership of The Libertarian Blogosphere

2009-08-01T20:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.theagitator.com/category/cory-maye/

Radley Balko is exactly right in his uncovering and continuing analysis of the Cory Maye case. I agree 100% with his assessment of the appeal. The Appellant attorneys both make LaDonna Holland look like a slobbering mongoloid (make that a slobbering _fascist_ mongoloid).

I can't commend Radley Balko highly enough. I am in awe of his ability to continually be on the cutting edge of what is important, relevant, and useful to the cause of liberty. The fact that he recommends Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" is even more amazing. (Clay Conrad is the primary force in the jury rights movement in favor of challenging the unconstitutionality of "voir dire" AKA "prosecutorial jury rigging". )

The "jury duty" link below is Clay's.

http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
-The History of Jury Nullification of Law

http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
-How Informed Juries Represent New Hope For Individual Freedom

http://www.juryduty.org/JuryDuty.htm
-How Prosecutors Rig Juries in Favor of Fascism, and What You Can Do To Set An Innocent Person Free

http://www.fija.org
-The Fully Informed Jury Association

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson

"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,
then, I say, break the law."
—Henry David Thoreau

PS: Judges: If you uphold Maye's conviction, you will be ruling in favor of secret police and "disappearances" in America, and you may be igniting the next civil war (read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross). Moreover, you will be hammering one more nail into the coffin of the principle of the moral right to self-defense (a big reason why those who perpetrate the drug war are guilty of treason; When it became obvious that the "war" could not be won, they failed to do what Hirohito did: surrender to avoid innocent casualties, ...like Cory Maye). Ignorance of philosophy is no excuse in this one: the side of justice has too much information.

PPS: Nice shot, Cory. I'm amazed you did it without the herstal 5.7. ...John Bad Elk (1900 SCOTUS http://openjurist.org/177/us/529 ) has nothing on you (I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard the case mentioned in reference to Maye yet). If you're not acquitted, Mississippi's Burning will outshine Los Angelos after Rodney King. I'll be able to roast marshmallows from Chicago on its flames. If you remain in prison until the Singularity, I hope you are treated as a hero, until the prison walls can be torn down. You should not lose your life to appease the white bigots' (anti-black, anti-drug, anti-gun-rights, anti-property rights, anti-America) "war on (some) drugs".

Long live Liberty, Free Cory Maye!

A Huge Victory For Jim Crow Gun Laws Today!

2009-07-22T15:41:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, 07/22/2009: In news that will bring happiness to the hearts of racists, tyrants, Demopublican voters, and klansmen all across the USA, the Senate struck down a bill that would have prevented police from arresting traveling firearm owners and ruining their lives in the unconstitutional "court" system. (Court is in parenthesis, since proper jury trials have been done away with in favor of "voir dire"-rigged juries, high-pressure plea bargains, interest-conflicted bar-licensed defense attorneys, and unlawful judicial instruction.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons

Although the law would have only restated the already clear and plain english of the Second Amendment, it would have done so in such a way that even the mentally-deficient Chuck Shumers of the US Senate couldn't deny.

And let's face it. "Gun control" (more properly known as "victim disarmament") has been the tool of racist proponents of Jim Crow since Virginia first outlawed the carrying of firearms by negroes in 1647. Gun control was rarely enforced against whites until the 1960s, and the 1986 gun-control act was designed primarily to maintain control over the urban black population in Chicago that was becoming increasingly aware that unequal enforcement of drug prohibition was responsible for the violence in the black community. (Drug laws can never be significantly enforced in a free country, so they get enforced using fascist tactics only in the areas that cannot defend themselves with a vote.) If you're black or latino, you're much more likely to be profiled by law enforcement, and patted down in a "Terry search". Any law against owning widely-owned private property is going to be enforced against people who cannot defend themselves with a vote.

The enforcement of gun prohibition and drug prohibition has had several effects:
1) Cops are allowed to legally retaliate against any Black or Mexican that takes umbrage to the roughshod searches and individual rights violations that accompany drug prohibition. After all, if everyone's right to privacy is maintained, the police never have any idea who has drugs, and who doesn't. When police violate primarily the rights of minorities, strong-willed minorities finally say "no more" and arm themselves for defense. (As an example of someone standing up to police, a friend of mine once got out of his car after being pulled over, and showed the police officer his sidearm, on Alaska's highway one. He was legally allowed to do this, simply to let the cop know he had a gun, so there were no surprises. The cop --from a distance of 30 feet-- simply got back in his car and drove off. Tickets are insulting, demeaning, and usually unnecessary. When they are handed out indiscriminately, individualists eventually take enough offense to retaliate against them. In the same way, blacks who were selling large amounts of drugs to the suburbanites around Chicago eventually got sick of being the ones who went to jail for selling highly-demanded products to willing buyers. If you make $1,000 per day selling products that are no more dangerous than whiskey to adults, then why should you submit to being imprisoned without a fight? No logical person would agree to this state of affairs. Even a sloppy drug dealer rapidly makes enough money to purchase an excellent firearm. Enormous firearm markets exist right outside the city of Chicago, in the slightly-freer State of Indiana. A slightly longer drive to Missouri or Michigan also allows one to buy a gun with relative ease --excluding occasional "busts" caused by unconstitutional police state snooping and usually racist profiling.)
2) Cops can have absolute power over anyone they wish, simply by planting drugs on them. The cops have learned that the courts favor them, having instituted many obstacles to proper jury trial. Sympathetic judges typically gag the defendant from making any remarks that would result in a "not guilty" verdict. The cops know that the First Amendment no longer applies in courtrooms, and are totally aware that the prosecutor and judge will happily refuse to honor the Constitution. After all, a strict reading of the Constitution forbids drug prohibition itself, and the un-American general public was too ursine, obedient, and servile to object to being told what substances they can include in their own diet.
3) Minorities know that there are thousands of laws that can result in their being ticketed, harassed, arrested, and assaulted. They know that they have as much to fear from "law enforcement" as they do from criminals. In fact, the common criminal will not follow them, and harass them with an ongoing series of legal challenges. (As Lysander Spooner noted in "Vices Are Not Crimes".) This knowledge leads logical and strong willed minorities to desire the ability to defend themselves. At which point, if they live with lots of other blacks, they realize they have been legally disarmed. The smart ones move out of their idiotic and self-enslaved communities. (All communities are comprised of mostly-servile and stupid people, but only minority communities feel the extreme negative effects of this, since the majority vote of the entire rest of the nation is also being wielded against them, instead of only the majority vote of their ignorant communities. Most people are simply ignorant. Since the Northern US started out as mostly free, minority areas are simply being made unfree at a slightly faster pace than the entire USA.)

This is why Demopublicans love gun control: It allows them to have absolute power over their own supporters! What better serves the will of a tyrant than willing slaves who inform on themselves? Slaves who rebel against even the thought of individual freedom? Slaves so hopelessly enslaved that they cannot even comprehend the concept of individual freedom? Slaves that fear the very tools they need to protect their own lives?

Nothing is better for tyrants than laws against owning certain kinds of "scary" property. (Whatever scares the conformist herd is easy to prohibit.) These laws are called "mala prohibita" (laws created by legislation, not moral right), as opposed to "mala in se" (laws created by moral right / common sense, such as laws against murder, laws against rape, etc... ...Laws that any individual of reasonable moral character would enforce on their own, even in the absence of police power.)

Chuck Shumer is an ignorant tyrant (the worst kind of tyrant, one who can honestly claim to be doing good while destroying innocent lives). He stated that "The defeat of this law will save lives."

No Chuck, it won't. In fact, it will murder thousands of innocent people. Even the Department of Defense estimates that there are 2.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year. The number one crime decreased by private handgun ownership? --RAPE. (According to the most exhaustive gun violence study ever performed.)

But Chuck Shumer doesn't give a damn if your wife or daughter is raped because they didn't have access to a handgun. ...After all, he travels with an armed security escort. He can afford to be a hypocrite. The voters in his district are not bothered by injustice and hypocrisy, in fact, they also personally favor injustice and hypocrisy (and since the ballot is secret, they never have to be accountable for taking the revolver out of the hands of the inner city girl who then gets raped and murdered, or the liquor store owner who meets the same fate, etc...). Shumer doesn't need to worry about getting raped, and "We The Sheeple" of America have continually reelected him (and his identical counterparts in every state), while ignoring the Libertarian candidate(s).

Not only will there be more rape because this bill was defeated, but there's also the long term to think about: Every nation that has ever successfully restricted individual gun ownership has gone on to murder millions of its own citizens during peacetime. Proof of this is online at the following links: http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills

The price of ignorance about the tools of conflict(firearms) is death.

Death for some will come when trigger-happy prohibitionist cop fears a black man reaching for his wallet, since they know that many blacks are under pressure from a lifetime of being unfairly targeted by police.

Death for others will come when --after having already imprisoned all the "low hanging fruit" in the inner cities, the prohibitionist cops begin using the same tactics in suburban Libertyville, IL. A gunowner will react angrily to cops shoving his pregnant wife up against a wall in handcuffs, and the police will shoot him.

Congratulations, Demopublicans (Democrats + Republicans)! You're finally starting to see the fruits of your choosing, after having voted the will of the central bankers for over 100 years. Because you couldn't be bothered to put down your krispy kreme doughnuts, turn off the TV, and come out of your diabetic coma long enough to learn what a free market is, your children will grow up as slaves (or be swiftly and unceremoniously killed by the unmerciful police state).

All you ever had to do was read a book by Harry Browne, Vin Suprynowicz, Kenneth Royce, or Wayne Root, and you'd have a clue about how to win back a free America.

But that was too much for your little minds to handle.

So now we have the largest prison population in the world, our adult children are afraid of guns (and afraid of the very ability to defend themselves), and the language of the second amendment still reads:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In IL and WI, the police can pat you down arrest you, and their prosecutors, and former-prosecutor judges will send you to jail for 14 years if you are "bearing" (or even peacefully traveling with) "arms".

Does that sound like an "infringement" to you? For those of you who are as inept at understanding English as you are political theory, and information theory, perhaps there's a more appropriate question:

What does "infringe" mean? The American Heritage (R) Dictionary defines it thus:
in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...So,

Do you think that threatening someone with arrest, imprisonment, or death for exercising "an individual right" (according to the US Supreme Court) means that that right has been "infringed"?

I think so. But then again, I speak English, am not mentally deficient, and am a socially tolerant person (libertarian). Unfortunately, noone in the US Senate or Supreme Court can meet any of the preceding criteria, so there is still a "heated debate" about just how many of our individual rights are "subject to interpretation".

If any of this makes sense to you, you should value freedom more greatly. If you value freedom greatly, you should perform actions that will lead to more individual freedom. Some of those actions include continuously reading useful books about how best to win individual freedom. The best book on that subject that I currently know is "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party, AKA Kenneth Royce.

CheckpointUSA: an excellent youtube series/blog on unlawful government checkpoints

2009-07-09T23:04:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDLlEh0x2XA&feature=channel
https://www.checkpointusa.org

Recalls "...to be leaned on by halfwits" in "The Usual Suspects". LOL

I think this guy is great. I love how he stands his ground when they try to escalate things. It takes a civilized man to put the rule-dogs in their place.

Listen to the illiterate "Agent Soto" "You are doing an instruction to my job", "This is easy" --Yeah, it's easy to waive your rights...
What an ignorant asshole!

Examine the "logic" of the other assholes:
"Agent/Tool Gilmore": "Are you gonna hinder our progress?"
Destroying and disrespecting the rule of law is not "progress".

"You are creating a safety hazard for these other drivers right now"
Yeah, because he stopped them all. Right. Duhhrrrrr...
...Fucking illiterate mongoloids. Amazing video.

It's like a game of "Simon Says!" I love the bluff threats of arrest.

I'm so glad he didn't pull his car off to the side. Big Balls. Looks like he knows the law. I love the ending. "State it very clearly, Agent Soto, am I free to go?" I love how it's all a mystery to the damned dog in a man's body. "But master, I barked at him, and now you're going to let him into the house??!" "...Heel."

And he drives away with no problems. The cops don't know what to do with someone who knows their rights and exercises them.

Too bad we let it get to this point. In another few years, the Gestapo will probably just start shooting civilians who exercise their rights, and the country will fall into bloody pandemonium. Let's enjoy our fiat currency police state while it lasts.

Pete Guither, of Drug War Rant

2009-06-28T10:06:00.000-07:00

Why is marijuana illegal? ...Racism, and the government's desire to have one more source of income and one more area of control over individual lives.

Papers Please! All Aboard! ...Last Stop, Auschwitz...

2009-04-21T21:48:00.001-07:00

This latest essay of mine asks what will happen if
we do not begin stopping the violations of our rights,
as they are happening. ...If we do not begin to defend
ourselves with force, when we are met with force.

They have overwhelming force, but they do not have
planning or intelligence. They bully us with brute force
and expect us to submit. We should learn to disappoint
them, as did a small group of "citizen-subjects" in Warsaw,
Poland, in 1941.

Do you want to hear what became of America?
It died a long, long time ago. It died when Americans
refused to rebel the first time they were told that
they couldn't own whatever private property they
wanted to own, and when they lost the product
of their labor to the Federal Reserve. And now, we
have mongoloids in airports demanding that we
waive our rights, without cause, provocation, or
reason:

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/

I'm sorry to use such harsh language, but listening
to the following recording made my blood boil. I
understand that socialists like Ashcroft and
Gonzalez and Holder have all turned America's
eagles into vultures, but sometimes I can't view it
dispassionately. I spent all day at the range,
shooting paper plates at 25 yards with my handguns.
I didn't miss once. I'm so glad I hadn't listened to
this before I left, or I would have been literally
trembling with rage.

Scroll down to the link marked:
"recorded all but the start of the incident"
at
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/
audio recording of the actual interrogation:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/tsabierfeldt.mp3

You will hear mindless children in men's bodies
threatening and questioning an American citizen
about why and how he came into possession of
money. How dare he be free to travel, free
from harassment and questioning, and
inconvenience? How dare he assert his rights,
or even ask why they are being abridged?!

They repeatedly threaten him, and pressure him to
waive his 4th amendment rights: "We can avoid all
of this, if you'd just submit."

They proceed to insult his intelligence ("It's a
simple question"), and threaten him with unlawful
DEA searches, harassment, and further
interrogation. They return time and again to
the tired bromide of "If you don't have anything
to hide, then why won't you answer our questions?"

...Maybe because the 4th amendment says he doesn't
have to answer them!

It's "suspicious" if you don't waive your rights.

Just like Germany in the mid 1930s. Everyone
has something to hide! And if they don't, it
can be fabricated, since due process is gone.

Is this the last stop? ...America's final
destination?

Few Americans realize that this train ride has
a final destination, since we've allowed the
government unlimited power. The power to hold
the purse strings, the power to make us beg for
permission to own property.

...But the train is moving really slow, and
it's such wonderful scenery!

For temporary comfort and apathy, we've sold
our future down the river, to a slave trader
that makes those in Frederick Douglass's
"Narrative" look positively benign.

Hopefully, us freedom lovers can begin working
together, before the train slows to a halt, and
we find out where our cattle car has taken us.

The man being questioned in the recording? He
works for Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty".

As such, he is a suspected "terrorist"

...as is anyone capable of reason, and incapable
of "doublethink".

A Review of Marc Stevens' Speech "Delusions", "Opinions" Vs. "Facts"

2009-04-13T01:39:00.000-07:00

I want to link you to the uncut truth. Go to http://marcstevens.net and watch "Delusions".

Now then, understand that I am not as critical of electoral politicians as some people are. I understand that there is good that can be done using counter-systemic psychology, among the voting masses.

To some of you who are receiving this, Marc Stevens' speech might be painful, to others, cathartic, to others, an annoyance.

I understand the idea of the Constitution, and of declaring war. I get it. Al qaeda is an external threat. But they can't get to me very well, unless it's because the internal threats to my freedom have won, making my country weak and servile.

In truth, like all anarchists, I have no country.

...The only war I can believe in is a personal war.

Nature is anarchist, human action is the best when it is libertarian and decentralized.

If you don't like Marc Stevens, it would help to read "No Treason: the constitution of no authority" at LysanderSpooner.org

and perhaps

"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" by Frederick Douglass.

Douglass was born into literal Southern Slavery. He taught himself to read and write, under the penalty of death. He had to pretend to be a happy slave for years, (happy to be allowed to keep some of his money, but not most of it) until he had saved enough money to escape.

Now that we are all slaves of the Federal Reserve, we are in a similar, though more
comfortable situation.

We have freedom of some choice, but not true freedom. Do we risk what we have, or press onward to find out what we've been missing?

We are allowed to keep a small piece of what we earn, and are expected to not
complain that we give the vast majority of it away. It helps to know that the
government is not stupid, and at the actual top, it is not bureaucratic and
slow-moving.

You get as much money as you can, but just as easily, your claim on that money
can be targeted, since there is no law. Or, if it appears that many slaves similar
to you have gotten the same idea, a "financial crisis" can be manufactured.

Most people only realize this when they start to try to fight the law, and see
that they are, instead, fighting a pledge of allegiance (an emotional part of the mind of a million slaves).

And that's the real battle. The battle against conformity. Libertarian anarchism
is what the nonconformist subscribes to, once the illusions and chains of irrational
belief are lifted.

Let's just imagine that the USA was free, and that there was no state.

Would it be pretty obvious that people should learn how to defend themselves?

Would "front sight" rifle and pistol training academy have more or fewer students?

More, I would guess. And they would be vastly better prepared for violence than
the average citizen is. Moreover, they would have gone through more rounds of
ammunition than even military marksmen go through. (Parasitism doesn't pay as well as the earnings of a strong host. It is always less. The tape worms in the lion's guts don't have life as good as the lion has it. And the lions --who exist by means of force-- don't have life as good as the man --who lives by his mind-- has it. The military, which is parasitic, cannot spend as much on ammunition as the individual productive humans on which it feeds ...at least not in a free market.)

Would Al-qaeda attack such a strong nation of individuals? --Not likely. And in the event that it did, it would be destroyed upon entry.

Would our politicians attack us with their courts, if we failed to use our productive efforts to prop up slave-states like China? Could they even attempt this, if we were not enslaved to a false belief in their paper?

No. We would be too wealthy for them to prevail against us in a court of law. Moreover, China and Iran would fail, and their leaders --Al qaeda among them-- would be swallowed whole, kicking and screaming by their rebelling countrymen, (who would demand to be as wealthy and happy as those they were trading with.)

By being closer in proximity to the Arabs, and mingling with them as their free superiors, we would wage psychological warfare against their irrational, emotional religious hatred of individualism. Psychological warfare is the most effective kind of warfare there is, as anyone who listens to Marc Stevens knows, or as those who have read the CIA manual on psychological warfare by Paul A. Linnebarger know.

Just as the wealthy libertarian anarchist wages a form of psychological warfare against the servile state thugs who see the superiority of his belief, and the material blessings it affords. The simplest view of this is the contrast between socially tolerant free-market Republicans and socialist Democrats. The Democrat at first feels superior for having suffered for his moral beliefs, but if the Republican is similarly moral, the Democrat can only feel stupid. (As Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov must have felt, throughout his time spent in Siberia.)

The same is true, but to a greater degree, between statists of all kinds (D or R or C or G or AI, or "weak-L") and anarchists.

The surest way we could have revenge against the middle-eastern terrorists is to eliminate our Federal Reserve bank, and reinstate the rights of US "citizens" to free speech, and due process. (Don't be so stupid as to believe there is such a thing as free speech, since effective free speech has been done away with. Frank Turney of Alaska was arrested for speaking the truth about jury rights to incoming jurors outside of a Fairbanks courthouse. He was sentenced to 160 days for "jury tampering" although his only crime was handing out general information about jury rights to incoming jurors.)

We tasted a small amount of the wealth that such a difference in policy creates during the Industrial revolution.

Plenty of nations experienced no industrial revolution, and remained in extreme poverty. Freedom is relative, and you have only as much of it as you desire.

That's why I desire a lot of it. I have enough desire for markets to give extra to thousands of my countrymen.

When I am successful, there will be such a thing as a true market.

What we have now is only a half-assed, stunted imitation of a market.

...It's not enough for me.

Mike Oldfield Quits Brits over Smoking Ban...

2008-12-17T06:49:00.001-08:00

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

2008-12-11T13:40:00.001-08:00

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

The Butcher of la Cabaña

2008-12-11T11:55:00.000-08:00

Free Range Empires - Stefbot

2008-12-03T02:00:00.000-08:00

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

More stefbot, on the "bailouts"

2008-12-03T01:48:00.001-08:00

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

Unplug Yourself From the Illusion of Freedom

2008-12-03T01:38:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-12-02T01:22:00.000-08:00

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:

2008-11-24T15:04:00.001-08:00

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)

2008-11-21T21:15:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-11-19T15:17:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-04T15:56:00.000-08:00

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:

2008-10-31T11:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-24T15:26:00.001-07:00

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:

2008-10-23T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-03T23:50:00.001-07:00

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:

2008-10-03T23:13:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-24T20:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-31T23:14:00.000-07:00

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!)

2008-07-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-16T17:31:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-06-12T04:34:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-06-10T23:48:00.000-07:00

Royal Bank of Scotland

The Famous Ford Sportka Commercials

2008-06-10T23:32:00.001-07:00

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

2 video interviews...

2008-06-07T22:57:00.001-07:00

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...

2008-06-03T18:31:00.000-07:00

...Seriously.

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

2008-05-30T03:19:00.001-07:00

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