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.
Showing posts with label institutionalized racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label institutionalized racism. Show all posts
Friday, January 20, 2012
Monday, December 26, 2011
Commentary on Ron Paul's Essay, "What Really Divides Us?"
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.
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.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Newt Gingrich, Just One More Unphilosophical Sociopathic Politician
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.
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.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
RE: Radley Balko's Continuing Ownership of The Libertarian Blogosphere
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
