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").
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Coercion Watch: The Cure of "Quackery" (Coercion) is Worse than the Disease (Ignorance)
Stephen Barrett runs a site called "quackwatch" at ( http://www.quackwatch.org/ ) where he purports to alert people to "scams and quackery". This would be OK, except that he places 100% of his faith in collective rule, and armed authoritarianism. He makes no mention of the fact that the juries in the cases where well-meaning scientists and doctors were convicted were instructed to enforce existing unjust laws by thei judges in the trials (contrary to the Constitution's mention of "common law" and "due process").
Of particular interest is his listing of an article by Dr. Benjamin Wilson listing B-17 cancer therapies as "quackery". Online here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html
If you scroll down to the bottom of the preceding link, you will note that he features a section titled: "Recent Enforcement Actions", which he presumably presents in order to get you to agree that B-17 treatment is harmful. But wait: If a person chooses B-17 against their doctor's wishes and dies, then why does anyone need to be punished? They followed a treatment that was not successful, but one that is evidenced to have greater success than established treatments for late-term cancer. Moreover, early laetrile supplementation appears to actually do better than mainstream cancer therapies. So again, why does anyone need to be punished with the force of government, and why would their being punished indicate that Barrett is correct about B-17?
And note his sources, under the "Recent Enforcement Actions" section. No mention of any pro B-17 scholarship! Only the criticisms of it (mostly by government thugs and vested interests of the status quo)!
Moreover, from the first paragraph, he leaves out several critical facts. Let's analyze just the first paragraph to see if it sets off our bullshit detectors, after we watch this video about B-17. FIRST, watch the video:
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.
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:
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.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.
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.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Sites I've Been Reading Lately...
http://www.papersplease.org - John Gilmore's battle against secret laws (that was first won with the Magna Carta, and now returns to post-"T.S.A." America)
http://www.freepauljacob.com -Paul Jacob was arrested for petitioning in Oklahoma on an Oklahoma ballot initiative "without the intent to remain a resident". This makes it the first prosecution of speech-related "thought crime" in America.
http://vitriolicinsight.wordpress.com -Objectivist shampoo magnate Kimberly Wingfield's well-versed thoughts on life and politics. (She's also featured in the post below, because she happens to be correct on a large variety of subjects.)
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.)
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Kimberly Wingfield talks about the FDA Globalization Act
Kimberly Wingfield talks about the FDA Globalization Act, which is an attempt to take nice things off the shelves of American stores and businesses. To make life tawdry and bland, and crush innovation and free enterprize: FOR NO REASON AT ALL (unless you count bullying or the worship of false authority as a reason). This Act would (and probably will, since two socialists just ran for president) bring us closer to the world envisioned in "1984", which was modeled upon Stalinist Russia. Kim Wingfield compares the act to "directive 10-289" in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", which was a final blow to free enterprise in that book.
Friday, October 31, 2008
A Wise Quote From Jacob Sullum on the Major Party Candidates' Views on Gun Rights:
Jacob Sullum writes: 'What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne', Obama says. The line, meant to reassure gun owners, highlights his peculiar view that the extent of an American’s constitutional rights depends on where he lives.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/081006-sullum-gun-owners.php
This comment of Obama's should be repeated, far and wide, by libertarian candidates. After which, perhaps the candidates can point out that the first gun laws in the nation were 'Jim Crow' laws that prevented blacks from owning weapons of self defense, in the post-civil war South. Lynchings abounded when Southern whites were the only people capable of carrying shotguns and pistols. The decentralization of individual power (via the equal application and enforcement of the law) is necessary to maintain freedom and peace!
Police harrassment and arrests of blacks drastically outnumber those of whites in the current drug war, in Chicago, ...where Obama is from. Is this what Obama thinks "works"? The war on gun owners and drug users is still dramatically, overwhelimingly racist. But sellout socialist blacks like Obama don't mind sending young black and mexican men to prison for things that aren't even crimes in the neighboring suburbs of Indiana and Missouri.
Is the life of a black man living in Chicago worth less than the life of a white man living in Cheyenne?
...And McCain is no better. He still champions "upholding the existing gun laws", and was the author of the "McCain-Lieberman Act", which would have de-facto banned gun shows (by requiring gun show promotors to maintain a SSN database of all attendees, even those selling only books). Moreover, both he and Obama are against even the ability of organizations like http://www.gunowners.org , http://www.jpfo.org , and the NRA to speak out against the track record of individual-rights-hating politicians like themselves. McCain-Feingold is a gag order on dissent, just like Obama's flirtation with "the fairness doctrine".
These Demopublican parasites have interfered with our gun rights, but they can see that we won't give up our guns, unless our voices are silenced!
If you bother to vote at all this election, you should withold your support from Obama and McCain. Vote Libertarian, or don't bother to vote for president at all. If you vote for every down-ticket office and don't vote for president, you are still sending a strong message. You are sending the message that "NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE ACCEPTABLE" ---which is a very pro-freedom, very libertarian concept, in itself.
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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Libertarian Critique of McCain
Matt Welch sums up why libertarians (true capitalists, true levellers) believe that McCain is an unphilosophical old douchebag, here. The link was brought to you by FORA TV, an often excellent online media source. http://fora.tv/
Sarah Palin endorses jury rights here, and is in turn endorsed by Frank Turney, Alaska's foremost jury rights activist. This, along with Palin's support of gun rights as an individual right, makes her the most libertarian mainstream candidate, although she still sucks (and is totally inconsistent) compared to Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate.
The Libertarian Party's candidate Bob Barr unfortunately has long opposed jury rights, as a drug warrior, prosecutor, and ex-congressman. As recently as 2007, he wrote in philosophical opposition to jury rights, regarding the Yates Jury. (if you follow the link to the Yates jury article, the part to pay close attention to is in the 4th paragraph. Juries are not constitutionally bound to obey judge's instructions if it violates their own conscience or code of morality. Noone is legitimately asked to give up their morality by any judge, according to the US Constitution, but that is exactly what judges who ask jurors to enforce unjust laws, or enforce laws unjustly are demanding. Note that all US juries --according to Kriho Vs. the State of Colorado-- still retain the legal authority to ignore the judge's instructions.)
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.)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Alan Greenspan Fails to Take the Blame for Abandoning His Ideals Here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_go_co/financial_meltdown
...As G Edward Griffin Noted (under Alan Greenspan's photo) in "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At the Federal Reserve" (2007 ed.): "Alan Greenspan was an eloquent spokesman for the gold standard and a critic of the System's subservience to the banking cartel. That was in 1966. After he became a director of J. P. Morgan & Company and was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987, he became silent on these issues and did nothing to anger the Creature he now served. Like Bryan, even the best of men can become corrupted by the rewards of politics. (Jake Witmer's NOTE: Bryan above refers to William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State under Wilson, who resigned after the US Government arranged the murder of the innocent US citizens on board the Lusitania, in conjunction with Winston Churchill, in order to draw the US into WWI. The evidence for this is also in Griffin's book.)"
Noone is more complicit than Greenspan in the financial meltdown of the US. He knew better. He betrayed us all. He betrayed America for years: for money and power. He is akin to the character Robert Stadler in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
...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.
Friday, October 3, 2008
New Strategy For Promoting the Libertarian Vote
Suggest that people only for for someone who never voted or acted against their property rights (this man is the only candidate who can honestly say that: http://www.rootforamerica.com/ ). Any time you mention one of the mainslime candidates, add "Against Property Rights" in between their first and last names. Joe Biden authored the RAVE Act, Obama supported the building of a new DEA headquarters in New Orleans, McCain has always been a drug warrior, and Sarah Palin (the least toxic of the four mainslime useless candidates) irrationally stands against a woman's right to choose an abortion after conception (when the zygote is a few cells, and represents a potential human only) due to her moronic religious beliefs. Due to these facts, I ask that you stop pretending that the mainslime candidates are anything other than self-promoting busybodies who want to do you and your family violence. Seriously.
Why Noone Should Ever Vote For Joe Biden:
Joe Biden is the asshole who AUTHORED, SPONSORED, and HELPED PASS "the RAVE Act": This bill became law on April 30, 2003, ...because of Joe "Against Property Rights" Biden. It allows the DEA to violate due process, property rights, the freedom of assembly, and habeas corpus (among other things) all in one law! Specifically, it allows cops to charge the sponsors of a music venue with drug dealing, if ANYONE brings drugs to the venue they are sponsoring. Many people credit "The Rave Act" with ending the electronic music scene in America.
And lest you think that the asinine Obama is any better regarding drug (property) rights, he has proposed using literal human enslavement (in the name of the war on {some} drugs) to "economically stimulate" the soaked New Orleans.
When Joe Biden criticizes Palin for being an unphilosophical simpleton on privacy rights (with respect to abortion), just remember that he's a total and complete hypocrite, because of the RAVE Act. (He stated that "the Liberty Clause" of the 14th amendment protects women from an invasion of their privacy that outlawing abortion would engender. I guess the idiot doesn't understand that if the liberty clause applies to a woman's right to privacy, it also applies to a drug user's privacy, a drug dealer's privacy, and a music promoter's privacy. ...Not to mention that "the RAVE Act" also violates all ten of the remaining Bill of Rights as well...) Well, I don't want to take up any more of the screen with the mainslime assholes who want to run our lives for us, but if you enjoy this blog, please note that there are two ways you can help defeat Biden, McCain, Obama, and Palin's plans for YOU. Vote for Wayne Root, in 2008, 2012, and 2016. His blog is here: http://www.rootforamerica.com/ I also strongly suggest supporting the effort to put him on the ballot in all 50 States, under his official party designation: LIBERTARIAN.
...Or you can always crouch down and lick the hand that beats you. ...But if that happens, may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. I'm not looking for O_AMA BI_ __DEN.
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Freedom Ballot Access
The Ten primary things that contributing to Freedom Ballot Access (online at: http://www.freedomballotaccess.org/ ) accomplishes:
1) It places the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and other nationwide minor parties on the ballot more cheaply than they could otherwise hope for, if they were acting alone. This way, they basically split the cost of overcoming State ballot access obstacles with one another. It will be done for less than $3.00 total cost per civilian stop, (including all fundraising and petitioner expenses), as opposed to a cost that is typically above $6.50 per signature for the Libertarian Party alone.
2) All third parties that ballot access helps out will be listed on the ballot under their official party name, not as "independent candidates" (In Alabama alone, this allows 20+ additional candidates per party to be listed, in addition to their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates).
3) The people who are signing the petitions will be plugged into the ballot access movement, and will be a part of the fundraising base of all the third parties they helped onto the ballot. This is because our ballot access workers will ask them for their email addresses and phone numbers, and will solicit funds from those who volunteer these pieces of information in the future.
4) We will be putting the third parties on the ballot for 2010 and 2012 concurrently, so our candidates will have a longer time to campaign, meaning there is a realistical chance that some of the down-ticket candidates will actually win election.
5) Since all of the parties will have a longer time to campaign, it means that a down ticket candidate will have a realistic chance to surpass the State's requirement of 20% for a statewide race to retain "major party" ballot access for future elections.
6) The down-ticket candidates will have a chance to run, whereas they previously would not, for minor offices that are more easily winnable.
7) The people will be told which parties they have signed for, as opposed to simply being told that they are signing to "put another choice on the ballot". This means more free advertising for the various parties, as well as a chance for people to ask questions from the petitioners (who are all idealists who support open ballot access, and will happily answer questions from the signers).
8) We will be handing each signer a card with information about their rights as jurors, with the Fully Informed Jury Association's web address on them http://www.fija.org/ . This card will also state "Jurors have the right to render a "not guilty" verdict based on disagreement with the law, no matter what the judge's instructions are, and no matter the votes of their fellow jury members." 60,000 people will receive this card, making people accused of victimless crimes safer, overnight!
9) The decreased cost of accessing the ballot will mean that the parties have more money to campaign with, instead of overcoming meaningless obstacles to ballot access. In addition, it will mean that the various parties will all succeed on obtaining ballot access in all 50 States, and will not fail where another party has succeeded (Like how the Libertarian Party failed in West Virginia in 2008, where the Constitution Party succeeded, or vice versa in Montana).
10) The size and scope of this project will result in additional media attention for the various minor parties.
Thanks for your interest and support,
Jake Witmer
cell: 907-250-5503
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
