My Take on Al Franken's Tax Problems

Comedian Al Franken is seeking the Democratic Party endorsement to run for the US Senate seat now held by Republican (well Republican in name only) Norm Coleman. A few weeks back it was revealed that Franken's Corporation had failed to pay Workers Compensation insurance on its employees. Now it has come out that Mr. Franken has failed to pay income taxes as required by law in 17 states since 2003.

While I am certainly no supporter of Al Franken, I tend to believe the failures were honest mistakes. However, his accountant should have known the tax laws, filed the proper returns and paid the taxes. Ultimately though it is Al Franken's personal responsibility to comply with the tax laws of the places he does business, just as it is for professional athletes, entertainers and any other business.

I think the real point that is being missed in all the politicking on the income tax issue and the Workers Compensation issue, is how complex the tax and other laws are in this country. When a very, very well to do individual such as Mr. Franken, who can afford to hire well paid accountants and attorneys has trouble complying, what does that mean for a small businessman just starting out? A small businessman that has very limited funds and spends most of their time trying to build up their business. They can't afford the high priced help nor do they have the time to do it themselves. These complex rules and regulation stifle new small businesses which are the backbone of job growth.

Mr. Franken is a longtime supporter of policies and programs that result in these complex laws and rules. Therefore, in a way Mr. Franken is receiving his comeuppance.

The Revolution: A Manifesto is #1 on Amazon

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 30, 2008

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is no stranger to success on the internet. Today, he set another milestone as his new book “The Revolution: A Manifesto” hit number one on the online retailer's “Hot New Releases in Books” list. The book’s official release is today, April 30th.

Dr. Paul held a book signing with over 1,000 attendees in New York City on Monday, April 28th at the Borders on Wall Street. Store employees commented that it was one of the biggest events they ever held at their flagship location.

The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Ron Paul on CNN with John Roberts discussing his new book The Revolution: A Manifesto. Paul says that he won't endorse or support John McCain unless McCain would significantly alter his position on issues such as the War in Iraq.

Paul points out the fallacy of having the government make economic decisions, whether it is energy policy or monetary policy.

It always amazes me that while we live in the era that saw the results of central planning and its collapse in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we still think in this country that the government elite can do better.

Arrogant Larry Pogemiller

Here is the arrogant Minnesota State Senator Larry Pogemiller on how the government can spend your money better than you can:



Here is Pogemiller's full quote:

I think it's simplistic and naive to say people can spend their money better than the government. And the reason is, the reason we have government is to build community assets. And I don't care how rich you are, you can't build a freeway system by yourself, and that's why we have taxes. And I don't care how rich you are, you can't build a public education system by yourself. You can get you own child educated, but in this state we have something called universal education for all children. And so I think the notion that everybody can individually spend their money better than government I just think is trite, wrongheaded and anti-democratic."

Simplistic and naive? What elitist bull. Mr.Pogemiller is the poster child for term limits. This guy has been around since 1980.

Do community assets include a new Twins ballpark for the Pohlad family who could very well afford to build their own ballpark? Subsidies for Northwest Airlines? The Mall of America? Exactly where does it become okay for individuals to decide how to spend their money? Maybe Mr. Pogemiller thinks we should turn everything over to the State.

Ron Paul on Politicizing the Treatment of Pain

Excellent article from Ron Paul on the the utter cruelty and unnecessary cost of the Federal governments war on Medical Marijuana:

K.K. Forss does not claim medical marijuana solves all his problems. His pain from a ruptured disc in his neck is debilitating. He is unable to go to work or to the First Baptist Church he used to attend because of the pain and muscle spasms. Taxpayers through Medicare spend over $18,000 a year on his various medications. Half of those drugs are strong narcotics. The other half address the various side-effects brought on by the first half, such as nausea, heartburn, heart palpitations, difficulty sleeping, and muscle spasms.

No, marijuana would not completely address all his pain, but it made a tremendous difference in the quality of his life when he tried it for over a year. It helped him regain 38 pounds he had lost. It calmed his muscle spasms and helped him sleep. In short, it alleviated many side effects and greatly reduced his need for other expensive medications. Mr. Forss estimates that being allowed to use medical marijuana would save taxpayers at least $12,000 a year in medications he would no longer need. He would also be able to work occasionally and attend some church services.

Scientists at the University of California at Davis recently completed a study that backs up Mr. Forss’s experience, finding that cannabis demonstrates significant relief of neuropathic pain. Many in government call for more studies while people like K.K. Forss suffer. More studies will not change what many patients already know, and that is for some, medical marijuana helps their pain. But over-reaching government gets in the way.

K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his more rigorous and expensive pill regimen. Presently, twelve states have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions, to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit from it. K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal. However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In other words, the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single day.

The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues. This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.

The bottom line is that K.K. Forss should be treated as a free American. Mr. Forss is one of many who would like to use marijuana medicinally because it helps him. Politicians and bureaucrats have no right to interfere.

Here in Minnesota there is a bill to allow the highly controlled use of Medical Marijuana, yet it is opposed by Law Enforcement and Governor Tim Pawlenty because they say it would make it hard to control the recreational use of Marijuana. So in effect they are saying to people like Mr. Forss that they need to suffer in order to not interfere with the government trying to control people's lives.

What Else Can They Tax

Here is video from the British Taxpayers Alliance. Unfortunately the premise of this video is not that far fetched. With the advent of instantaneous electronic payments it is plausible that the taxes could be levied as shown in the video.



I found this video at Liberty Is My Homie, a blog I highly recommend.

Try Legal Weed

Another story in the annals of idiocy from the War on Some Drugs.

Vaune Dillmann owns Mount Shasta Brewing Company in Northern California, 230 miles north of Sacremento. Mount Shasta Brewing Company is located in the town of Weed. The town is named after Abner Weed, who started a lumber mill in the area in 1901. Weed was eventually was elected to the state Senate.

From the Arizona republic:

Vaune Dillmann thought the wording on his bottle caps was just a clever play on the name of the Northern California town where he brews his beer - Weed.

Federal alcohol regulators thought differently. They have ordered Dillmann to stop selling beer bottles with caps that say "Try Legal Weed."

While reviewing the proposed label for Dillmann's latest beer, Lemurian Lager, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau said the message on the caps he has been using for his five current beers amounts to a drug reference.

In a letter explaining its decision, the agency, which regulates the brewing industry, said the wording could "mislead consumers about the characteristics of the alcoholic beverage."

His bottle labels follow a long tradition of exploiting the town's name. Even city officials do it.

A sign posted on the way out of town reads, "Temporarily Out of Weed," while another says "100 Percent Pure Weed." Dillmann noted those examples in an appeal letter he sent to the alcohol bureau.

But illegal drugs are no joke to the federal agency, which maintains meticulous rules about labeling. Drug references on alcoholic beverages were banned in 1994, agency spokesman Art Resnick said.

"We protect consumers of alcohol beverages against misleading advertising and labeling," he said.

Full article here.

Yup, Americans are so stupid that they will think this beer contains pot. I suppose the next step will be to make Jimmy Dean sausages and Paul Newman's salad dressing change their names in order to protect those Americans who will think the sausage contains Jimmy Dean and the salad dressing contains Paul Newman.

We Have No Common Sense. It's Policy

More lunacy from the people in charge of government schools. Two students were expelled for buying swords on a school choir trip to England. From the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Two students attending Eagan and Apple Valley high schools were expelled last week after buying souvenir swords during a spring break choir trip in the United Kingdom.

A chaperone found the duct-taped boxes that held the swords after the students left the store. The swords were confiscated on the trip and never made it to Minnesota. The students flew home several days early, and the district disciplined the students when they returned.

Superintendent John Currie said the district uses its best judgment on a case-by-case basis.

"We make the best decision we can to protect the safety of everybody involved," he said.

Charlie Kyte, executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators, went through a similar situation when he was superintendent in Northfield, Minn.

"Schools are in a real Catch-22," he said.

A popular student once brought a toy gun to the high school, and Kyte had to expel him.

"Had I let him off the hook, the signal would've gone to students that we didn't care about the policy," Kyte said.

A fourth-grader from an Asian immigrant family once brought a big knife, without his parents knowing, for a show-and-tell activity at school because the knife was important in the family, Kyte said.

The student was suspended, he said.

Mike Roseen, chairman of the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan School Board, said district officials take expulsions seriously.

"The process is fair, and the process is equitable," Roseen said. "And if someone gets caught up in something where they made a mistake, I'm sorry about that. There's a policy we're going to go by."

Full article here.

So two students who buy swords on a trip are somehow a danger? What if they had bought a set of fine steak knives? A collection of toy guns? Would they have been expelled for those dangerous acts also?

Gee I remember my friends and I would bring squirt guns to school back in the 70's. I never realized the danger we were creating. To think that the Assistant Principal merely confiscated the squirt guns when we got caught.

Schools should be a place where our young people develop an ability to think and reason. Instead the government schools have become a training ground for blindly following rules and bowing to authority.

Waco: The 15th Anniversary

Fifteen years ago this month the siege in Waco ended with the death of 76 men, women, and children who belonged to the Branch Davidian religious sect. I know back in 1993 my feeling was that the Branch Davidians where at fault for their own deaths. My only criticism of the government was that they waited so long to raid the compound.

Well my opinion has changed since then, the movie below is one of those reasons, though not the only reason. Do I agree with Branch Davidian beliefs? No, but they were entitled to their beliefs. Do I think David Koresh was a wonderful person? No, but like every American he was entitled to due process.

Here is an excerpt of the review of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" by Roger Ebert:

Like many news-drenched Americans, I paid only casual attention to the standoff at Waco, Texas, between the Branch Davidians and two agencies of the federal government. I came away with the vague impression that the ``cult,'' as it was always styled, was a group of gun-toting crackpots, that they killed several U.S. agents, refused to negotiate and finally shot themselves and burned down their ``compound'' after the feds tried to end the siege peacefully with tear gas.

Watching William Gazecki's remarkable documentary ``Waco: The Rules of Engagement,'' I am more inclined to use the words ``religion'' than ``cult,'' and ``church center'' than ``compound.'' Yes, the Branch Davidians had some strange beliefs, but no weirder than those held by many other religions. And it is pretty clear, on the basis of this film, that the original raid was staged as a publicity stunt, and the final raid was a government riot--a tragedy caused by uniformed boys with toys.

Of course I am aware that ``Waco'' argues its point of view, and that there is no doubt another case to be made. What is remarkable, watching the film, is to realize that the federal case has not been made. Evidence has been ``lost,'' files and reports have ``disappeared,'' tapes have been returned blank, participants have not testified and the ``crime scene,'' as a Texas Ranger indignantly testifies, was not preserved for investigation, but razed to the ground by the FBI--presumably to destroy evidence.

What is clear, no matter which side you believe, is that during the final deadly FBI raid on the buildings, a toxic and flammable gas was pumped into the compound even though women and children were inside. ``Tear gas'' sounds innocent, but this type of gas could undergo a chemical transformation into cyanide, and there is a pitiful shot of an 8-year-old child's body bent double, backward, by the muscular contractions caused by cyanide.

Whatever happened at Waco, these facts remain: It is not against the law to hold irregular religious beliefs. It is not illegal to hold and trade firearms. It is legal to defend your own home against armed assault, if that assault is illegal. It is impossible to see this film without reflecting that the federal government, from the top down, treated the Branch Davidians as if those rights did not apply.

Full review here.

Each video segment below is just over an hour.

Ron Paul Visits Missoula

Ron Paul went to Missoula, Montana this past Monday. Here are some scenes from the visit and interviews with some of the attendees.

Ron Paul Gives Campaign Update on April 23

Ron Paul talks about the campaign after the 16% showing in Pennsylvania.

Gun Free Zones are a Crock

On October 16, 1991, Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen, Texas. When George Jo Hennard drove his truck through the front window and opened fire on the patrons, yelling "This is what Bell County has done to me!"

Hupp who owned and carried a handgun reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Why was it her vehicle? Hupp had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying concealed firearms.

Hupp had to watch in horror as Hennard executed her father Al Gratia and her mother Ursula Gratia. Hennard killed 23 people in total before turning his weapon on himself and committing suicide.

As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.

Conceal Carry on Campus

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) is holding its second annual Empty Holster Protest on college campuses across the nation this week. Here is the SCCC press release:

STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS (CONCEALEDCAMPUS.COM) ANNOUNCES SECOND NATIONAL COLLEGIATE EMPTY HOLSTER PROTEST

During the week of April 21-25, 2008, thousands of college students throughout the United States, organized under the banner of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and school policies that stack the odds in favor of dangerous criminals and armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

SCCC hosted its first national collegiate Empty Holster Protest during the week of October 22-26, 2007, on the campuses of approximately 125 U.S. colleges and universities. This second Empty Holster Protest will expand upon the concept of the first protest, by placing greater emphasis on educating the uninformed. Protesters will focus on sharing the facts of “concealed carry” with students and faculty who may not be aware that concealed carry laws exist or that those laws differ on college campuses from most other locations.

In 39 U.S. states, thousands of college students and faculty—age 21 and above—are licensed to carry concealed handguns throughout their day-to-day lives. And they do so without incident. Numerous studies* by independent researchers and state agencies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. However, despite the absence of any compelling evidence that these licensed individuals would pose any more threat to college campuses than they currently do to office buildings, movie theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores, restaurants, churches, banks, etc., they are prohibited, either by state law or school policy, from carrying their firearms onto most college campuses.

Colorado State University, Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA), and all nine public colleges in the state of Utah currently allow concealed carry on campus. After a combined total of more than sixty semesters of allowing concealed carry on campus, none of these schools have seen any resulting incidents of gun violence, gun accidents, or gun theft.

From assault to rape to mass shootings, college campuses are touched by every type of violent crime imaginable. Labeling an area “gun free” may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech and NIU taught us, feeling safe is not the same as being safe. There is a wide discrepancy between the intent of campus gun bans and the actual consequences of such bans. It is this discrepancy to which the student members of SCCC hope their Empty Holster Protest will draw attention. While opponents may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, SCCC contends that it is the rapes, the assaults, and the uncontested, execution-style massacres that have no place in America’s colleges. The students of the Empty Holster Protest respectfully ask that steps be taken to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus we will neither host nor endorse any protests during the week of April 13-19. April 16 is to be a day of remembrance for the students, faculty, and families affected by the Virginia Tech shooting. SCCC wishes to avoid any action that might distract or detract from the memory of the individuals lost on April 16, 2007.

For more information contact the SCCC Media Team at MediaTeam@ConcealedCampus.org or visit www.ConcealedCampus.com.

I fully support repealing any laws that ban conceal carry on campuses. However I would oppose any law that forced any private institution (college or otherwise) to allow conceal carry because I strongly support property rights.

Not McCain Vote: 27%

With 95% of the vote counted in Pennsylvania, 27% of GOP voters have voted for someone other than John McCain. Ron Paul has 16% with 119,292 votes and Mike Huckabee is at 11% with 85,722 votes.

So over 200,000 GOP voters in Pennsylvania came out to express their displeasure with the anointed nominee. This should be troubling for the McCain campaign.

Living for the Government

Here is a good Will Rogers quote I came across:

"I still believe there is not a man in this country that can't make a living for himself and his family. But he can't make a living for them and his government, too. Not the way this government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheaply as the people do."

The never ending thirst of government for more and more of our hard earned money makes us all weaker and eventually dependent on government. Maybe that is the plan?

Gun Control Not Good Enough for Canada

Another Katey Montague video. Here Katy addresses the ban on pepper spray in Canada. Yes, that is correct pepper spray is banned in Canada, except for protection against wild animals.



From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)website:

Legally, pepper spray is considered a prohibited weapon in Canada.

The Criminal Code says a prohibited weapon is "any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person," and specifically refers to such products as "tear gas, Mace, other gas, and any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person."

Proposed regulations drafted and published in the Canada Gazette in 1998 to clarify the legal status of pepper spray stated clearly that it would be illegal to sell pepper spray for use against people, but when marketed strictly as a wild animal repellent, the sale would be allowed.

However there is now a push to even further restrict the sale of pepper spray:

A community activist in the Point Douglas area of Winnipeg is asking the province to ban the sale of bear spray after several people were injured in attacks with the noxious weapon over the past month.

"I think it's disgusting. We could have stopped this a year ago if we could've got government to move on it," says Sel Burrows, chair of the Point Douglas Residents Committee

Burrows has been lobbying the province since last summer for stiffer restrictions on the sale of the spray.

The spray is too readily available, Burrows says; his adult son was able to buy some easily at a local sporting-goods store on Tuesday.

"He walked into Canadian Tire and was able to plop his $40 down. No ID required, no nothing. It was really aggravating to me that this is going on."

"Maybe we can have it for sale under very tightly restricted circumstances — only sell it to people who actually have a hunting licence, for example, " he says. "Or only sell it to people who actually … are going outside the city. Maybe we'll sell it in the small towns but not allow it to be sold in the city."

Full article here.

Barney Frank Introduces Bill to Remove Federal Restrictions on the Individual Use of Marijuana

Press release from Congressman Barney Frank:

April 17, 2008

FRANK INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO REMOVE FEDERAL PENALTIES ON PERSONAL MARIJUANA USE

Congressman Also Files Bill Permitting Medical Use of Marijuana in States that Choose to Allow it with Doctor’s Recommendation

Congressman Barney Frank today introduced bi-partisan legislation aimed at removing federal restrictions on the individual use of marijuana. One bill would remove federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana, and the other – versions of which Frank has filed in several preceding sessions of Congress – would allow the medical use of marijuana in states that have chosen to make its use for medical purposes legal with a doctor’s recommendation. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) joined Frank as a cosponsor of the federal penalties bill. The cosponsors of the medical marijuana bill are Rep. Paul, along with Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Sam Farr (D-CA).

Congressman Frank released the following statement explaining the legislation.

“I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute. In my view, having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes. In fact, this type of prosecution often meets with public disapproval. The most frequent recent examples have been federal prosecutions of individuals using marijuana for medical purposes in states that have voted – usually by public referenda – to allow such use. Because current federal law has been interpreted as superseding state law in this area, most states that have made medical use of marijuana legal have been unable to actually implement their laws.

"When doctors recommend the use of marijuana for their patients and states are willing to permit it, I think it’s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. More broadly speaking, the norm in America is for the states to decide whether particular behaviors should be made criminal. To make the smoking of marijuana, whether for medical purposes or not, one of those extremely rare instances of federal crime – literally, to make a ‘federal case’ out of it – is wholly disproportionate to the activity involved. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults. There is no rational argument for treating marijuana so differently from these other substances.”

To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity between those two poles in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these substances. And, enforcement of age restrictions should be firm. But, criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.”

“If the laws I am proposing pass, states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public.”

Iraq War a Major Debacle Says National Defense University

A study published this past Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute, the National Defense University calls the Iraq War a major debacle. The study was written by Dr. Joseph J. Collins, a Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College since 2004. From 2001 to 2004 Collins served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations. From 1998 to 2001, Dr. Collins was a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 1998 he retired as a colonel after 28 years of service in the US Army.

An excerpt from the study:

Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths—mostly at the hands of other Iraqis—may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans’ benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel.

The war’s political impact also has been great. Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen.2 Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees. At the same time, operations in Iraq have had a negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decision makers. Our Armed Forces— especially the Army and Marine Corps—have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.

The full study is here.

After the Convention, the Platform is Generally Ignored

According to a MinnPost story by Craig Westover the following email was sent to some Minnesota 7th District GOP delegates:

Hello:

I also wanted to mention that you must chose to either run for a delegate position or an alternate position. You cannot run for both. Please fill out the following form accordingly:

National Delegate Self-Nomination Form

You may place yourself in nomination to be a Delegate or Alternate to the National Republican Convention. Please be aware of the following expectations of your service in this capacity.

1. You will be expected to attend. It is not sufficient to allow the alternate to take your place.

2. There are substantial costs.

a. The registration fee alone is generally $300 or more, and "guests," if you bring your spouse, cost the same.

b. For security purposes, you will be required to stay in the convention hotel, at a cost of $2-300 per night (5 nights).

c. You will be expected to contribute significantly to the national party and campaign, $1000 is almost the minimum.

3. You are expected to contribute to the "TV image" of the Party by being present, applauding and cheering at the "right" places, etc.


********You should also be aware that, unlike your service as a State or local delegate, your influence on the process is considerably limited. The other primary states will, by convention time, have determined the Presidential nominee. The platform process is divided and the opportunity to participate in even a piece of it is limited. After the convention, the platform is generally ignored. For this reason, the role of National Delegate is generally seen as a "reward" for long and faithful service to the Party, rather than as a "representative" to a deliberative body or a "learning opportunity" for newcomers. *******

If you accept and believe you can meet these qualifications, please answer all of the following questions, Yes or No:

1. Do you pledge to attend the National Convention, health permitting?

2. Do you have the financial means to do so?

3. Do you pledge to support the Republican Presidential nominee after the convention?

4. Do you pledge to work for the Presidential candidate AND for other Republican candidates during this campaign season?

Please sign, date, and print your name below. At some point in the Agenda, you will be expected to deliver a short (roughly 1 minute) speech regarding your candidacy, upon which the delegates will base their votes.

Read the full article here.

I'm so old I remember when political conventions actually mattered. Now both the GOP and the Democratic conventions are nothing but taxpayer subsidized commercials.

Chalmers Johnson on Middle East Blowback

Chalmers Johnson author of Blowback discusses our policy in the Middle East and how it led to terrorism and the Iraq War.



From Wikipedia:

Johnson believes the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, Johnson experienced a political awakening after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, noting that instead of demobilizing its massive armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy.

Derek J. Hale: Murdered Marine

I just came across this today, it is the story of Derek J. Hale, and honorably discharged Marine who served two tours in Iraq. He survived Iraq only to be allegedly murdered in cold blood by the Wilmington, Delaware police on November 6, 2006. You probably never read about this in your local paper or heard about it in the misguided media. They would have been too busy covering the important things like Anna Nicole or Britney.

The article is by William Norman Grigg. Here are some excerpts:

Derek was house-sitting for a friend on the day he was murdered. Sandra Lopez, the ex-wife of Derek's friend, arrived with an 11-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter just shortly before the police showed up. After helping Sandra and her children remove some of their personal belongings, Derek was sitting placidly on the front step, clad in jeans and a hooded sweatshirt, when an unmarked police car and a blacked-out SUV arrived and disgorged their murderous cargo.

The police vehicles screeched to a halt in front of the house shortly after 4:00 p.m. They ordered Lopez and her children away from Derek – who, predictably, had risen to his feet by this time – and then ordered him to remove his hands from his the pockets of his sweatshirt.

Less than a second later – according to several eyewitnesses at the scene – Derek was hit with a taser blast that knocked him sideways and sent him into convulsions. His right hand involuntarily shot out of its pocket, clenching spasmodically.

The officers continued to order Derek to put up his hands; he was physically unable to comply.

So they tased him again. This time he was driven to his side and vomited into a nearby flower bed.

Howard Mixon, a contractor who had been working nearby, couldn't abide the spectacle.

“That's not necessary!” he bellowed at the assailants. “That's overkill! That's overkill!”

At this point, one of the heroes in blue (or, in this case, black) swaggered over to Mixon and snarled, “I'll f*****g show you overkill!” Having heroically shut up an unarmed civilian, the officer turned his attention back to Derek – who was being tased yet again.

“I'm trying to get my hands out,” Derek exclaimed, desperately trying to make his tortured and traumatized body obey his will. Horrified, his friend Sandra screamed at the officers: “He is trying to get his hands out, he cannot get his hands out!”

Lt. William Brown of the Wilmington Police Department, who was close enough to seize and handcuff the helpless victim, instead shot him in the chest at point-blank range, tearing apart his vitals with three .40-caliber rounds. He did this after Derek had said, repeatedly and explicitly, that he was trying to cooperate. He did this despite the fact that witnesses on the scene had confirmed that Derek was trying to cooperate. He did this in front of a traumatized mother and two horrified children.

Read the full article here or here. The article gives much more background and includes a graphic of the incident.

The Rutherford Institute has filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of Hale's widow here is their press release:

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit against Delaware law enforcement officials on behalf of a decorated Marine Corps veteran who was shot and killed in Wilmington, Del., in November 2006. Sgt. Derek J. Hale was tasered and shot three times while sitting on the front steps of a residence in the city after numerous Delaware State Police (DSP) and Wilmington Police Department (WPD) officers conducted what attorneys allege was a warrantless raid at the residence.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Sgt. Hale’s widow, father and mother by attorneys with The Rutherford Institute and the Neuberger Firm, along with other affiliated attorneys, alleges that the police officers acted without any cause and with excessive force in violation of national and local law enforcement standards and practices, thereby violating Sgt. Hale’s constitutional rights and the law of the State of Delaware. A copy of the complaint is available here.

“We’re greatly concerned about some police tactics that lead to overreaction,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “In this particular case, it is clear that there were egregious constitutional violations that resulted in the death of this decorated war veteran.”

On November 6, 2006, Sgt. Hale, a 25-year-old Virginia resident who served two tours of duty in Iraq and was honorably discharged the previous January with a service-related injury, was in Wilmington to participate in a “Toys for Tots” event and housesit for a friend. At approximately 4:00 p.m., three unmarked law enforcement vehicles with DSP and WPD officers pulled up to the house and numerous officers stormed the porch where Sgt. Hale was sitting with a mother and her two children.

The complaint alleges that even though Sgt. Hale was unarmed, offered no resistance and made no threatening motions, he was tasered three separate times by the officers, rendering him immobile. While paralyzed from the electric shock, Sgt. Hale was allegedly ordered to put his hands in the air; when he failed to do so, he was subsequently shot three times in the chest. The lawsuit alleges that law enforcement agencies had no evidence that Sgt. Hale was violating the law or was wanted on any outstanding warrants.

According to the complaint, an earlier DSP investigation into Hale’s background revealed him to be a model citizen with no criminal record, no history of substance abuse and no history of violence or mental illness. Charging that officers violated Sgt. Hale’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of Sgt. Hale’s estate and family against the law enforcement officers involved in the raid and the City of Wilmington for causing Derek’s death through the unconstitutional use of excessive force. Institute attorneys are also asking the court to force the WPD and DSP to properly train their officers in the use of tasers and deadly force.

Clinton and Obama on Guns

An very interesting article by David Kopel in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Kopel contrasted Obama's and Clinton's campaign claims about supporting the Second Amendment versus their actions and statements in the past.

Some highlights:

As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited portion of the United States.

In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for protection.

Read full article here.

Ron Paul on Neal Cavuto Discusses Eliminating Federal Income Taxes

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto on April 15, 2008 discussing eliminating the federal income tax and the federal gas tax. Unlike earlier interviews of Paul, here Mr.Cavuto goes out of his way to be nice to Dr. Paul.

PETA Sticks its Nose in Again: Part II

Here is the letter People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wrote to Principal Bartelt:

April 7, 2008

Dear Principal Bartelt,

I’m writing on behalf of PETA and our more than 1.8 million members and supporters worldwide. A member in your community has contacted us recently about the disturbing actions of one of your school’s teachers. The teacher erected a “hunting wall,” where students are encouraged to display pictures of animals that they have killed. We hope you agree that in this era of increased violence and school-shooting rampages, it is vital that students learn to foster empathy for others rather than aggression. Teaching children to exercise kindness and respect and to protect even the smallest and most unloved among us helps them to value one another and the world around them. The “hunting wall” undermines these efforts and sets a precedent for a dangerous mindset that glorifies—and even rewards—violence. We urge you to permanently prohibit this kind of display on school property.

Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals. You might not be aware of the following chilling facts:

· According to published reports, in every recent school shooting, a consistent warning sign preceded the attacks: All the young killers abused and/or killed animals before turning on their classmates.

· The majority of inmates scheduled to be executed for murder at California’s San Quentin penitentiary “practiced” their crimes on animals, according to the warden

· FBI profilers, the American Psychiatric Association, law enforcement officials, and child-advocacy organizations all agree that animal abuse is a warning sign often seen in children who eventually direct violence toward humans.

As educators, we must start making lessons of compassion a priority. Instilling a sense of compassion in children today is the best way to prevent violence tomorrow. As a humane educator for 15 years, I have worked with students all over the country to inspire them to make a positive impact in their communities. If you need any assistance, I would be happy to help you develop a program to replace the “hunting wall” with something positive and empowering, such as a wall to recognize students who have shown exceptional character by helping their peers, animals, or the community at large. This wall would help foster an environment that promotes social responsibility, which your school’s mission statement claims to embrace.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Sangeeta Kumar, M. Ed.

TeachKind Coordinator

To equate hunting to abusing animals is just ludicrous. Hunters don't derive pleasure from causing suffering to the animal. Following PETA's illogic, we should ban bread because it is a proven fact that every single person on death row ate bread before turning to murder. Obviously bread causes people to become murderers


And this from the PETA website:

At a middle school in Tiny Poplar, Wisconsin, a science teacher is encouraging his kids to shoot animals in the area and share stories of “the kill” with the rest of the class. If the kids eat the dead creatures, they’re allowed to post pictures of their accomplishment on a bulletin board in the classroom. And not a single person in the school gets how fundamentally, deeply screwed up this is.

Wow, talk about deeply screwed up, PETA certainly qualifies. I guess since most Americans eat meat PETA believes most Americans are fundamentally, deeply screwed up.

PETA Sticks its Nose in Again

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) busybodies tried to impose their strange beliefs once again. This time in Poplar, Wisconsin. Northwestern Middle School in Poplar sent out its newsletter "News of Your Schools" which featured an article on the school's hunting wall. The hunting wall shows pictures of students holding the grouse, deer and bear they shot.

From the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Ken Bartelt, principal of Northwestern Middle School, refuses to take down the pictures of student hunters holding their ruffed grouse, deer and bear after complaints from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The bulletin board with about 50 student pictures is in science teacher Russ Bailey's classroom. Bailey is a volunteer firearms safety instructor, and the pictures feature some of his students.

PETA's April 7 news release, however, sparked a flood of e-mails to Bartelt from across the nation, both for and against the bulletin board. The release was posted on PETA's Web site.

"Northwestern Middle School's 'hunting wall' is nothing more than a monument to violence, suffering and death,'' wrote PETA officials. The organization drew further connections between hunting and school shootings, including the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado.

Bartelt said his research shows no connection between hunting and school violence. He fired off a letter to PETA saying, "Hunting is a part of the culture, not only in our school but in many parts of the country, and especially so in northern Wisconsin.

I think hunter safety classes and hunting teaches respect for weapons, and that they are not for fun, destruction or violence. Hunters are probably the least violent subset of our society."

Good for Mr. Bartelt! Mr. Bartlet is not a hunter or a gun owner but unlike PETA he understands about respecting other peoples' choices. Full story here.

Milton Friedman on Why Drugs Should be Legalized

Milton Friedman explains the benefits of the re-legalization of drugs in the United States. I say re-legalization because before 1914 and the passage of the Harrison Act there were no illegal drugs in the United States.

Milton Friedman covers the adverse effect of the Drug War on prison costs, it causing an additional 10,000 deaths each year, it encouraging the use of harder drugs, driving people into the criminal underground, the funding of gangs and keeping users from seeking help for their addiction.

In addition our "War on Some Drugs" has had devastating effect on other countries such as Columbia. We are also protecting the big time drug dealers by keeping out smaller competitors.

Those are the practical benefits of re-legalizing drugs. From a moral standpoint Friedman points out the immorality of imposing your choices on others.

Part I:


Part II:


Part III:

Freedom Rally in Washington DC on 4/15/08

Here is a video from the Freedom Rally in Washington DC on 4/15/08, featuring Ernest Hancock of Arizona speaking. Hancock is the man behind the "Ron Paul Revolution" sign idea. Hancock hosts a radio show on Air America in Phoenix and runs the Freedoms Phoenix website. Hancock is also running for Libertarian Party Chair.

A Tax Day Message From Mary Ruwart

Since Ron Paul is unlikely to win the GOP nomination, I am now supporting Mary Ruwart's Libertarian bid. Here Dr. Ruwart's Tax Day message:

“Nothing is certain but death and taxes.”

Conventional wisdom puts the so-called “necessary evil” of taxation on par with death—inevitable, unavoidable, the way the world works. Our society seems to believe that taxation is indispensable to civilization. Our ancestors once believed the same thing about slavery.

Today, we know better. Slavery is not only unnecessary to civilization, but hinders its development. What we call “evil” has a way of doing that.

One day, the “necessary evil” of taxation will be recognized for what libertarians know it to be: legalized theft, a hindrance to civilization, prosperity, harmony, and happiness.

We’ve been so conditioned to accept taxation, that we often forget it’s an “evil.” Yet if we closely examine the process of taxation, we find it looks a lot like stealing.

Imagine, for example, that we wanted to have a new neighborhood park. We could get together with other neighbors who wanted the same thing and raise the necessary funds. We could even hire a manager to do this if we didn’t want to.

If some of our neighbors didn’t want to contribute, they wouldn’t have to. If they changed their mind later, however, they might have to pay an extra entry fee. Everyone would be free to choose whether or not they wanted to help create a park.

However, we usually prefer not to honor our neighbor’s choice. If we are part of a majority that wants the park, we vote to impose a tax on all of our neighbors, even those who don’t want a park or wouldn’t use one. The majority forces the minority to its will. The minority is no longer free to choose.

If one of our neighbors refuses to pay the park tax, he or she will be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary— to do so. For example, if the new tax is a property tax, a lien will be placed on the dissenting person’s home. Eventually, if the tax is not paid, armed officers will forcibly evict our neighbors from their home. If they resist, they may even be shot and killed, yet they have harmed no one. Their only crime is that they didn’t agree with the majority about how their hard-earned money should be spent.

Most of the time, our dissenting neighbors will pay the tax before they are forced to do so at gunpoint. Eventually, they will retaliate in kind by becoming part of a majority that opposes what we might prefer. For example, people who don’t want a park may want a library instead. They will vote to force us to pay a library tax, even though we buy our reading material at a bookstore rather than patronize a library.

With taxation, we take turns being minorities and majorities, victims and aggressors. We become irate and belligerent as the stakes escalate, reminiscent of the famous Hatfield and McCoy feud.

You can see this interplay in the verbal venom used by the liberals and conservatives, as they decry the way the other group wants to spend your hard-earned money. They never question whether or not your money should be forcibly taken from you in the first place. They clearly believe that it is their “divine right” to do so.

Libertarians believe that it is your divine right to spend your money as you wish. If you are smart enough to earn it, you are smart enough to spend it. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul is still stealing. Taxation is indeed an evil, an evil that tempts us to grab as much as we can from each other. Voting for a tax is a declaration of war on our neighbors and is eventually responded to in kind. No wonder we have so much strife in our fair land!

Not only is taxation “evil,” it’s unnecessary as well. When government provides a service, it costs us twice as much as a private firm would charge us (for examples, see my book, “Healing Our World,” available as a bound book (2003 edition) or a free download (1992 edition) at www.ruwart.com). If we all spent our money the way we chose to, instead of trying to tax each other, we’d have twice as much to spend. Imagine how much better off we’d be! Civilization would flourish, instead of being suppressed. Harmony would be restored.

The only major party candidate who understands that taxation is an unnecessary evil is Dr. Ron Paul, GOP hopeful, and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee. If he doesn’t get the Republican Party’s nomination, many supporters will write in his name on their ballots. Sadly, such loyalty will go unreported by the press, since write-in votes are rarely counted and even more rarely reported.

I see only one way that his supporters can make their voices heard if Dr. Paul doesn’t receive the GOP nomination. If the Ron Paul Revolution votes en masse for the Libertarian Party (LP) candidates, including the presidential nominee, the LP will receive an unprecedented number of votes. The Ron Paul Revolution votes will likely land LP candidates in local and state offices, and empower them to help Dr. Paul with his programs.

The press tied the libertarian label closely to Ron Paul. The Revolution will get credit for the surge in LP interest. Sympathetic politicians may feel it’s safe to come out of the closet and support Congressman Paul’s proposals.

Of course, all this is possible only if the LP runs a principled Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter for their presidential candidate. I propose to be that candidate. I have supported Dr. Paul’s congressional campaigns since 1988 and have been active in his presidential run. Dr. Paul has supported me by endorsing my book, “Healing Our World,” and writing President Bush in support of my application for FDA Commissioner some years ago. As the LP presidential nominee, I will refer to Dr. Paul’s ongoing efforts, such as passage of the “Health Freedom Protection Act,” as part of my program to deregulate the health care industry.

If Ron Paul does get the GOP nomination, what a wonderful dilemma we will face. I would be delighted to educate voters on choosing between the greater of two goods, rather than trying to discourage them from voting against the lesser of two evils!

Mary Ruwart

Here is more on Mary Ruwart (rew art)who is one of the leading candidates for the Libertarian nomination for President. From her website:

Dr. Mary J. Ruwart received her B.S. in biochemistry in 1970 and her Ph.D. in Biophysics in 1974 (both from Michigan State University). She then joined the Department of Surgery at St. Louis University where she became an Assistant Professor. Dr. Ruwart came to The Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976 as a Senior Research Scientist involved in developing new therapies for a variety of diseases, including AIDS.

Dr. Ruwart left Upjohn in 1995 to devote her time to consulting and writing. With her husband, Raymond R. Carr, R.Ph., Dr. Ruwart designed and delivered a communications course for scientists, covering written, oral, and poster presentations. She also provides consulting services for nutraceutical companies, CROs, and IRBs.

Since 1982, Dr. Ruwart has been a libertarian activist. In 1983, she was a member of the Libertarian Party’s platform committee. She came to the national convention as a delegate in that same year and became an overnight sensation by running for President of the United States, coming in third in a field of seven. Dr. Ruwart continued her activities as Chair of Internal Education (1988-89); runner-up for Kalamazoo City Commission (1983); Chair, Kalamazoo County Libertarian Party (1985); Libertarian candidate for County Commission (1982,1987); and Libertarian candidate for State Representative (1986). She was also a Libertarian candidate for State Board of Education and was endorsed for that office by The Detroit News in 1990 for her unwavering support of educational choice. Her vote total in that year kept the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Michigan for 1992, when she ran again for State Board.

After relocating to Kentucky in 1996, Dr. Ruwart served as campaign manager for a local Libertarian candidate for sheriff. After moving to Texas, she challenged Kay Bailey Hutchinson for her Senate seat in 2002. In 2008, Dr. Ruwart and her husband became active in the Ron Paul for President campaign.

During her time in Kalamazoo, Dr. Ruwart was a regular guest lecturer in local high school and university political science classes, where she shared the libertarian message. She currently serves on the Board of Directors for the International Society for Individual Liberty, and has served in a similar capacity for Heartland (Michigan Chapter) and the Fully Informed Jury Amendment Association (FIJA). Her Internet column, “Short Answers to the Tough Questions” is a popular feature of the Advocates for Self-Government web site.

Dr. Ruwart has worked extensively with the poor through her decade-long efforts to rehabilitate low-income housing in the Kalamazoo area. She was also an active member of the Kalamazoo Rainforest Action Committee and has been profiled in American Men and Women of Science, Who's Who in Science and Technology, World Who's Who of Women, International Leaders of Achievement, Who's Who of American Women, Community Leaders of North America and several other prestigious biographical works.

Dr. Ruwart may be best known for her book about political freedom of choice, currently in its third edition -- Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression. A review in Visions Magazine claimed that Healing might be "the most important book of the decade." Healing has been translated into Russian, Serbian, Lithuanian, and Romanian.

The original (1992) edition of Healing Our World benefited greatly from Dr. Ruwart’s sister, Martie, who provided extensive editorial critique. In 1993, Martie was diagnosed with terminal cancer and became one of Dr. Kevorkian's patients. In memory of her sister, Dr. Ruwart shares her story with those interested in right to die issues.

Ron Paul on Bailing Out Banks

From Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk:

There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about the Federal Reserve and the actions it has taken over the past few months. Many media pundits have been bending over backwards to praise the Fed for supposedly restoring stability to the market. This interpretation of the Fed's actions couldn't be further from the truth.

The current market crisis began because of Federal Reserve monetary policy during the early 2000s in which the Fed lowered the interest rate to a below-market rate. The artificially low rates led to overinvestment in housing and other malinvestments. When the first indications of market trouble began back in August of 2007, instead of holding back and allowing bad decision-makers to suffer the consequences of their actions, the Federal Reserve took aggressive, inflationary action to ensure that large Wall Street firms would not lose money. It began by lowering the discount rates, the rates of interest charged to banks who borrow directly from the Fed, and lengthening the terms of such loans. This eliminated much of the stigma from discount window borrowing and enabled troubled banks to come to the Fed directly for funding, pay only a slightly higher interest rate but also secure these loans for a period longer than just overnight.

After the massive increase in discount window lending proved to be ineffective, the Fed became more and more creative with its funding arrangements. It has since created the Term Auction Facility (TAF), the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), and the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF). The upshot of all of these new programs is that through auctions of securities or through deposits of collateral, the Fed is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars of funding into the financial system in a misguided attempt to shore up the stability of the system.

The PDCF in particular is a departure from the established pattern of Fed intervention because it targets the primary dealers, the largest investment banks who purchase government securities directly from the New York Fed. These banks have never before been allowed to borrow from the Fed, but thanks to the Fed Board of Governors, these investment banks can now receive loans from the Fed in exchange for securities which will in all likelihood soon lose much of their value.

The net effect of all this new funding has been to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system and bail out banks whose poor decision making should have caused them to go out of business. Instead of being forced to learn their lesson, these poor-performing banks are being rewarded for their financial mismanagement, and the ultimate cost of this bailout will fall on the American taxpayers. Already this new money flowing into the system is spurring talk of the next speculative bubble, possibly this time in commodities.

Worst of all, the Treasury Department has recently proposed that the Federal Reserve, which was responsible for the housing bubble and subprime crisis in the first place, be rewarded for all its intervention by being turned into a super-regulator. The Treasury foresees the Fed as the guarantor of market stability, with oversight over any financial institution that could pose a threat to the financial system. Rewarding poor performing financial institutions is bad enough, but rewarding the institution that enabled the current economic crisis is unconscionable.

I Am Tired of Being a Criminal

This is the first in a series of ads being released in Minnesota, which features patients urging Governor Pawlenty not to veto the medical marijuana bill (S.F. 345/H.F. 655). This first ad features medical marijuana patient Lynn Rubenstein Nicholson of Minneapolis, who suffers intractable pain after enduring 10 surgeries following a horrendous back injury.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is an organization of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are calling for the end of the "War on Drugs."

From LEAP's website:

The mission of LEAP is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition.

Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of our existing drug policies. Those policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs.

Although those who speak publicly for LEAP are people from the law enforcement and criminal justice communities, a large number of our supporting members do not have such experience. You don't have to have law enforcement experience to join us.

By continuing to fight the so-called "War on Drugs", the US government has worsened these problems of society instead of alleviating them. A system of regulation and control of these substances (by the government, replacing the current system of control by the black market) would be a less harmful, less costly, more ethical and more effective public policy.

Please consider joining us and helping us to achieve our goals: 1) to educate the public, the media and policy makers about the failure of current policies, and 2) to restore the public's respect for police, which respect has been greatly diminished by law enforcement's involvement in enforcing drug prohibition.

McBamaton

I see there is another controversy going around the three "major" candidates. This time it has to do with comments made by Barack Obama. My only comment is I hope these three keep sniping at each other long enough and hard enough so that none of them can win the presidency.

Marshall Fritz

I just found out that Marshall Fritz is dying of pancreatic cancer. In 1985 Marshall founded the Advocates for Self-Government, a libertarian advocacy and education center.

While heading the Advocates Marshall invented of the "World's Smallest Political Quiz." The Quiz is derived from the Nolan chart David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, devised the chart in 1969. Nolan reasoned that virtually all political views can be divided into either economic or personal. In order to visually express this insight, Nolan came up with a two axis graph. One axis was for economic freedom, and the other was for personal freedom.

Marshall Fritz is chairman, founder, and former president of the Alliance for the Separation of School & State.

From MarshallFritz.com, here is a statement by Marshall:

I'm terminal. So are you. We need to sort out what's important and get it done. My diagnosis on Sunday, February 17, 2008 that I have inoperable stage IV pancreatic cancer has been a gift that has helped me focus on what I need to get done.

Welcome!

Please don't pity me! I'm having the time of my life deciding what good things I can do for family, friends, and even total strangers now that "time is short" is vividly in my mind. In fact, try to find some meaning in this silly quip (with apologies to Groucho Marx):

If I'd known how much fun it is to plan for my impending demise, I'd have started this dying thing a lot sooner.

I had the privilege of meeting Marshall a number of years ago. A very positive man putting up the good fight for freedom.

Gun Myths - John Stossel

Some facts not generally reported by the misguided media.

Katey Montague

I have posted a few videos by Katey Montague, so I thought it would be appropriate to give some background on those videos. Katey Montague is the daughter of Bruce Montague. Bruce Montague was a Canadian gunsmith until his arrest on September 11, 2004 for violating the licensing and registration terms of the Firearms Act(Bill C-68).

Katey with the help of family friend Chris DiArmani made these videos to draw attention to her Dad's plight and the stupidity of Canadian gun laws.

Bruce Montague was sentenced on March 18, 2006 to 18 months in jail. Bruce's wife Donna Montague was found innocent of careless storage, and was given six months probation for owning firearms without a license.

From Chris DiArmani website:

The foreman of the jury that convicted Mr. Montague wanted to address the court to offer the jury's recommendation that Montague serve no jail time. Justice Wright denied him, saying his wishes were irrelevant. The jury's job is to convict or acquit, the judge's job is to impose sentence, he said.

When given the opportunity to address the court, Bruce Montague said he would accept whatever sentence the judge deemed appropriate.

You've taken everything we have, Donna Montague said. You've stolen money from us that nobody will even investigate, you've taken our life savings in the form of our gun collection, you've taken my husband and my children's father, and you've taken our family home. You have utterly destroyed a family for absolutely no good reason. It's disgusting. My forefathers fought for this country through three wars, and now you are destroying the antique firearms they used to defend Canada in the War of 1812 and the Fenian Raids. Our forefathers must be rolling over in their graves. They never fought for this kind of Canada!

After sentence was handed down, Bruce was immediately taken into custody and transferred to the Kenora Remand Centre. Katey Montague simply stood still, tears in her eyes as she watched her father taken away by two police officers.

After the sentencing hearing Donna and Katey Montague were driven home by a family friend, and Donna noted that "[Sergeant] Meeks (the arresting officer in the case) followed us all the way. We even pulled to the right hand in the passing zones and slowed below 80km/hr. He didn't pass until we got to Eaton Rugby Rd."

Meeks was, no doubt, just making sure they returned home safely, and did not mean to cause any further alarm.

Both the pre-sentencing report created by Bert Sombrutsku and Justice Wright's sentencing report made a point of chastising Mr. Montague for "using" his daughter to promote his ideas in the series of YouTube videos entitled Katey's Firearms Facts.

The pre-sentence report says: "To publicly assert his ideas via the internet, using his daughter, may be considered as being exploitative..." In his sentencing report Justice Wright stated: "He has also exercised poor taste in involving his young daughter in his campaign for the right to bear arms."

It is clear that neither man questioned Bruce about Katey's videos. It is equally clear they never bothered to ask Katey either, as she would have assuredly set them straight. Katey wanted to help her father. She did that the only way she knew how, by using the tools and technology of her generation to promote awareness of her father's case.

With that notion in mind, the Montague family, Bruce's case management team and lawyer Douglas Christie will continue the appeals process. It is a long legal road ahead, and it will be costly. To all those who have helped financially so far, the Montague family is eternally grateful.

If you would like to make a donation to help the Montague's continue the legal battle for all our rights to the Supreme Court, you can donate through the website at http://brucemontague.ca , or by mailing donations directly to "Bruce Montague Scrap C-68 Fund" c/o Roger Nordlund, Trustee, RR#2, Site 211, Box 7, Dryden, Ontario, P8N 2Y5.

The gall of the Judge to criticize Katey's videos. A daughter should not try and help her father?

Our freedoms are slowly being chipped away, we must act before it is toolate. Unfortunately more people are concerned about what happened on American Idol than they are in freedom.

More Essential Government Spending - Update

Last weekend I posted More Essential Government Spending about the Minnesota state legislature passing a bonding bill that included $400,000 to build a new sheet music library in Chatfield. Chatfield is a small town of less than 2,500, located about 20 miles south of Rochester.

This past Monday, Governor Tim Pawlenty used his line item veto to eliminate this and other projects from the bill. In response Representative Ken Tschumper, who is the representative for the district Chatfield is in, wrote this to the Rochester Post Bulletin newspaper:

Monday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty cut $400,000 in funding from the bonding bill for the Chatfield Brass Band Music Lending Library. For unexplainable reasons, he used his line-item veto power to cancel support for an internationally renowned treasure.

The Republican governor added insult to injury when he referred to the Legislature's funding of the project as "inconceivable," and discounted the project's legitimacy. To me, what is inconceivable is that Gov. Pawlenty could be so shortsighted. This relatively small investment would have been extremely beneficial to the Chatfield area. Instead, the governor decided to play politics with the interests of Chatfield.

The Chatfield Brass Band Lending Library has the best collection of brass band sheet music in North America. It is a priceless collection accumulated over the last 50 years. It regularly provides copies and real pieces of America's greatest marching and orchestra music to requests from every state and many foreign countries. The building is filled with collection pieces that are in dire need of cataloging and preservation.

I am extremely disappointed with Gov. Pawlenty's decision. This proposal had bipartisan support on the Bonding Committee. In addition to preserving this collection of rare music, it would have created some business and employment for local businesses and employees. Nearly everyone in Minnesota, except the governor, understands that we need more investment and job creation in our state.

Rep. Ken Tschumper

I would ask Representative Ken Tschumper the following questions:

• Why should taxpayers in Minnesota cities such as St. Cloud, Alexandria or Litchfield pay taxes to benefit an organization in Chatfield?


• Why should Minnesota taxpayers subsidize groups from "every state and many foreign countries" who desire copies of sheet music?


• Why doesn't the sheet music library set up a system where the users pay at least part of its cost?


• If this is an essential use of MN taxpayers tax dollars, exactly what isn't?

Is it Time to Lower the Drinking Age?

There is a growing movement to once again lower the drinking age to 18. Naturally MADD is opposed. When I was 18 it was legal to drink, then Minnesota became one of the first states to raise it to 19. I can vouch that the law change did not keep the 18 year olds from drinking.

I am in favor of lower the drinking age even more. In Europe the drinking is 16 in many countries. They don't have the problems we do and I think it is because having a lower drinking age removes the thrill of violating the rules. Also with a younger drinking age kids can learn responsible consumption with adults.

Barney Frank on Internet Gambling Ban

Well I rarely agree with Barney Frank, but I certainly do agree with him on the foolishness and just plain wrongness of the government banning Internet gambling. Here is Frank's speech before the House passed the Internet gambling ban back in 2006.

U.S. House of Representatives
July 11, 2006

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the gentleman from Iowa with whom I often agree. I don't disagree with him entirely. I will stipulate that there is nothing in the Bhagavad Gita about gambling. But other than that, I don't think he got much right.

He says that gambling on the Internet does not add to the GDP or make America competitive. Has it become the role of this Congress to prohibit any activity that an adult wants to engage in voluntarily if it doesn't add to the GDP or make us more competitive?

What kind of socio-, cultural authoritarianism are we advocating here?

Now, I agree there is a practice around today that causes a lot of problems, damages families, people lose their jobs, they get in debt. They do it to excess. It is called drinking. Are we going to go back to Prohibition? Prohibition didn't work for alcohol; it doesn't work for gambling.

When people abuse a particular practice, the sensible thing is to try to deal with the abuse, not outlaw it.

By the way, this bill allows certain kinds of Internet gambling to stay, so apparently the notion is that those few people who are obsessive and addicted will not take advantage of those forms which are still available to them.

But the fundamental point is this. If an adult in this country, with his or her own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how dare we prohibit it because it doesn't add to the GDP or it has no macroeconomic benefit. Are we all to take home calculators and, until we have satisfied the gentleman from Iowa that we are being socially useful, we abstain from recreational activities that we choose?

This Congress is well on the way to getting it absolutely backwards. In areas where we need to act together to protect the quality of our life, in the environment, in transportation, in public safety, we abstain; but in those areas where individuals ought to be allowed to make their own choices, we intervene. And that is what this is.

Now, people have said, well, some students abuse it. We should work to try to diminish abuse. But if we were to outlaw for adults everything that college students abuse, we would all just sit home and do nothing.

By the way, credit card abuse among students is a more serious problem, I believe, than gambling. Maybe gambling will catch up. But we have heard many, many stories about young people who have credit cards that they abuse. Do we ban credit cards for them?

But here is the fundamental issue. Shouldn't it be the principle in this government that the burden of proof is on those who want to prohibit adults from their own free choices to show that they are harming other people?

We ought to say that, if you decide with your own money to engage in an activity that harms no one else, you ought to be allowed to do it. And once you say, oh, no, but that doesn't add to the GDP, and that can lead to some problems in families, then this is hardly the only thing you will end up banning.

The fundamental principle of the autonomy of the individual is at stake today.

Now, I have to say, I understand a lot of the conservatives don't like it because there are people on the religious side who don't like it. Some of my liberal friends, I think, are being very inconsistent. We are for allowing a lot of things. I mean, many of us vote to say, You can burn the flag; I wish you wouldn't, but you can. It shouldn't be a crime.

You can look at certain things on television that maybe other people think you shouldn't. You can do other things but you can't gamble. There is a fundamental inconsistency there.

I guess people think gambling is tacky. They don't like it. Well, fine, then don't do it. But don't prohibit other individuals from engaging in it.

People have said, What is the value of gambling? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn't that be our principle? If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do.

And it is, of course, likely to be ineffective. The best thing that ever happens to illegal gamblers is when you do a measure like this.

I hope the bill is defeated.

I Maybe Blonde, But I'm Not Stupid

Okay one more Katey Montague video.

Officer Alex Popovic Talks About Canada's Gun Registration

Another video from Bruce Montague a Canadian gun rights activist. His daughter Katey reads some statements by retired police officer Alex Popovic on how gun registration doesn't work.

Ron Paul Questions General Petraeus at Iraq Hearing

I wish Ron Paul would have actually asked him some of these questions instead of just reading them. Although I suppose Petraeus and Crocker would have just said they were out of their area of expertise also.

Six Year Old Sexual Harasser?

Still more idiocy from our so called education system.

Six year old Randy Castro was at Potomac View Elementary School slap a female classmate on the bottom during recess. Six year old Randy Castro is now labeled a sexual harasser on his permanent school record.

But little Randy is not alone, according to the Washington Post:

The Virginia Department of Education reported that 255 elementary students were suspended last year for offensive sexual touching, or "improper physical contact against a student." In Maryland, 166 elementary school children were suspended last year for sexual harassment, including three preschoolers, 16 kindergartners and 22 first-graders, according to the State Department of Education. Statistics for the District were not available.

In 2006, a kindergartner in Hagerstown, Md., was accused of sexual harassment after pinching a female classmate's buttocks. A 4-year-old in Texas was given an in-school suspension after a teacher's aide accused him of sexual harassment for pressing his face into her breasts when he hugged her.

Full article here.

Put That Away, It's a Sharpie and You Might Hurt Yourself

Another in the continuing saga of idiot school rules and schools abusing students. This time we go to Colorado. Westminster is a suburb of Denver and the location of the Adams County District 50 Schools.

Harris Park Elementary School Principal Chris Benisch suspended eight-year-old Eathan Harris for three days because he repeatedly was sniffing a Sharpie permanent marker. Benisch defended the suspension saying:

"This is really, really, seriously dangerous."

Benisch claims sniffing the marker could cause someone to "become intoxicated."

Not according to Dr. Eric Lavonas a toxicologist with the Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center. Lavonas said it would be nearly impossible to become intoxicated on 50 markers let alone one.

The principal in his continuing stupidty has now banned permanent markers from the school.

Soon I suppose we will need a license to buy Sharpies. Sharpies will be called the gateway drug. Sniffing Sharpies will lead to eating glue and yes eventually meth.

George McGovern on Freedom and Responsibility

George McGovern the 1972 Democratic candidate for President wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal back on March 7, 2008. As a libertarian I could not find one point in Mr. McGovern's commentary that I disagreed with. Mr. McGovern seems to have a much better grip than most politicians today on how economics work and why freedom of choice is important.

Here are some excerpts from McGovern's op-ed:

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.

With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.

The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Read the full op-ed here.

Gotta Love Those Politicians

Just got my monthly phone bill, I noticed it had gone up 7 cents. Why? The Federal Universal Service Charge had gone up "due to a recent FCC decision." What is the Federal Universal Service Charge? Why it is a program designed to "keep local telephone rates affordable."

Leave it to the government to increases costs in order to make something more affordable. My phone bill is $16, the taxes and government fees are $8.48. So government taxes and fees are now over a third of my total bill. Gawd I love the government!

Ibuprofen Justifies Strip Search of 13 Year Old Girl By School Officials

Savana Redding, an honor roll student, was stripped searched by school officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona on October 8, 2003. The reason? A classmate had accused her of possessing and distributing ibuprofen.

Savana Redding was taken out of class by vice-Principal Kerry Wilson and brought to his office where she denied providing the pills to a classmate. She was then taken by administrative assistant Helen Romero to the school nurse Peggy Schwallier's office where she was strip-searched.

Savana Redding says she was ordered to strip to her underwear, move her bra to the side and pull her underwear out, exposing her pelvic area and breasts. No pills were found.

The school argued that the search was reasonable and justified because pills had been found on campus and a student had linked them to Redding. Matthew Wright, a lawyer for the school district said

"When it comes to drugs and weapons, school districts just can't take the chance of not going forward and being sure."

Savana's mother, April Redding, filed a federal lawsuit against the district and Middle School officials for violating Savanna's Fourth Amendment rights.

In September 2007, a three judge panel of the very liberal Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the school's search was constitutional. The court said the search was "reasonably related in scope to circumstances that justified search, as required for search to be reasonable under Fourth Amendment."

The case is now being appealed before the full Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Again another case of schools teaching kids that they have no rights and authority must be blindly followed.

Here is a letter that Savana Redding wrote to the Eastern Arizona Courier newspaper:

I am the girl whose story you published as “Court Rules Strip Search Not Violation of Rights.” Let me first of all say I am not angry that the article was published. I am, however, offended by the way the article makes it seem as though I were some kind of troublemaker.

When I was in middle school, I was a very shy and awkward kid, but I almost always made the honor roll and had never even been in detention. I’m not going to go into detail about what was said and done leading up to my traumatic experience because that would only complicate what I’m trying to accomplish with this letter.

First, I can understand how the school would want to keep the students safe by keeping drugs out, but to me, just because two students say it, doesn’t mean it is true; that does not count as reasonable grounds for a strip search in my mind.

Second, even if a school has real reasonable grounds and thought it best to search the student’s person, then it should at least call in the mother or the police to do it. The school did not give me that luxury. Instead, the vice principal instructed me to follow the nurse and the secretary to the nurse’s office.

Once there, the nurse and secretary had me undress in front of them. While I was staring at the floor, embarrassed and ashamed, they were searching every seam, every crease, even a hole in my shoe. You already published the most humiliating part, so for my own sake I will not repeat it.

After I was allowed to put my clothes back on, I was made to sit in a chair in the office for more than two hours. I kept asking them when I could call my mom or even just get out of there so I wouldn’t have to look either of those women in the eyes. Nobody would tell me anything.

That day, I had an essay due, so when they finally let me go, I called my mom to let her know I would be a little late so she would have to pick me up from school because I wouldn’t make the bus. I wanted badly to tell her what had just happened, but I looked up to find the secretary looking at me as if daring me to say something. Shameful, I said nothing. When my mom pulled up to get me, I was still in the library, so she learned from one of my friends what had happened.

Some people have asked me, “Why did you let them do that to you?” And it has been eating at me for years. I was in counseling for a while, but it didn’t help. I kept blaming myself. If only I had refused, what would have happened? I didn’t know I could refuse; I thought they were allowed to do it. I was only 13, and I had never been in trouble for anything before. I thought that if I refused, they would think I did have drugs and I would be in worse trouble.

So let me just end by asking one question: How would you feel? How would you feel if you were one day called into the office of your school or workplace, put into a room with two people you see every weekday and told to remove your clothes and show your body to them? Or even as a parent, how would you feel if you showed up one day to pick up your daughter or son (who had never been in any kind of trouble) from school and one of his or her friends told you your child was instructed to expose himself or herself to these school officials because two other students claimed that your child had brought ibuprofen to school?

These people may not have physically harmed me, but I feel violated and hurt just the same, and I don’t believe they should have the right to walk around unaffected, knowing they got away with it.