Richard Prawdzienski of Oklahoma wrote an email to me which was the inspiration for this article. He said, "You can help the party by expanding on how to be known as the nice neighbor. I noticed that far too many Libertarians are loners. They don't join organizations and they don't become actively involved. They often state the organization is flawed.He is right on so many levels. The number of times I have heard a libertarian say they quit something because of this view or that view are to numerous to count. Their leaving simply reinforces the view of the libertarian as a loner and not a team player.
"Examples: American Legion is fighting for a flag amendment therefore I will have nothing to do with them. ACLU won't fight for gun rights therefore I will have nothing to do with them. Boys Scouts won't allow gay leaders therefore I will have nothing to do with them. Churches preach discrimination therefore I will have nothing to do with them. NAACP pushes for social welfare programs therefore I will have nothing to do with them. Gay Groups are lead by the democrats therefore... NRA won't therefore... League of Women Voters won't therefore... The list goes on and on and on."
Richard makes an excellent point. After all, don't we say the same thing to people when they are choosing between the Libertarian Party and our competitors? Why reject us because you disagree about only one or two things and go to a party where you disagree with half of what they are doing?
Besides, the most effective place to change something is from the inside. It is possible to join an organization and only work towards the goals you share with them. Meanwhile you can influence those who are going in the wrong direction to maybe spend a little more of their efforts on the good stuff. There is no leadership more effective than simply Doing. When you Do Something positive, by your actions alone you are urging others to follow you.
A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.So if Souter is in Washington then what are they protecting.
A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.
"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.
Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante known only as “V.” Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he detonates two London landmarks and takes over the government-controlled airwaves, urging his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plot to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.As it is from the people who did Matrix I have high hopes for it.
Press ReleaseI would easily throw a few hundred in to help this cause.
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
It took five years of tender loving care to create a native prairie in the middle of Minneapolis.You have my permission to take a moment to laugh at the mindless activities of this government and its continuing war against 8 inch plus grass*.
It took about 15 minutes for the city to mow most of the waving grasses and flowers to stubble.
The prairie around the YWCA at 2121 E. Lake St. in south Minneapolis was cut because an eagle-eyed city inspector noticed that the grass was higher than the 8-inch maximum allowed by city ordinance.
The same inspector -- and the mower contracted by the city -- apparently didn't see the substantial sign in front of the Y that explained these tall grasses were intended. This was natural prairie, created because it's environmentally friendly and because it was a wonderful teaching lab for city kids.
"Why Don't We Mow?" the sign reads in large letters. In smaller letters there's an explanation of the landscape. "... A mature prairie is a showcase of beautiful grasses and flowers. Prairies take up to three years to mature."
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."There are many more but when I was looking through them I came across a grouping by George Sutherland. His stood out due to the recent happenings and I want to bring your attention to some of what he said.
Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnett (1943).
"The utmost possible liberty to the individual, and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government." Budd v. People, 143 U.S. 517, 551 (1892) (Brewer, J., dissenting).
"[T]he concept of privacy embodies the 'moral fact that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.'" Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians &Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 777, n. 5 (Stevens, J., concurring).
Justice Sutherland dissenting in Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 141:" vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand " could easily be a quote from today as so many of the limits placed on the government by the constitution and it's amendments are being hammered by the supreme court.
For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.
Sutherland in Blaisdell: "A provision of the Constitution, it is hardly necessary to say, does not admit of two distinctly opposite interpretations. It does not mean one thing at one time and an entirely different thing at another time."
Justice Sutherland for the Court in Adkins v. Children's Hospital:
To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the Constitution is not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it; for surely the good of society as a whole cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members.
Justice Sutherland, dissenting in New State Ice v. Liebmann:
The principle is imbedded in our constitutional system that there are certain essentials of liberty with which the state is not entitled to dispense in the interest of experiments.
Justice Sutherland, dissenting in Blaisdell:
If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.
From Thomas in Kelo: "Obliterating a provision of the constitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied."That pretty much sums up what the supreme court is doing today.
[playlist]That is when opened in notepad
NumberOfEntries=1
File1=http://204.202.22.72:8000/
The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The Preamble says:Now if that is not bad enough you need to know that
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."
Recommendation D.1Here is more for your reading pleasure.
(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.
(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.
(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....
subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nationWe already have this. Codes officials checking our properties for the right hedge hieghts, if our wells are the proper depth, and if we cut our grass enough.
On further reflection, it appears to be generally a bad policy to challenge any law with which we libertarianish folks disagree, even though we are right. We keep getting shot down when we take it all the way to the highest court in the land. Act locally.so what is to be done. Regretfully I see in the future more heavy handed dealings with the public. More land grabs and more profits for the big business interests.
I also see a lot of this happening in the future
Say Uncle says we should avoid things like this as no one wins. I agree.What I really fail to get about the Supreme Court is how they can find rights not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Constitution (abortion, sodomy), often going through amazing legalistic gymnastics and contortions to justify them, and yet when it comes to things that are plainly written in the Constitution-freedom of speech (BCFRA) and property rights, they can go through similar contortions to deny the plain meaning of the text.what the problem is for people trying to figure out this mess is the point of view. When we look at the problem we see these words in the constitution.
'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'On the surface it is plain and simple. The problem is that the SC does not see this. Follow this link to Find Law and notice that the numbers scattered throughout their break down of this law.
''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.'' 160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.'' 161 In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, 162 and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States 163 any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power, 164 but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide- ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected. 165 This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State. 167Each one of those numbers is a whole court case and a ruling. FindLaws article included only 29 so figure there are many more.
Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker said Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on private property rights will not affect state homeowners because of protections in the state constitution.It is nice he is saying that state law protects you but I worry about another SC ruling.
Baker, in a statement released to media, said the Georgia Constitution and more than 100 years of state court precedent prevent condemnation for private purposes.
"Fortunately for Georgians, our state constitution and state judiciary have consistently held that condemnation for private purposes is not acceptable under state law, a position that will be unaffected by today’s federal court ruling," Baker wrote.
"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.So if Wal-Mart or some other company wants your land could they simply say that the protection that georgia law gives you means squat? If the Raich ruling destroys states rights then a company has the power to force the state to seize your land with the backing of the federal and supreme courts.
''I'm leaving Dallas on a Sunday and at security it's the usual stuff -- shoes off, laptop out. My carry-on bag goes through the X-ray machine and I hear the infamous 'bag check!''' Mr. Rau recalled.My mom always said "Don't run around the house with keys like that, you could put an eye out"
Here we go, he thought. ''A screener says, 'Sir, is this your bag?' And I say, 'Yeah, and I need a private room if you're going to go through it,' '' he recalled telling the screener.
.............
At the Dallas checkpoint, the contents of his bag were dumped on the table. ''They pull out my car key,'' he said.
''What's this?'' an inspector asked.
''My car key,'' Mr. Rau said.
Mr. Rau drives an Audi. Audis now come with stylish ignition keys designed to house the key inside a holder, preventing rips and wear on pocket liners. You push a button on a flat two-inch shaft and the key slides out.
As he demonstrated it, Mr. Rau could see the word forming in the minds of the screeners, now three, on his case: switchblade.
''Now the bells are ringing,'' he said. After running the key through the X-ray machine three times, the security committee reached a conclusion. ''Well, sir, that's a switchblade style, and that's a prohibited item,'' Mr. Rau said he was told. ''We're going to have to confiscate that.''
Paperwork, of course, was required. His driver's license and other identification papers were photocopied.
Mayor Adam Rivas won't let the public address the City Council if he even thinks they might mention the unmentionable.Ah! The old "shut up and sit down" form of public debate.
Residents say it's censorship, but the city says it's just trying to protect itself if a legal battle brews over Wal-Mart's plan to build in this small town about 15 miles southeast of Olympia.
Residents have been able to say less and less about Wal-Mart at council meetings during the past five months.
"Initially we couldn't use the term 'Wal-Mart,' so the code word became 'big-box stores,'" said Gregory May, who heads up a Wal-Mart opposition group in Yelm. "They then just announced they would no longer accept any comments about Wal-Mart or big-box stores."
Some citizens are stunned that they've been silenced by the people elected to represent them.
"My issue was about traffic concerns. I knew enough to use the word 'Wal-Mart' at the very end, so I wouldn't be told to sit down," she said.
In April, it unanimously approved a motion banning the word "moratorium." That was in response to citizen requests that the council enact a moratorium on big box stores so the city's staff could review the city's decade-old zoning.There is just so much wrong with this story. Any open meeting is not really open if the council decides what can be talked about and what is forbidden. This is a prime example of what a little tyrant can do to a town.
...............
And when a group was considering building a NASCAR track in Yelm, the council wouldn't allow public comment, even though an application was never submitted.
With a wink and a smirk, D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) introduced legislation yesterday to ban alcohol in the District.After making her point to the people there, not the politicians, she withdrew the bill.
Schwartz, the leading opponent of a proposed smoking ban in District bars and restaurants, applied the same arguments made by anti-smoking activists to defend an alcohol ban
Imitation may be considered flattery, but Schwartz's tongue-in-cheek comments showed it can also be used as a political skewer.
"People are still free to drink at home -- for now," she said as she introduced her bill, the Worker Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Act of 2005, Part II. "I'm just legislating that liquor cannot be served in bars, restaurants and nightclubs because I don't want it to be served. I will allow teas, sodas and milk -- for now. And if the drinkers insist on drinking alcohol -- and they will -- they can just step outside on sidewalks with their flasks and drink."
............
Like smoking opponents, she characterized her booze ban as protecting the health of workers and citizens. She read off a litany of drunken driving and domestic abuse statistics that showed drinking is bad for one's health.
"We all know that bartenders and waitstaff are constantly harassed by drinking customers. Bouncers are even beaten up by drunks. I care about these workers and their safety," Schwartz said, while her colleagues chuckled and hid their faces in their hands.
"Yes, I come to you a changed woman," Schwartz said, her voice oozing sarcasm. "It had just never occurred to me that I could simply choose to ban a legal choice for consenting adults in a private place where the public does not have to go and where workers do not have to work.
"I'm also now looking at some other legal choices to ban -- like driving or sex -- for they, too, can be dangerous to your health and the health of others."
On June 11, 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk from the Linh-Mu Pagoda in Hue, Vietnam, burned himself to death at a busy intersection in downtown Saigon, Vietnam.. Eye witness accounts state that Thich Quang Duc and at least two fellow monks arrived at the intersection by car, Thich Quang Duc got out of the car, assumed the traditional lotus position and the accompanying monks helped him pour gasoline over himself. He ignited the gasoline by lighting a match and burned to death in a matter of minutes. David Halberstam, a reporter for the New York Times covering the war in Vietnam, gave the following account:There are many images of the Vietnam war that are more well known, but none deliver a message as much as his does.
I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think…. As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.
Civil disobedienceSo now that I have that out of the way I can start the post.
A deliberate peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, ordinances, military or police orders, and the like. These are usually laws that are regarded as inherently immoral, unjust, or tyrannical. Sometimes, however, laws of a largely regulatory or morally neutral character may be disobeyed as a symbol of opposition to wider policies of the government.
The problem I have with Kanning's self-martyrdom is that is was a cheap stuntWow. Sorry that everyone cannot be a Thich Quang Duc, but it is a start.
Well, the punishment should fit the crime. Obstruction of security officials work, intent to cause a civil disturbance, public jackassery, being a complete moron without a license...that sort of thing. Kanning's wife states that "what he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity." Well, frankly, a more dignified way to travel would be to show them your damn ID, actually be taking a trip rather than intentionally causing a disturbance, and taking the fucking bus if you have a problem with the restrictions imposed on airline travel!
If I were an airline security official and some jackass showed up to take a flight with nothing more than a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence and refused to show his ID...he'd be in line for cavity search because I'd assume he was some sort of lunatic simply because of his actions.Nothing like the threat of a cavity search to keep the masses inline.
The problem is that you can't just "go back" and in order to go forward requires some changes. If it really bothers you that much to identify yourself to get on a flight or that you might be searched for weapons, I'd suggest psychotherapy and maybe something medicinal for your paranoia."go back"!!?! The actions of our government seems to say that if we dig a big enough hole we will be safe. I personally do not want to be buried in the name of security.
On June 6th, I made the small gesture of going to the Bloomington City Council meeting in support of a large group of people representing bars and fraternal clubs that are suffering big losses of revenue due to the Bloomington smoking banThis is worth reading.
....................
Those I went to support... residents, citizens of Bloomington, finally got to speak at ONE A.M., I was told later. The 40 people who waited all that time to speak... NO... to beseech, to plead, to beg their elected officials, were then PERMITTED to tell their tragic stories of business, job and income loss to themselves and their businesses.
....................
The root of smoking bans has nothing whatsoever to do with health. It's about power, about force, about coercion... it's about a few people being able to control how the rest of us may live. Each of us may try to convince others that our position is the correct one. When someone... ANYONE... chooses to FORCE others to their position RATHER than convincing them, they are violating the rights of those individuals
Air travelers who have been concerned about the government collecting their personal information from airlines now have a second source to worry about: commercial data brokers.So they said they would not do it and congress said not to, but that did not stop them or even likely slowed them down.
The federal agency in charge of aviation security revealed that it bought and is storing commercial data about some passengers _ even though officials said they wouldn't do it and Congress told them not to.
A Campobello teen is accused of raping one neighbor's dog and another neighbor's two little girls. Now the dog has died and charges against the teen have been upgraded.Two girls molested but they feel that the big story is the dog. To hell with the dog.
Cory Williamson, 17, is in jail accused of raping his neighbor's dog; and is awaiting trial on charges of molesting a 3-year-old girl and the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl.That seems to say he is in jail because of the dog, but was out awaiting trial on the molesting charges. So the rape of a dog and you stay in jail, but molest a couple of young girls and you get out to commit other crimes. A dog has a greater impact then a girl.
The San Diego County Fair represents a time when friends and families, residents and visitors can come together and celebrate the many things that we love about our county. It is a place where people from all walks of life come together and celebrate the character, depth and prosperity of our community. The rides, food and fun at the fair give all San Diegans the unique opportunity to enjoy quality family time.Because there are bad people who do not like cops then they should have the right to carry while no one else does. I guess the idea that people in general have problems and could become victims do not cross his mind.
For our public safety officers, it is also a time where our families can enjoy the safe haven we have helped build. Unfortunately, the law enforcement community has been put into a situation where it is no longer safe for us to include our families in this time-honored tradition.
In spite of state and federal laws that give law enforcement officers the discretion to carry a firearm off duty, the San Diego County Fair board is has now prohibiting officers from visiting the fair if they are carrying a concealed firearm when not on duty. This presents a number of potentially dangerous scenarios for our officers and their families; so much so that the law enforcement community has decided to boycott the San Diego County Fair.
The law enforcement community is calling on the San Diego County Fair board to revise its policy regarding concealed firearms for peace officers so that all San Diegans can enjoy the food, fun and quality family time at the San Diego County Fair.So the next time someone says that police do not want special rights you have my permission to laugh in their face.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Now most people like to comment about rights and quote the constitution. I feel that is in error for many reasons. The constitution is not a rights giving document.
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RightsFor me this is the most important line in the declaration of independence. It proclaims that we have rights. We have them because they are ours from birth and cannot be removed. We did not get them from the magna carta, we did not get them from any paper written by man. They are ours. I almost feel in life that politicians should have tattooed on the top of their hands the words "unalienable Rights" so they can be reminded of them. Gloves would suddenly come into fashion in Washington.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new GovernmentSo are we up to this point? I guess that is up to a persons individual breaking point. Our liberties have been diluted to the point that most people will allow a lot of infringement before they "break". For some the national ID card is the breaking point, for others they may wait until all parental rights are removed, "for the good of the children of course" before they start acting. What I have noticed is that there is more and more talk about that breaking point being seen on the horizon and people are worried.
It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, in his minority dissenting opinion in Nebraska vs. CarhartPeople. We are screwed.
WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association and its allies in the House beat back an effort Thursday to restrict gun manufacturers' exports of high-powered, .50-caliber rifles that can bring down jet airliners from a mile away.Nice. An attempt to ban guns to others when it mostly fails here.
By a 278-149 vote, the House killed an amendment by Rep. James Moran to block .50-caliber exports to civilians. He said the guns are dream weapons for terrorists.
"These are unparalleled weapons, and I'm not trying to restrict them in the United States," said Moran, D-Va. "I just don't want them sold by arms dealers."
TENNESSEESo my representatives all voted against it. Will have to contact each of them to say thanks.
Democrats -- Cooper, N; Davis, N; Ford, N; Gordon, N; Tanner, N.
Republicans -- Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Jenkins, N; Wamp, N.
The administration has argued it has the right to hold the prisoners as long as the war on terrorism continues.They have expanded what is terror to arrest gang members in the East and to charge Casinos in Vegas. The war on Terror is now the "Forever War" of fiction.
Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden asked Deputy Associate Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins whether the Justice Department had "defined when there is the end of conflict."
"No, sir," Wiggins responded.
"If there is no definition as to when the conflict ends, that means forever, forever, forever these folks get held at Guantanamo Bay," Biden said.
"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Wiggins said.
An armed robber brandishing a revolver and some tough talk entered Blalock's Beauty College demanding money Tuesday afternoon.He is still in the hospital. The firearm he had was unloaded. D'ooh!
He left crying, bleeding and under arrest, after Dianne Mitchell, her students and employees attacked the suspect, beating him into submission.
Mitchell tripped the robber as he tried to leave and cried aloud "get that sucker" as the group of about 20, nearly all women, some wielding curling irons, bludgeoned him until police arrived.
Advocates of rewriting the USA Patriot Act are claiming momentum after the House, despite a White House veto threat, voted to restrict investigators from using the anti-terrorism law to peek at library records and bookstore sales slips.Bad news. While some where able to get the vote together to remove these small powers they Senate has decided to try to expand it in other areas.
This comes close on the heels of a closed-door session of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 7, which approved legislation reauthorizing and expanding the PATRIOT Act. The expanded bill would make it even easier for the FBI to obtain subpoenas for records, and grants law enforcement officers 'administrative subpoenas,' which essentially allows the bureau to write and approve its own orders.The term "administrative subpoenas" can best be translated as "we will redefine what due process means for our own usage"
'The Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers that as of March 30, federal investigators had not used the Patriot Act to obtain library or bookstore records but that the authority provides "an important tool for investigating and intercepting terrorism."It is true they had not used the power to obtain them, it is true that they used the powers to attempt to obtain them.
On June 8, 2004, an FBI agent stopped at the Deming branch of the Whatcom County Library System in northwest Washington and requested a list of the people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. We said no.But after sitting down and thinking about the situation the librarians decided to fight. I honestly do not think the FBI was ready for a bunch of librarians to resist.
We did not take this step lightly. First, our attorney called the local FBI office and asked why the information was important. She was told that one of our patrons had sent the FBI the book after discovering these words written in the margin: "If the things I'm doing is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded by God."
We told the FBI that it would have to follow legal channels before our board of trustees would address releasing the names of the borrowers. We also informed the FBI that, through a Google search, our attorney had discovered that the words in the margin were almost identical to a statement by bin Laden in a 1998 interview.
Undeterred, the FBI served a subpoena on the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November 2001.
For our trustees, this sense of responsibility to protect libraries as institutions where people are free to explore any idea ran up against their desire to help their government fight terrorism. But they were resolute and voted unanimously to go to court to quash the FBI subpoena. Fifteen days later, the FBI withdrew its request(see note at bottom).So the Justice Department letter is truthful on the surface, they did have to delve into some Clintonesque speech to not lie.
The agents started out with 'easy' questions, like my name, address, what I did at my job, etc. Then they started asking if I've ever been under psychiatric or psychological care or counseling. They asked me to sign a medical release form so they could contact local hospitals and health care providers and confirm my answers. They asked if I belonged to any organizations. When I said no, they specifically asked if I belonged to the NRA. They then began to ask me to explain each picture, and what I meant by them. I did so.Yep! Have to watch out for those NRA types.
After about 45 minutes, one of the agents said (paraphrased from memory, not an exact quote) "Let me be frank" I'm having difficulty seeing these pictures as "art". You're a publisher, and a systems administrator. How do you suddenly become an 'artist'."I pointed out that not all art is created formally by trained elites, and that there are plenty forms of artistic expression like this, such as stencil and graffiti art. .I would like to say that they did not pressure him to remove the images, but when they are the ones that brought up the fact that he could "retract" them then I say they did intimidate him.
..........
I asked the agent "what can I do to give you insight into where I am coming from. I don't think my pictures represented a threat, and never intended them that way... they were social and political commentary on the incident in Chicago, and on the police state in the mentality that has pervaded our culture." The agent then said something that REALLY confused me. He said "You could "retract" them". I asked what he meant -- "Remove them from online? replace them with a statement saying I don't advocate violence against the president? what?" Both agents resounded to this specific question, with a generalized yes" that would be a good step.
..........
IÂ’ll admit it. I was very freaked out. The first thing I did when I got back to my desk was delete the pictures from Flikr. Then I deleted my LiveJournal account, because in it, I talk a lot about politics, and how unhappy I am with the Bush regime.
I'm Not Dead YetThen he mentions the hit men, prison, federal agents, and all the other good ingredients for a great post.
A former client of mine wants me dead. At least that is what the federal prosecutor told me yesterday in a late afternoon phone call. My client is reaching out for hit men in his new home, a federal prison.So stay alive Norm.
.......
Of course, he made the mistake of writing home to his mother to tell her about it all. The letters were intercepted.
A student at Balliol College was arrested and detained in custody for a night after he verbally abused a police horse early on Monday morning. Sam Brown, a third year English student, had his fingerprints taken and was released with a fine of £80 following the incident which took place on Cornmarket Street.Poor equine.
Brown was fined for “causing harassment, harm or distress”, after he repeatedly called the officer’s horse “gay”.
Defense officials from Russia and the United States last week helped block a new demand for an international probe into the Uzbekistan government's shooting of hundreds of protesters last month, according to U.S. and diplomatic officials.That must be some airbase to be worth hundreds of executed people. Maybe we can talk him into executing a few hundred more and we will get better housing or even PX facilities.
British and other European officials had pushed to include language calling for an independent investigation in a communique issued by defense ministers of NATO countries and Russia after a daylong meeting in Brussels on Thursday. But the joint communique merely stated that "issues of security and stability in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan," had been discussed.
The outcome obscured an internal U.S. dispute over whether NATO ministers should raise the May 13 shootings in Andijan at the risk of provoking Uzbekistan to cut off U.S. access to a military air base on its territory.
“Smith & Wesson is the handgun of choice among America’s criminals.”Now even the Buffalo News has a "criminals weapon of choice" listed in their article. Showing the firearms used in Buffalo they mention that the reason it is used so much is that it is so cheap.
We know this because Steve Bailey of The Boston Globe tells us so. The columnist berates the gun maker for not pursuing an agreement hatched between its former British owners and the Clinton administration to ward off lawsuits by imposing draconian restrictions on firearms dealers.
..........
The Chief must be on to something, because the Consumer Attorneys of California not only back him up, but narrow down the model, claiming “The TEC-9 is the assault weapon of choice among criminals.”
Except the San Francisco Chronicle tells us “AK-47s have emerged recently as ‘the gun of choice’ among San Francisco’s gang-bangers.”
And that’s not the only dissension in the ranks. According to Legal Affairs magazine, “In the 1990s, manufacturers increased production of nine-millimeter handguns — the gun of choice for murderers.”
"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed--for the lack of a better word--is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms--greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge--has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed--you mark my words-- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."Greed creates profit and direction, and yet today it is used as a four letter word by so many. Ones who are oblivious to the fact that they normally work for companies whose greed for profits keep them in a job with all of the benefits that come with it.
Brazil - endeavoring to become a socialist paradise under its current president, former union leader and avowed communist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva - provides a HillaryCare-type of system in which the government provides free HIV treatments to all its citizens. And socialized health care of that kind is, naturally, expensive.So they have decided that international laws are in the way so to heck with them. If a company knows that whatever it makes will be stolen by other governments then why will it invest in it? It wouldn't waste it's time, and because of that greed people are alive.
So on June 1st, Brazil's lower house approved a bill suspending patents on AIDS-fighting drugs. The bill's sponsor declared, "Constitutional protection for patents is not absolute, but subordinate to social interests." And a deputy for the Workers' (of the World, Unite!) Party added, "Patents have to be suspended if they're harming public health." Both lines could easily have been lifted right off the pages of "Atlas Shrugged."
Of course, like every good crook, the Brazilians have found a way to justify and rationalize their piracy. See, there's a clause in the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, which both Brazil and the U.S. have signed, commonly known as TRIPS. As Drug Industry Daily explains, TRIPS "allows a developing country to temporarily ignore drug patents to bring affordable drugs to its population in times of health emergencies."So what does it say in the TRIPS section of the WTO charter that allows that? I went and found this about the rights that a patent holder has and international eminent domain.
Article 31Sounds like eminent domain. They will make some proposals, and if you do not like it they take it anyways. Our government has just opened the door for foreign countries to have eminent domain over our patents, our ideas. Mental theft using the power of the state.
Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder
Where the law of a Member allows for other use (7) of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or third parties authorized by the government, the following provisions shall be respected:
......
(b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time.
give me liberty or give me death!The problem is that most do not know that it is part of something bigger. The soundbite generation may never know the depth of knowledge they are missing because of MTV and modern education.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.His words today for me have meanings that chill me. He stands before the house and addresses them with this ominous warning.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!He tells of the colonies attempts to right what was wrong. He tells of the government ignoring them and dismissing them. His words could be echoing in the halls of Washington right now. For years we have petitioned and shown the villainous nature of the laws passed today. We are dismissed by the government as chicken littles even as they gather into their gnarled hands more powers daily.
