End the War on Freedom

First, America does not have two major parties. It has one major party -- the Incumbent Party -- which is divided into two social clubs, the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.

This single party has a single agenda: Tell the voters you stand for "change," and then deliver them no change at all, except incremental further steps toward the brand of state socialism popularized by Bismarck, Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt the Second.

If we have two different major parties, tell me which one, placed in power, would quickly end the War on Drugs; pull our troops out of 103 nations overseas; restore the Second Amendment right to own a machine gun without having to sign your name or show a photo ID; end the actuarially bankrupt and constitutionally unauthorized Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Ponzi schemes; shut down the Federal Reserve Board and put us back on a sound, non-inflating dollar made of gold and/or silver. Tell me which one would declare that children belong to their parents, shutting down the state "Child Protection" kidnapping racket (kids have been kidnapped and killed for an offense as minor as mom not "getting them their shots" -- see Cameron Justin Demery, Oct. 14, 1996) and the vastly expensive Government Youth Propaganda Camps which are dumbing down our children into quasi-literate sociopaths.

That would be "change." And the One Party has none to offer.

The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.

So let’s get back to the robust correlation between the rise of the green movement and the decline of the American economy. Greenies, and their political minions, are constantly bossing Americans around. Watch out for having too large of a carbon footprint. Did that bottled water come from Fiji? Recycle your paper, your plastic, your metals and don’t you dare mix any of these materials in the wrong recycling bin. Don’t water your lawn, get a low-flow toilet, and for gosh sakes replace your incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones. Are you driving an SUV? Shame on you. Think globally, but act locally. Blah, blah, blah.

An enormous amount of physical and mental energy is expended to make the green busybodies happy. None of this "work" is productive. Sure there are those who feel a sense of fulfillment by following these mind-numbing edicts from greenies – as one feels more connected to nature and to a worthy cause (I suppose). I have little doubt that green sympathizers are the same people who celebrate the income tax so that money can be forcibly taken from bad people and transferred to the good downtrodden proletariat. Hurray for April 15th! All in all, going green is a monumental waste of time and energy. It is, consequently, a drag on our economy and a proximate cause of economic decline.

MBAs, across the country, have been indoctrinated with the claptrap that just about anybody or anything can be a stakeholder in a business. It is passé to believe that simply treating employees well and pleasing customers are the keys to business success. No, it is now chic, and politically correct, to integrate varying degrees of environmentalism into a company’s business plan. For Mother Earth herself is a stakeholder in every business. The intrinsic value of nature must be acknowledged and celebrated in order for a business plan to be credible. By embracing such twaddle, it is no wonder once-great American companies are slipping into mediocrity or worse. MBAs, from top business schools, are part of the problem, not the solution.

Now, in the first place, this was the old guilt-by-association gimmick – Sen. Obama, you either have to denounce this man or we will assume you agree with and condone all of his views. Bull. The Rev. Wright is not part of the Obama campaign, doesn't write his speeches and doesn't speak for him. Obama should have said: "Look, we have no connection except a personal one. I've told you I don't agree with all of his views, but I cherish his friendship, and if you don't like that, you can go to hell. And if you have any questions about him or his views, ask him, not me." Then he should have stuck to his campaign message and ignored any questions about the Rev. Wright.

9. For your friends who have heard of Ron Paul only in caricature, or have never heard of him at all, it shows him to be a learned, thoughtful, and mature statesman. Its arguments are consistently persuasive, and it’s written in a way that keeps your attention from the first page to the last. It is a book that can change minds.

And we sure need plenty of that.

If the police actions against Schmidt and other farmers have been overzealous, they are nevertheless motivated by a real threat. The requirement for pasteurization—heating milk to at least 161 degrees Fahrenheit for fifteen seconds—neutralizes such deadly bacteria as Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, and salmonella. Between 1919, when only a third of the milk in Massachusetts was pasteurized, and 1939, when almost all of it was, the number of outbreaks of milk-borne disease fell by nearly 90 percent. Indeed, pasteurization is part of a much broader security cordon set up in the past century to protect people from germs. Although milk has a special place on the watch list (it’s not washable and comes out of apertures that sit just below the orifice of excretion), all foods are subject to scrutiny. The thing that makes our defense against raw milk so interesting, however, is the mounting evidence that these health measures also could be doing us great harm.

Over the past fifty years, people in developed countries began showing up in doctors’ offices with autoimmune disorders in far greater numbers. In many places, the rates of such conditions as multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, and Crohn’s disease have doubled and even tripled. Almost half the people living in First World nations now suffer from allergies. It turns out that people who grow up on farms are much less likely to have these problems. Perhaps, scientists hypothesized, we’ve become too clean and aren’t being exposed to the bacteria we need to prime our immune systems.

The costs in time and sanity borne by Mason and his crew were apparent. They were also far beyond what most of the non-art-obsessed will want to pay. But so were the innovations that arose from, say, the Homebrew Computer Club of Silicon Valley, that mid-’70s gang of PC enthusiasts—including a young Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak—dedicated to DIY computer making. Yet from the homebrewers’ irrational enthusiasms arose the modern world of personal computing.

We haven’t reached the point where flicking a switch for coal-fired power from far away seems as inadequate as the five-mainframes-for-the-nation computer vision that the proto-hackers of the ’70s were rebelling against. But Mason notes that all sorts of human endeavors, from our computing to our food to our transportation, have evolved away from bare resource economizing. They’ve become instead arenas for play and assertions of identity—or, as Mason likes to think of it, areas in which there is at least some opportunity to impress girls.

“We can turn power into something experiential, expressive, personal,” he says. “Not a problem to be solved but an opportunity to be explored, like the cultural movement in food from a thing you eat for raw energy to food as an idiom of pleasure, creativity, and expression, an excuse for gathering friends and family.

“Computing had a similar transformation. It wasn’t until the computer became an idiom of personal expression that it exploded into something ubiquitous as clothes on our body.

If Mafia Gang A attacks Mafia Gang B – while claiming eternal hatred for Mafia Gang B’s evil practice of extortion – and then, as soon as it overthrows Mafia Gang B, immediately sets up its own more predatory extortion rackets, we can clearly understand that Mafia Gang A was motivated by jealousy of Mafia Gang B, not out of any fundamental dislike of their practices.

If we continue to believe the pious lies of statist propaganda, we will forever be drawn to drown ourselves in the mirage of a mythical past where people were “free.” If we continue to believe that the “founding of the Republic” – really the overthrow of a relatively benign foreign gang by a vastly more rapacious domestic gang – was defined by the moral fairy tales designed to dull the scepticism of the average citizen, then we shall be forever drawn to repeat the mistakes of the past and waste our lives believing that a new criminal gang will somehow set us free.

If we believe that the Constitution was genuinely designed to limit the power of the state, then we will forever try to limit the power of the state by revising political documents or pursuing other kinds of political solutions. If we understand that political documents are in fact mere tools of hypocritical moral propaganda, we will be no more tempted to revise them than we would to fact-check back issues of “Pravda.”

It is time to ratify the Peace Amendment.

Here's how it would work: the first clause would repeal the War Powers Act and any other law, regulation, or directive that allows a president to send troops overseas (or do very much of anything else militarily) without a formal declaration of war passed by majority of congress.

Maybe even a super-majority.

The second clause would reinstate the 1878 Posse Comitatus in full, forbidding the government to use the military to enforce its will anywhere within the United States. Perhaps this idea belongs in another piece of legislation, but my belief is that politicians feel an irresistible urge every waking minute to use the military to beat somebody up and kill them. Prevent them from doing it overseas, and things could get worse here, unless we prevent that with the same stroke.

The third clause is the meat of the amendment. Having voted to declare war, every Congressman who voted "aye" will immediately get up from his seat and march right out the door, where he will be handed a uniform and a weapon and be conveyed directly to the front, defined as that area of military activity that is producing the highest number of casualties.

No excuses. Practicing politicians will be denied Conscientious Objectorhood. As long as they voted to subject yet another generation of Americans to war, their age, sex, prior service, or state of health won't keep our valiant congressional warriors from going with the "boys". If they can't march, they'll be given knobby tires for their wheelchairs.

In the case of another 20th century-style undeclared war, where all Congress does is contribute our money and our children to the conflagration and give the President the go-ahead, everybody goes, whether they voted affirmative or not. Voting "no" is not enough. They should have gotten up and walked out, in protest of the rape of the Constitution.

The fourth clause winds it up. Immediately upon notification that the Congress has declared war, the President will put on a uniform of his own, pick up his rifle, and march into the sunset as a common soldier. The Vice President replacing him will do the same thing in 30 days if the war isn't over. War is hell for everyone else, but heaven for politicians. If we desire to survive the 21st century, that has to change.

People who talk about preserving their rights by way of "the system" don't understand what a right is. By definition, a "right" is something that you don't NEED "legal" permission to do. You have the right to do it no matter WHAT any "law" says. I know it's about as politically incorrect as you can get to say this, but the proper response to "gun control" is not lobbying and petitions--which imply that its up to the damn politicians to decide whether we can be armed or not. The proper response, if one actually believes in unalienable rights, is to declare, "I have the right to be armed, and trying to violate that right will be hazardous to your health."

Now it's time to get REALLY politically incorrect. Suppose Barrack "I'm-For-Unspecified-Change" Obama becomes President, and successfully introduces a bill to ban all private gun ownership, thus attempting to violate the rights of around 100,000,000 gun-owning Americans. If some thug then shows up at your door, and declares that in the name of King Obama (or King Bush, or any other tyrant) he's going to be swiping your firearms, you have the right to use any amount of force necessary to stop the thug.

So remember on this San Jacinto Day in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Eight, those indomitable Texicans. Remember the eighteen Gonzales militiamen at the river, taunting five times their number with "Come and take it!" Remember, too , Erastus "Deaf" Smith and his six brave bridge burners, who -- with their commander's assent -- committed their outnumbered little army to victory or death. And remember the 800, who took their lives and their freedom in their own hands and won the improbable lopsided victory against a superior force. As long as Texas produces such men, she and the larger Republic she later joined will stay free. Texicans may still be a bit conceited today, but heck, they earned it. As they say, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." And they did it. Remember San Jacinto.

But won't crime go up if we abandon our prison system? Let Robert Ingersoll answer: "The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks, with hangmen and headsmen – and yet these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for the preservation of property or life. It is safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than they have prevented. As long as society bows and cringes before the great thieves, there will be little ones enough to fill the jails."

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wikietiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."

Tabletop parried: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."

Waco still matters. Not just because it has become the paradigmatic symbol for federal police power gone out of control. Not just because it starkly demonstrates the American government’s militarism unleashed against its own people. Not just because it showcases the propensity of politicians and law enforcers to deceitfully cover and obscure their wrongful actions. No, Waco’s still important mostly because it shows exactly what happens when people resist the unjust incursions of their own government, including under democracy.

So what's the normal way to execute war criminals? A firing squad of course. And we can very easily turn it into a fund raiser for the survivors and family of the victims. Sell $100 raffle tickets to choose the riflemen and riflewomen who off the scum. I'd pay that in an instant for a chance to put a bullet into one of these baby killers. I'll bet there are at least 100,000 others who would join in. A cool $10 million. Give each shooter an army surplus rifle with an engraved label commemorating the festivities ("This weapon was used to execute Janet Reno on April 19, 2003"), and one cartridge to fire on the joyous day. Imagine showing your grandchildren one of these.

It'll be quite a party. Let's say we convict 100 mass murderers. At 5 shooters apiece, this makes 500 happy winners. The other raffle ticket holders gain admission to watch the affair live, after a second drawing to reduce their number to the stadium's capacity. At least one of the TV networks will want to broadcast it. Think of the advertising revenue! Maybe we can get the Goodyear blimp. Line up the shooters 10 wide and 50 deep on the field. Let the fascists fall two-by-two to save time. With some practice we can probably get it down to three minutes for each ready-aim-fire; two-and-a-half hours of play. Ted Nugent at half time?

I hate that I can imagine ending 100 semi-human lives this way, but there's something about burning babies alive... Once the offal are eradicated, I hope that I can let it rest.

What happens is that a thing called "Government" ignores the libertarian principle of non-coercion and forcibly takes a bunch of us away from the humans who legitimately earned us. They pretend the stealing is okay because they've written a law called "Taxing" that condemns stealing for every human on earth except for the humans who operate this Government thing.

They pretend that taking us away from honest people and putting us into a public treasury where we "belong to all the people" is a good and noble thing. People who tell this great lie are called "Politicians."