Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Reply by Gary Edwards to the question:   "Should the TEA Party select their slate of candidates prior to the establishment RiNO primaries?" This question really surprised me.  Of course the Tea Party should enter the establishment RiNO primary with a full slate of previously selected candidates for all levels of elected office. The reasons are obvious.  The establishment RiNOS consistently win by flooding the primary, encouraging multiple conservative and libertarian candidates; all the while knowing exactly who they have hand picked and expect the party to coalesce around. It's divide and conqueror.  The incredible thing is how routinely and with ease the RiNOS can rope-a-dope Rush Limbaugh and the entire cadre of conservative leadership.  And do it year after year. The rope-a-dope maneuver only requires that conservatives and libertarians wait for the establishment primary process to begin before they can begin the drawn out process needed to coalesce and vote as a block. As a block, the Tea Party wins easily.  And, they would actually get candidates ready to stand and fight for the Constitution. Once the game of electoral money ball starts though, it's impossible to select and coalesce based on principles.  Money drives the game.  And that plays right into the hands of the establishment. Think of it this way.  The Tea Party has the "votes" and the "ground game".  The establishment has the "money", and position to make the "rules". The current system of selecting candidates in the establishment primary ALWAYS results in "money" and "rule making" dominating and determining the winners.  The Tea Parties numerical and ground game advantages are quickly diluted, dispersed and split by multiple candidates vying for the same vote.  The RiNO slate wins through the fractional split of their Tea Party opponents, which they encourage and expect, and, the hardball application of their money and rules advantages.  The result is that less than a third of

Remarkable 5-3 Supreme Court decision in favor of the banksters, in effect overruling a line of prior decisions nearly 30 years old. At issue, whether a credit card monopolists' form contract with merchants containing a mandatory arbitration clause could lawfully bar judicial review under the antitrust laws when the arbitration clause barred class arbitration and the amount merchants could hope to recover was less than a tenth of the expense of litigating claims individually. (Antitrust cases are unusually expensive to prosecute.) For nearly three decades, the Court had implied an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act that allowed plaintiffs to litigate claims subject to arbitration clauses in court to vindicate rights under federal law when arbitration would not provide an effective remedy for the violation of federal law. No more. Upholding the "right" of American Express to insist on a 30 percent share of the price of each sale transacted with an American Express card. Read Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by two other justices, to learn what's wrong with the majority's decision. Her nushell version: "here is the nutshell version of today's opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camoflaged: Too darn bad." The majority did, however, leave it open for Congress to amend the Arbitration Act to resolve the issue. But with corporate and bankster influence in Congress, good luck with that. This decision, unfortunately, has major implications for software developers, as well as other merchants. For example, the current crop of "app store" restrictions on competition enforced by technical measures on app developers by monopolists such as Apple and Microsoft, insisting on a 30 per cent cut of each sale. One can rest assured that such contracts contain similar arbitration clauses

It's not often that I disagree with EFF's positions, but on this one I do. The government should be prohibited from exploiting computer vulnerabilities and should be required to immediately report all vulnerabilities discovered to the relevant developers of hardware or software. It's been one long slippery slope since the Supreme Court first approved wiretapping in Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438 (1928), https://goo.gl/NJevsr (.) Left undecided to this day is whether we have a right to whisper privately, a right that is undeniable. All communications intercept cases since Olmstead fly directly in the face of that right.

"It's still hard to believe we now live in a country where a district judge can demand that we bring in refugees from state sponsors of terror and failed states saturated with terrorists and no data systems during a time of war. It's almost unfathomable that a district judge, an institution created by Congress, can overturn long-standing refugee law and bar the federal government from prioritizing persecuted religious minorities for refugee resettlement. All in contravention to statute, numerous clauses of the Constitution, the social contract, the social compact, popular sovereignty, jurisdictional sovereignty, and 200 years of case law. If Obergefell redefined the building block of all civilization, Judge James Robart's ruling redefined the building block of a sovereign nation. It's hard to comprehend a judicial opinion more divorced from our Constitution, sovereignty, fundamental laws, founding values, history, and tradition. It's also hard to imagine an opinion that is of greater consequence - unless it is ignored. In the long run, Congress must strip the federal judiciary of their power grab and restore Congress' plenary power over immigration, as it was since our founding. However, in the meantime, it's time to make impeachment great again. Impeachment was a critical check on abuse of power   Before the growth of political parties killed the separation of powers, the tool of impeachment was regarded by our founders as one of the most effective ways of checking the executive and judicial branches of government. By my count, impeachment is referenced 58 times in the Federalist Papers and countless times during the Constitutional Convention. Impeachment [U.S.CONST. art. II, §4] was not only reserved for those who engage in criminal behavior. It was clearly designed to check abuse of power. As the Congressional Research Service observes, Congress has identified "improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office" as a criterion for

Two interview videos explaining the Obama Bankster Mortgage Settlement:  the first is with Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism.  The second is a Bloomberg interview with Neil Barofsky and Matt Stoller providing a nice high-level overview of why the mortgage settlement is terrible. It's particularly useful if you are looking for a few key issues to present to someone who has bought the Obama administration PR or is late to the topic.  Don't miss the property rights comments at the end of the Bloomberg interview.  Or should i say, former property rights?   the repercussions of the Obama Mortgage and Foreclosure assistance settlement promise to be far reaching and lasting.  And you thought the 14th Amendment changed the legal definition of property rights?  Watch out for this Marxist prize.

Another well written article describing in full what that treasonous backstabbing bastard chief justice John Roberts has done to shred and destroy our Constitution.  Thanks to the Canadian Free Press and Timothy Birdnow. excerpt: So, why is this so important to our discussion of the ruling by the Roberts Court? Because many on our side seem to believe that John Roberts did us a favor in his decision upholding the Affordable Healthcare Act, or as it is known colloquially, Obamacare. The argument in conservative circles for a silver lining to this dark cloud of human bodily excretions is that this ends the debate over the right to use the Commerce Clause to justify any action of Congress and that it hangs this around Osama's neck, a huge tax increase, for the November elections. While a little soothing may be in order we are making a terrible mistake here, because, A.) an eggplant could see this is unconstitutional and, B.) it simply kicks the can down the road, forcing us to fight yet another unnecessary battle. We should have declared victory here. First, this is not a mere political move on Roberts part. He is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and as such is not going to tie his name to a partisan decision that will be read about in American textbooks. If he is to violate his oath it will be for personal reasons, such as upholding this law against all expectations. What will he gain personally from doing the right thing and striking it down? Upholding such a crazy law guarantees him a spot in the history books. But he is violating his oath of office in doing so, and that is the only sensible explanation because the Constitution is fairly clear; the United States Constitution expressly grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the document to the states and the People, and nowhere is this particular tax authorized. Furthermore, it violates the principle of equality under the law as only some of the public is actually paying a tax; the rest are buyin

Excellent discussion of where the Republican Party stands in relationship to the destruction of the dollar and new interest in linking the dollar to GOLD.  Good stuff.  Personally i'm in the Ron Paul camp, hook, line and sinker. excerpt: "In the ferment within today's Republican Party, the gold standard has become almost the centrist position. On the left would be those who favor a system of discretionary activism in which brilliant technocrats, such as Ben Bernanke at the Fed, use their judgment in setting interest rates. A bit to their right would be advocates of a rule, such as John Taylor's rule linking interest rates to various conditions, or one that requires the Fed to target the price of gold but stops short of defining the dollar in terms of specie. In the center would be advocates of a classical gold standard, in which a dollar is defined as a fixed amount of gold. These include, among others, Mr. Lehrman, James Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, publisher Steve Forbes, economist Judy Shelton, and Sean Fieler of the American Principles Project. A bit further to the right would be partisans of the Austrian school of economics, including Rep. Paul. He advocates less for a gold standard than for an idea of Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel laureate who came to favor what he called the denationalization of money and a system centered on private coinage and currency that would compete with government-issued money. Further right are purists such as the radical constitutionalist Edwin Vieira Jr., who would simply price things in weights of gold or silver. A good bit of overlap exists among the camps, but Congress has come alive to all points on this spectrum. Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican who is vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, is seeking to pass the Sound Dollar Act, which would end the Fed's mandate to keep unemployment down, instead having the central bank focus only on stable prices. Rep. Paul is pressing the Free Competition in Curr

excerpt: This is the Appendix to Ron Paul's new book, Liberty Defined. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

Not a big Peter Beinhart fan, but this article explains a large part of the Ron Paul phenom. After a life time as a big C Goldwater-Reagan Constitutional Conservative, this summer i made a full transition to big C Constitutional Libertarian. The tipping point for me was the GAO audit of the Federal Reserve, where they discovered $16.1 Trillion of taxpayer dollars missing from the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel management books. It went to a who's who of international Bankster Cartel members. None of the taxpayer funded "financial collapse of 2008" bailout dollars went to the purposes chartered by their legislation. That includees the TARP $850 Billion, the Obama Stimulous $1 Trillion, and the mega FRBC $16.1 Trillion. No bad debts were purchased and retired. No rotting mortgage securities were swept up and restructured. No shovel ready jobs either. And no one in government or banksterism having caused the financial collapse went to jail. Instead, the perps feasted on the bailout dollars. The debt remains on the books of international Banksters, collecting interest, thirsting for foreclosure. The Bankster Cartel members are flush with cash, but not lending. By law (The Federal Reserve Act of December 23rd, 1913), FRBC members must keep a significant amount of their assets on "reserve" at the Federal Reserve, at 6% interest. In exchange for managing this process and the exploding money supply, the taxpayers of the USA are obligated by law to pay the FRBC 1% per year of (assets under management" (the money supply). Take note: the FRBC takes the 1% per year payment for their services in the form of GOLD!! They will not take payment in the form of paper notes labeled legal tender "Federal Reserve Notes". They only take GOLD. My transition to Constitutional Libertarian begins with a strct reading of the Constitution (the How), the Declaration of Independence, (the Why), and belief in the Rule of Law, not man. The concept of achievi

Obama outlines his new Bill of Rights, very similar to the 1944 new Bill of Rights Roosevelt proposed, guaranteeing the right to food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, travel and education - among many things.  Obama demands a radically new interpretation of the Constitution where the Marxist Redistribution of Wealth is carried out as an Administrative function, by-passing the Courts, Congress, Taxpaying citizens, the legislative process and the Constitution itself.  Incredible!

"The push for monetary reform is on, and intellectuals seeking to reform the monetary system in accordance with free market principles are seriously debating two alternative solutions. One is a return to the gold standard in some fashion. The other is a free market in currency, i.e., private currency competition. Toward the latter end, Rep. Ron Paul has sponsored a bill repealing legal tender law. Their primary concern is the establishment of perfect money, which they define as money which changes in value the least. A much stronger case can be made for private currency competition than for a national gold standard in achieving this goal. Broadly speaking, private currency competition can provide the means to both a better concept of money (i.e., the development of an ideal monetary standard), and a better practical implementation of a monetary system." The argument that gold is the intrinsically right standard, so people do not need any choice in the matter because the government would only be making them do what is best for them anyway, is a philosophical can of worms that ultimately undermines the moral case for free markets. This is probably why the Ayn Rand Institute, that flagship of right moral political philosophy, migrated its support from the gold standard to a system of free banking with private currencies. Even if one remains unconvinced of the superiority of private currency competition and believes that a fiat gold standard would work, one should always argue for liberty, not try to work within the bounds of statism to ameliorate its effects. The advocates of freedom, individual rights, limited government, and capitalism should not waste any effort trying to revive a statist concept. They should adopt the boldest possible vision of a free market and then pursue it relentlessly. This is your clarion call. Some believe that because a denationalization of money is the ideal state of affairs, a monetary Holy Grail, its achievement must be far off in th

"Investigating TWA 800/ Dreams' ; mp3 tapes available on request ~ge~ Date: 07-23-13 Host: George Noory Guests: James Sanders, Michael Sebastian, Nicole Sebastian In the first half, former police officer specializing in accident investigation, James Sanders (book link), discussed his investigation into the downing of TWA Flight 800, and his journey looking for the truth behind what happened. He was married to a TWA flight attendant when the plane went down in 1996. He initially resisted getting involved, but began to suspect that a cover-up was taking place. Later, he and his wife were indicted for the crime of receiving residue from the accident and having it tested. He found out that the residue was the result of intense heat both outside and inside the fuselage, when an explosive force came through. On the evening of July 17, 1996 the Navy was conducting a large military exercise in the area near Flight 800, and 26 seconds before the plane was hit, FAA radar picked up a missile launch, which Sanders assumes was part of the Navy exercise. Then, Navy radar tracked the missile as it approached the right side of the 747, and two key witnesses watching TWA 800 from the ground, observed a missile approach its right side and explode where the leading edge of the right wing meets the fuselage, he recounted. Further, there was a second missile that blew the nose off the plane, he said. Sanders speculated that the cover-up was the product of a series of political decisions, particularly, that if the truth about the incident got out, it could hurt Clinton's re-election prospects later that year. "It is my belief that Flight 800 was the catalyst for everything they've covered up since then," he added."

Solid libertarian thinking applied to a problem that continues to confound democrat socialists and republican statists. One thing missing from this excellent analysis; "follow the money". There are reasons for the madness of the left and the right. Follow the money and follow the power of government. excerpt: "Gang violence is afflicting some of our major cities, Chicago chief amongst them. As I write, there are reports coming in regarding a shooting of 13 people at a basketball court in the Second City. Fortunately, no one was killed in this episode. But a three year old boy is now in critical condition as a result of being shot, and the not unreasonable expectation is that retaliation from the aggrieved gang toward the perpetrators of this particular act will soon follow. According to USA Today, this bout of gunfire was due to a dispute between the Gangster Disciples and the Black P Stone Nation gang.  Neither is likely to sue the other in a court of law to settle their grievances with each other. The purpose of the present essay is to offer the libertarian solution to this problem of inner city gangs, shootings, violence. How can we radically reduce if not entirely eliminate these acts of barbarism? But before we offer the correct (e.g., libertarian) analysis of this situation, let us consider those offered, and now often implemented, by our friends on the left and the right. (We libertarians fit into neither of these categories. We are neither "liberals" nor "progressives" nor "socialists" nor "communists" nor "neighborhood organizers" nor "left-wingers" nor "Democrats."  Nor are we "conservatives" or "right-wingers" or "fascists" or "constitutionalists" or "Republicans." We are something apart and separate from both of them. We are libertarians. Hear us ROAR! )"

Here's a First Amendment conspiracy civil rights case waiting to happen. Prior restraints on speech are a very big constitutional no-no. When private actors such as Facebook staff conspire with government officials to violate federal rights, they are just as susceptible to a civil rights lawsuit as the government officials are. Query, does Mark Zuckerberg now know how to hire and effectively use competent lawyers? 

Interesting response to the financial collapse and income equality. Compatible with the U.N. Declarationof Universal Human Rights, Art. 25: "(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25

High comedy from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The USTR's press release is here along with a link to its report. http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/March/USTR-Targets-Telecommunications-Trade-Barriers The USTR is upset because the E.U. is aiming to build a digital communications network that does not route internal digital traffic outside the E.U., to limit the NSA's ability to surveil Europeans' communications. Part of the plan is to build an E.U.-centric cloud that is not susceptible to U.S. court orders. This plan does not, of course, sit well with U.S.-based cloud service providers.  Where the comedy comes in is that the USTR is making threats to go to the World Trade organization to block the E.U. move under the authority of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). But that treaty provides, in article XIV, that:  "Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where like conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on trade in services, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any Member of measures: ... (c)      necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement including those relating to:   ... (ii)     the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts[.]" http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/26-gats_01_e.htm#articleXIV   The E.U., in its Treaty on Human Rights, has very strong privacy protections for digital communications. The USTR undoubtedly knows all this, and that the WTO Appellate Panel's judges are of the European mold, sticklers for protection of human Rights and most likely do not appreciate being subjects o