Category Archives: Freedom

General Wesley Clark is in good company

Posted on by

Via Sebastian I discovered something General Wesley Clark said:



If people want machine guns, let them join the military. We got em! But for public and personal use, absolutely not.


That is eerily close to something else said by a national leader a few decades ago:



If any citizen wants to possess arms, let him join the Party.


Adolf Hitler


That isn’t the only instance either. See also the Council of People’s Commissars a few decades before Hitler.


You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps.

This is How the Problem Can be Solved

Posted on by

Posit; We know our government is out of control.  We know the U.S. and many of the state constitutions are being willfully violated.  We know that more people need to be made aware of the scope of the problem.  What then?  What do we actually do about it?  I’ve been talking to you all here, I attended one of the “We Surround Them” meetings, plus I’ve talked with friends and acquaintances for years about it.  It’s not a partisan issue– it’s pandemic.  We tried the Republican Party.  We handed them both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse at the same time, but clearly they are not, and have not been, at all serious about reducing the size and scope of government and restoring lost liberties.


If we were to try the (barely) successful model of the 1770s, we’d be storming government offices right now, tarring and feathering politicians, etc.  I don’t think that’s necessary at this stage, however.  Not just yet.  We have tools that were not available to the American colonists.  We have the legal process at our immediate disposal on our own soil.  Here is one example;



Former State Sen. Vincent Fumo was convicted of all 137 counts against him today as his marathon federal corruption trial ended in a stunning victory for prosecutors.


We can talk to our neighbors, local business owners, law enforcement, legal scholars and prosecutors.  Nearly every locale in America has a target rich environment for criminal prosecutions of politicians who are blatantly over-stepping their authority, intimidating innocent people, and attempting to pass laws in violation of our constitution.  Cases and jurisdictions need to be carefully examined, but there are rich pickings all across America right now.


If there is an epidemic of such cases, some of those in office will start to get the point.  If they don’t get the point after that or if the courts fail in their duty, we’ll have to start buying tar.

Explosives Employee Possessor update

Posted on by

Last Thursday I reported the ATF responded well to my request for clearance for Boomershoot staff and gun bloggers to handle explosives at Boomershoot 2009. I have a quick update which is also positive.


The three people that had their clearances “Pending” on Thursday were all cleared by Friday.


Yesterday one of the people noticed there was a typo on his address in the clearance paperwork. I sent the ATF an email this morning informing them of the error and requesting clearances for two more people. About two hours later I received the following email:



Good morning Mr. Huffman –


I have made the correction for Mr. XXXXX and ask for a corrected print of his Letter of Clearance with the correct address. I will also get the 2 possessors added to your license.


Nice. And I sent him an email thanking him for his quick service too.


ATF still should be a convenience store instead of a regulatory agency and they still should get their wrist slapped (and others should be hanged) for some of the crap they pull. But just because someone has ATF on their business card doesn’t necessarily mean they are Gestapo.

ATF loses one

Posted on by

The ATF started really harassing the model rocketry folks a few years back. Today they got their wrists slapped:



District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton for the District of Columbia today issued an order finding in favor of the Tripoli Rocketry Association and National Association of Rocketry vs. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The decision followed a status hearing this past Friday in Washington.


Walton’s order granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the plaintiffs TRA and NAR, denied the summary judgment motion of BATFE, and vacated the classification of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) as an explosive.


…


The parties came before the Court on March 13, 2009, for a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the administrative record presented to the Court, the applicable legal authority, the oral arguments presented by the parties, and for the reasons expressed by the Court at the hearing on the motion, the Court finds that the agency’s decision does not satisfy the standard for evaluating agency rulemaking because it was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Specifically, the defendant did not adequately explain why it came to the decision it did in light of contrary evidence in the administrative record submitted by the plaintiffs, which tended to show that APCP can burn at a rate lower than that which the defendant designated as the threshold, and “which, if true, . . . would require a change in [the] proposed rule.’” La. Fed. Land Bank Ass’n, FLCA v. Farm Credit Admin., 336 F.3d 1075, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see D&F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Public Citizen, Inc. v. F.A.A., 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (”‘[t]he requirement that agency action not be arbitrary or capricious includes a requirement that the agency adequately explain its result . . . .’”). Here, the agency’s shortcoming was its failure to articulate any rationale for finding that the relevant and significant evidence in the record that conflicted with its position was unpersuasive, which it seemingly out-of-hand dismissed merely because it was contrary to the agency’s ultimate conclusion.


I hope this is but one of many more to come in regards to both firearms and explosives. It’s long past time they were told in no uncertain terms they must obey the law.

Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

Posted on by

Those among us who are afraid to be free will surrender their guns, their families, and their freedom to tyranny. Do not place your freedom or trust in their hands or depend on them to cover your six.

Michael Gaddy
January 5, 2008
Buy, Buy, Buy
[This reminds me of something Samuel Adams said.–Joe]

Another back-door registration scheme

Posted on by

Sometimes, as with the “one gun a month” schemes, it is a little difficult to see the sneaky way the anti-gun owner bigots try to get universal gun registration. But with this one they only barely lower the profile:



Local Law “A” for 2009 would tightly regulate “in the interests of public safety” all ammunition sold in Albany County. Not just ammo for handguns, which already is closely monitored by state law, but all rifle and shotgun ammunition as well. Hunting and target shooting ammo, basically. Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, would have to show identification, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the ammo seller. The buyer would have to state his intent of use, and could be refused the purchase. The ammo seller, at the same time, would be required to keep records for 10 years.


Registration of guns and gun owners over the years has cost people billions of dollars (two billion in Canada alone in the last decade or so) and about 100 million innocent lives (in genocides from Africa to the Ukraine). The number of crimes solved through the use of gun and gun owner registries is asymptotically close to zero.


In Canada if you ask the gun grabbers how many crimes the police have solved through the use of the gun registry they will subtly change the subject and say, “The registry is used thousands of times each day.” or some such thing. Yes, the registry get a thousands of hits each day by the police. But it just part of a standard query on a person. That doesn’t mean it provided any useful data. And it certainly doesn’t mean it helped solve a crime. John Lott spoke at the 2000 Gun Rights Policy Conference and told us that in Hawaii the police estimate they spend 50,000 hours per year of police time involved in registration efforts. Most of which is paperwork. Yet when you talk to the police they can’t identify even one crime where this has helped. Guns are virtually never left at that crime scene. It’s not in my notes but I recall Lott telling us that when pressed hard enough Canada can support the claim that there was one crime solved through the use the registry which has been, in one form or another, in use for decades.


So if a gun registration scheme has literally only a one in a million (or less) chance of solving a crime what do you think the real reason the gun grabbers keep pushing for registration? I can only think of four possible reasons:




  1. They are ignorant


  2. They are stupid


  3. They are insane


  4. They want to confiscate the guns

In regard to #1, they have been told again and again. Any ignorance on their part is incredibly willful.


In regards to #2, if they are smart enough to count votes they are smart enough to count crimes solved. It is not because they are that stupid.


In regards to #3, this might be true in some cases. They are so blinded by grief over the loss of a loved one that they are not thinking rationally. But this is not the case for the vast majority of gun grabbers.


In regards to #4, this is the only answer I can come up with that makes any sense. Those that want to register firearms and/or their owners so they can enable the elimination of gun ownership.


Molôn Labé.

Softening us up

Posted on by

I’ve expounded at length about the problems with National ID Cards and how it fails my Jews In The Attic Test. I haven’t heard much about such cards recently. There is the defacto National ID Cards in the form of Real ID but with all the states applying for extensions and some declaring intent to not comply with it I have not been concerned about it.


But could it be that now we have the socialists in power their cohorts in academia are softening us up for a police state with a National ID card? Emphasis is mine in this quote:



This book chapter for “Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) – a forthcoming comparative examination of approaches to the regulation of anonymity edited by Ian Kerr – discusses the sources of hostility to National ID Cards in common law countries. It traces that hostility in the United States to a romantic vision of free movement and in England to an equally romantic vision of the ‘rights of Englishmen’.


“Romantic vision of free movement”?


If National ID cards become a reality in this country I’ll be doing a lot more “free movement” of objects at supersonic velocities that will be very unromantic.

Substance or Hypocritical Posturing? Which one works for you?

Posted on by

The following started as my comment at Say Uncle, but I decided it needed its own post.  It’s in response to the now age-old maneuver of calling for more enforcement of existing anti-gun laws rather than passing more, and considering ourselves clever negotiators.  It doesn’t matter who said it recently.  It’s been said for many years;


“…should enforce existing laws rather than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second Amendment rights.”


Additional laws “could” infringe?  What; existing laws couldn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights?  Not a single one of them?  Next time someone’s house is busted into, guns are confiscated and destroyed, lives are turned upside down over a technical violation when no one has harmed or threatened any other person, you’ll be perfectly OK with that?  It’d be great, so long as no one bothers you with more laws?  You thought Ruby Ridge was cool, and you want more of the same, so long as it’s convenient for you?  You want to keep innocent people in jail over paper-work errors, or over an inch of barrel length or a quarter inch of buttstock?  Would that make you a proud supporter of the second amendment or a sadistic and immoral jackass with anti American tendencies?  You decide.


Lets put this into perspective; “The Justice Department should enforce existing laws against negroes rather than propose additional laws that could infringe on Civil Rights.”


That sounds stupid as all hell, doesn’t it?  How many people would take that as a pro Civil Rights stance and call for more of it?  Yet we have been conditioned over the years to think that’s perfectly acceptable language when discussing second amendment rights.  Any politician says something stupid like that and we think, “Yeah, Baby!  You tell ’em!  That guy’s on OUR side, Man!”


Oh, how far we have fallen.


Would we sit idly by and accept a federal department of alcohol, tobacco, negroes and explosives (BATNE)?  Do you like the juxtaposition there?  Lovely, isn’t it?  Should anyone sit by and accept such a thing as an inevitability, and proudly claim that as a clever, politically “reasonable” stance?


If you reject the idea that gun restrictions equal crime control, and instead believe (as do I) that gun laws are not only counterproductive to their stated goals and an attack on liberty, but unconstitutional, you don’t call for more enforcement of them.  What would be the point in that, unless it’s an unprincipled attempt to appear “reasonable” to people who know nothing of the issue and nothing of the constitution’s history?  For that matter, what law enforcement officer who has taken an oath to the constitution could in good conscience enforce any gun laws against peaceable citizens?


Are we trying to appeal to the sensibilities of idiots at the expense of our credibility, at the expense of the constitution, at the expense of reason, at the expense of public harmony, and at the expense of liberty?  Yeah; that makes us look like geniuses.  Sure it does.  Or cowards.


It’s hypocritical.  It’s McCainian (to perhaps coin a new term).  It’s relying on ignorance for public support.  It’s what Republicans do when they listen to their super-smart advisors.


Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to clean my guns.  And to “fondle” them.  You know, ’cause I have a small penis or something.

Where the Founders Went Wrong

Posted on by

In pre-revolutionary times, the British government (some say the King, but England has had a Parliament since after the civil war in the middle 1600s) was trying to control religion and the press.  The practice, in some form or another, was ancient by the time of the American Revolution, as we see the Bishop next to the king and queen on a chessboard.  When the U.S. was formed it was therefore fresh in the minds of the Founders that there should be some strict protection of both religious freedom and freedom of speech.


Why?  Why is it so important that government not be in control of religious practices or of the press?  It’s because as we all know, governments invariably grab more and more power for themselves at the expense of liberty.  What better way to help that process along than to control the thinking and the beliefs of the people, and what better way to control the thinking and beliefs of the people than to control religion and the press?


But there is something missing.  If you can’t have control of religion and the press, there is something just as powerful as a means of controlling the minds and beliefs of the people.


Education. (I’ll also include science, which would be seen as a sub set within education until we see the vast amounts of money poured into government research grants and the like)


It’s a pity the Britts weren’t trying to establish political and social indoctrination centers disguised as schools, circa 1770.  In that case our first amendment would have been slightly different;



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or respecting the establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


As it is, your kids are being taught what to believe, not in a Church Of America and not by a U.S. version of Pravda, but in government schools.


(If the kingdoms of Medieval times had used education as it is being used today, maybe we’d see a “College President” or maybe a “Head of Education”, or perhaps a “Head of the Teachers’ Union” in the same line with the king and queen, the knights, and the rooks on a chessboard)

Democrats–the party of gun control

Posted on by

Alan Gottlieb via CCRKBA says:



“Once again,” he said, “Democrats are revealing themselves as the party of restrictive gun control. If the citizens of Washington, D.C. have a right to full congressional representation, they also have a right to own the firearm of their choice. For Democrats to argue that one right is more important than another – especially after last year’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment – they are engaging in world-class hypocrisy.”


…

“Democrats argue that the right to representation is not related to the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said, “but that’s nonsense. This country was born because our founders were being taxed without representation, and because British troops tried to disarm the citizens. Those issues are just as equal today as they were 230 years ago, and Democrats on Capitol Hill need to understand that.”


I keep wondering how close we are to the taxes and disarmament thresholds of another country being born. The Democrats may also be the party that creates a revolution.

“I am a Hunter”

Posted on by

I’d read some of her work in the past and been impressed. Brigid’s home on the range – guns and gourmet cooking from a small homestead in the Midwest.  Oleg Volk posted a link to her site recently.  Most of what she writes comes out like poetry.  This was very good;



I am not a tree hugger. Not for me the granola fueled protests to save the spotted owl. Growing up in the mountains of the wilderness, I appreciate a tree in the form of a pile of two by fours as well as in it’s original state. I do not think the trees are the home of sentient druid spirits, nor do the trees speak to me; but I am pleased to take shelter under or in their branches, reinforced in the smallness of my form next to their trunks, smiling as the branches separate me from the chatter of the world that echoes outside the woods. There, branches are what conceal me as I wait for my prey, like any animal, participating in the cycle of the food chain. I am an omnivore and those less equipped than I, forget that at their peril. It is the bringing home of sustenance. Bringing home, not a trophy so much as a sign of provision, that those that work and strive will be rewarded with a full belly and warmth.


It’s a nice change from reading about the downfall of our Republic.  She’s a prolific writer too, so you’re in good shape if you need a lot of distraction.

Quote of the day–Star Parker

Posted on by

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.


Star Parker
February 9, 2009
Back on Uncle Sam’s plantation
[I figure there is about a 60% chance Americans will continue voting to move onto the plantation. The future is grim.–Joe]

Uplifting

Posted on by

“That was uplifting.” That was what Barb said after I read this to her:



President Barack Obama has set his course for battle with America’s powerful interest groups over his ambitious, some say radical, spending blueprint that aims to remodel American society.


Even as he has rammed through emergency economic spending that easily could top $1 trillion, Obama has asked Congress to adopt a budget that is ripe with programs to improve the lot of lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the wealthy and the farming and industrial complexes under their control.


…


On the budget plan Obama presented on Thursday, the president said it would help millions of people but only if Congress overcomes stiff resistance from well-financed lobbies.


“I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and video address. “My message to them is this: So am I.”


Under the president’s proposal, America’s wealthiest 5 percent would pay a whopping $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade, while most others would get tax cuts. Industries would buy and trade permits to emit heat-trapping gases. Higher-income older people would pay more for government health insurance benefits. Drug companies would receive smaller profits from the government. Banks would play a much smaller role in student loans.


We are living in interesting times.


Sleep well and have a nice day.

Economic Miracle

Posted on by

I’ve had this in the back of my mind for weeks.  Then two events brought it to the forefront.  First, a customer wrote this wonderful comment in an order form;



Your lessons and videos in your Resource section WERE LIKE GOLD to me! I thought only I had questions that you answered there (i.e., how to attach plastic rail guards easily, can AKs shoot clay targets, what EXACTLY is the difference between stamped and milled (it is like EVERYBODY already is supposed to magically know this somehow!), difference between red dot and other sights, and so on). Seriously, I have tried to learn about AKs now for 2 years, most of my knowledge comes from Gabe Suarez (who strongly promotes Ultimak as you know) but you really filled in holes in my knowledge quickly on that one resource page. THANK YOU! Please keep teaching us, it builds amazing trust between us and you and we appreciate it!


It’s great to hear from customers, especially happy ones.  And I know the feeling.  When I was in High School I was expected to know things (event schedules and such) that were never told to me and were not posted, as if osmosis had been expected to work for knowledge transference.  “What do you mean you didn’t know about the meeting?  Everyone else knows!”


Now to the reason for my posting said “lessons and videos” on my web site.  I did it because I was tired of answering the same questions over and over, and explaining the same things in detail to people who just did not get it, plus I was frustrated with trying to sell a product that (it seemed) few people understood.  I spent some time putting that stuff on the web site as a labor-saving measure so I could spend more of my time being productive, and because the more people understand some of these products the more people will buy them.


But there is a much broader point to this.


Regular readers know that I’m a fan of Walter Williams’ writing.  He recently put up a nice bit entitled “Economic Miracle” describing much the same thing;



Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, “He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. … He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.” Adam Smith continues, “He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. … By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” And later he adds, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”


To the customer, it may seem that our putting up a user resources page is an act of charity, or some other form of magnanimity (after all, it is free of charge).  It may in fact have that effect on people, but the bottom line is; this sort of thing happens millions of times per day, all around the world, all out of self-interest.


In a free market, we have to do a better job of serving the customer than those around us, or we fail to prosper.


Let government interests meddle with free markets and it all starts coming apart.  It happens a tiny bit here and a tiny bit there.  At first it may show up as a minor annoyance– maybe a slight price increase here or a drop in service over there.  Eventually it leads to higher risk, fewer start-up businesses, more failures, the formation of de facto monopolies through the process of government licensing or subsidies, people holding back on investments in capital improvements, etc.  You can rarely ever put your finger on it directly, and if you listen to politicians, things are going to be just fine as long as you keep them “in charge” of things.  Finally it leads to stagnation, lawlessness, and decay, as can be seen in parts of the U.S. and in other countries.


For those of you who voted for Obama; I’ll spell it out for you.  Capitalism works better than any of the alternatives.

Quote of the day–Wendy McElroy

Posted on by

I think it is altogether possibility that all freedom in America will be killed in the name of public safety.


Wendy McElroy
February 24, 2009
Modern day Committee for Public Safety
[It’s obvious on the gun laws but it extends way, way beyond that. Just think about the regulation of all industry. A business can be fined and or prosecuted if they



  • Don’t clean their tools according to code (everything from hair cutters to restaurants)
  • Don’t get the government approval of the label on their product (alcoholic beverages)
  • Don’t install safety equipment on their products (think about all the mandated materials and equipment on a car and imagine what horse riding would be like after the government safety committee got through with it)
  • Don’t have a separate bathroom for the exclusive use of the government inspector (meat inspectors)

Enumerated powers were supposed to protect us from this sort of thing. What happened and how do we regain our freedom? Sebastian doesn’t have the answers but formulating the problem sometimes helps.


H/T to Say Uncle and Two–Four.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Rupert Murdoch

Posted on by

As you all know the downturn we are operating in is more severe and global than anything we have seen before.

We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered. Many people will be under extreme pressure and many companies mortally wounded.


Rupert Murdoch
February 24, 2009
Peter Chernin’s little shocker
[Risk and opportunity abound. Keep your eyes open for both. I’m listening to The Black Swan which appears to be applicable to the times as well.–Joe]

Some Foreign News to Relieve Your Boredom

Posted on by

From our friend Howard in Israel.  Saturday, Feb. 21;



Friends:

 

Winter wind and rain have returned, but so far not as harsh as predicted.  And, knock-on-wood, no electric power outages.

 

John Kerry is here. He lied about getting a letter from Hamas to deliver to President Obama.  Senator Kerry lied?  Go figure!

 

Under cover of bad weather (fog up north) two Katusha rockets were fired at northern Israel from within southern Lebanon.  One hit an Israeli target and three civilians were wounded.  The UN forces and Lebanese (now spelled Hezbollah) army are at a loss to find the terrorists who launched the attack.  True to form the EU quickly condemned Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty by firing several artillery rounds at the location from which the Katushas were launched.  Hezbollah said, “Katushas?  What Katushas, we no nut-in about no Katushas.”

 

I would tell you that Kassam missiles and mortar bombs continue to fall in the Negev, but saying so would simply be redundant and repeating the obvious.  Last week a Kassam took out three cars by my younger daughter’s (going to college in Sderot) apartment.  Hope she brings me some pieces of the Kassam next time she comes home.

 

Tomorrow Bibi starts trying to really form the next Israeli government.  When you hear that Liberman’s party wants the Ministry of Police and that they also want the present Minister of Justice (an Olmert appointee) to be reappointed and the anti-Lieberman forces say he is trying to gain control over the ministries pursuing the criminal investigations about him remember two things.  Being “under investigation” is about as close to a condition precedent to being an Israeli politician as there is.  Second, the investigations in Lieberman have been ongoing for 10 years…and counting.

 

Enjoy your weekend.

 

Howard

Yup; Katushas flying in from the North, Kassams from the South, politicians playing childish games, and the EU Press denouncing Israel for even the slightest, half-baked attempts at self defense (why is it that only the enemies of the West have what is referred to in the Press as “sovereignty”).  Sorry; I suppose none of this is “news” after all.  Is it?

Quote of the day–Edward Abbey

Posted on by

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds.


Edward Abbey
(1927 – 1989)
[For some reason this struck me as perhaps describing our political and economic future. Dangerous but yet full of opportunity.


But then on a physical front I’m suspicious that our universe is actually a black hole with an event horizon several billion light years across and we are rushing toward the singularity at the speed of light on the time axis. So, in the long run, it doesn’t matter even if we do get off this planet and out of the solar system everything we know will be ripped apart down to the sub atomic particle level eventually anyway.


Have a nice day.–Joe]

Cracks are appearing

Posted on by

If this and this (both via Say Uncle) pass and the Feds don’t bring in their lawyers and thugs I hope they soon start selling variants built on this:



Picture also from Say Uncle.


California, Kansas (another H/T to Say Uncle), Washington State and many other government entities are in or near economic crisis mode. If the Feds think it is politically unacceptable to allow banks and automakers to go bankrupt what are they going to think about states going bankrupt? Bailouts for local governments must be in discussion behind closed doors if not openly.


But the Feds are broke too. It just doesn’t show up quite a readily because they own the money printing presses. President Obama says he “will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year” (H/T to Tam and pdb). That can mean little more than increased taxes. If history from other countries in similar situations is any guide when things get bad enough you can expect direct confiscation of your retirement funds and savings as well as nationalization of various industries who remain profitable. The rational used will be something along the lines of “the government must not fall so anything we do to prevent it is justifiable”. They have guns and they won’t be afraid to use them to take whatever they think they “must” have. The U.S. Constitution was written with enumerated powers granted to the government but court rulings early in the last century shattered those walls. The Federal government will attempt to get more and more “control of the situation”. More planning and “guidance” from the “central committee” such as the “car czar” and more regulations for the banks (which helped bring them down to begin with) will fail in a big way. Many of the politicians and “intellectuals” have no industry (real world) experience. They have been living off of the public dole where money is obtained via the point of a gun (taxes) and they don’t have a clue (see also this comment clues, lack thereof) as to how reality really works. Obama is believed to be the savior of the world (see the I Love You Obama Woman, the response from France, as well as all the other adoration such that we have never in our lifetime seen for a U.S. president–only dictators in other countries). To the best of my knowledge he is the most inexperienced president our country has ever known, he is facing the biggest crisis our country has seen in 80 years, he is a socialist, and his advisers are socialists. His solutions are all going to involve more power and control for the Feds. More power and control in the hands of those that have only the flimsiest of connections to the real world and no experience. It’s a recipe for disaster.


The only bright spots I see are some states, such as Montana, Tennessee (see the first two links in this post), Arizona, Washington, Oklahoma (via Sebastian), and New Hampshire (via Sebastian and email from hunter006) are thinking about going all Ninth and 10th Amendment on us. There could be some serious cracks appearing in the creeping Federal tyranny we have been experiencing. Within a few years we could be (almost for certain?) looking at some new form of government. What will it be? The Orwellian vision of a a boot stamping on a human face … for ever? Or something else as certain states and people take a successful stand against the socialists?


I’ve been thinking for a long time that the world is due a new form of government. Tribal leaders, witch doctors, kings, dictators, democracies, republics, and others have all had their day (and dark nights) in the limelight. But instantaneous communication and near instantaneous travel makes for some interesting thought experiments. I’m not sure The Probability Broach type world is practical but there may be something else that is. This crisis may be the impetus to figure it out.

Quote of the day–Robert Higgs

Posted on by

For the economy in general, doing nothing is vastly preferable to doing the stimulus package, but doing nothing is not a political option; indeed, it would be political suicide. Given the dominant ideology and the political institutions that now exist, economically rational public policy is incompatible with political viability…. Having hit bottom, the politicians can only do one thing: keep digging. If Hell is down there, they’ll reach it, sooner or later.


Robert Higgs
Senior Fellow at Independent Institute
The Lighthouse Volume 11, Issue 7: February 16, 2009
[I was tempted to just use “rational public policy is incompatible with political viability” as the QOTD, but the mention of politicians attempting reach Hell was just too appealing.–Joe]