"I think we ought to be personally responsible," he said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" Friday morning. "I think if you can take care of yourself, and then maybe try to take care of someone else, that's sort of how you're supposed to live.
"It's not a question of asking other people for help or being rescued or anything like that," he continued. "I think we've sort of gotten used to someone looking out for us, and I don't think any other person is necessarily going to be counted on to look out for us.
"I think there's only so many people that can take care of themselves, and can take care of other people. And the rest of the people … they're useful in terms of compost for the whole planet, you know."
--Bill Murray to CNBC
In homage, one of my favorite scenes from Stripes:
----------
Army recruiter: "Have either of you been convicted of a felony?"
Murray: "Convicted? No,...never convicted"
------------
Recruiter: "Now, if you'll just give Uncle Sam your autograph here..."
Murray: (Signing induction papers to the Army, as if signing an autograph): "Sammy, get well soon..."
10 February 2012
09 February 2012
07 February 2012
Quote of the Day 2/7/2012
Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
--Marcus Tullius Cicero
03 February 2012
Ron Paul resists.
112TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3785
To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
_________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 18, 2012
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_________________
A BILL
To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 1021 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012.
Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) is hereby repealed.
02 February 2012
Swarming Nano Quadrotors
Question: Are these useful for FreeFor?
Presented for coolness factor alone.
Presented for coolness factor alone.
01 February 2012
The progress of Ron Paul
Ron Paul gets a nod from Bill Gross, the head of PIMCO, a global wealth management firm with $1.3 trillion in assets. (about 6 minutes into the clip)
"I'm a little Ron Paulish, to take a political stand...both parties have basically done the same thing..."
Note well: The stuff he says in the minute before the economy doing well in the 4th quarter, and that the fed has to keep buying treasuries is totally wrong headed, and goes against principles of Austrian economics and the stand of Ron Paul. The 4th Q boost is related to the Fed's quantitative easing, and is a temporary reinflation of a burst bubble, and cannot last. The Fed buying treasuries is more hocus pocus QE.
h/t to zerohedge.com
Ron Paul making inroads with ordinary voters:
Vote totals - 2008 vs. 2012:
IA: 2008 - 11.817 ... 2012 - 26,036 that's 2.2x as many
NH: 2008 - 18,346 ... 2012 - 56,872 that's 3.1x
SC: 2008 - 16,155 ... 2012 - 77,993 that's 4.8x
FL: 2008 - 62,887 ... 2012 - 117,105 that's 1.9x
Now look at the first 4 contests coming up in February (ALL CAUCUS STATES)
NV: 2008 - 13.7% of the vote
ME: 2008 - 18.4%
CO: 2008 - 8.2%
MN: 2008 - 15.2%
I have every reason to believe that this trend of getting 2 to 5 times the number of votes will continue. February is shaping up to be great for Ron Paul!
h/t to dailypaul.com
In times of desperate economic conditions, should we withdraw from empire and consolidate the military, or should we launch a war with Iran?
Sun Tzu chimes in (h/t to dailypaul.com):
According to Sun Tzu's Art of War, Americans are losing:
There is no instance of a country ever having benefited from prolonged warfare.
In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
If the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
"I'm a little Ron Paulish, to take a political stand...both parties have basically done the same thing..."
Note well: The stuff he says in the minute before the economy doing well in the 4th quarter, and that the fed has to keep buying treasuries is totally wrong headed, and goes against principles of Austrian economics and the stand of Ron Paul. The 4th Q boost is related to the Fed's quantitative easing, and is a temporary reinflation of a burst bubble, and cannot last. The Fed buying treasuries is more hocus pocus QE.
h/t to zerohedge.com
Ron Paul making inroads with ordinary voters:
Vote totals - 2008 vs. 2012:
IA: 2008 - 11.817 ... 2012 - 26,036 that's 2.2x as many
NH: 2008 - 18,346 ... 2012 - 56,872 that's 3.1x
SC: 2008 - 16,155 ... 2012 - 77,993 that's 4.8x
FL: 2008 - 62,887 ... 2012 - 117,105 that's 1.9x
Now look at the first 4 contests coming up in February (ALL CAUCUS STATES)
NV: 2008 - 13.7% of the vote
ME: 2008 - 18.4%
CO: 2008 - 8.2%
MN: 2008 - 15.2%
I have every reason to believe that this trend of getting 2 to 5 times the number of votes will continue. February is shaping up to be great for Ron Paul!
h/t to dailypaul.com
In times of desperate economic conditions, should we withdraw from empire and consolidate the military, or should we launch a war with Iran?
Sun Tzu chimes in (h/t to dailypaul.com):
According to Sun Tzu's Art of War, Americans are losing:
There is no instance of a country ever having benefited from prolonged warfare.
In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
If the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
29 January 2012
28 January 2012
The magnitude of the "American Dream" is inversely proportional to the size of government
This is a very thought provoking essay. I came from a very lower class parentage; a father that dropped out of school at the age of 13. I not only went to college, but hold multiple advanced degrees. I was quite successful, and now am semi-retired. My kids are doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs.
One might ask "what is the American dream". It is to to aspire to be what you parents never thought possible, but dreamed for you. Government was NEVER the deciding factor in my fate. It was my own quest for what I dreamed. If we lose this - we lose what it is to be an American.
--Rick Williams, comment on Wall Street Journal article "The New American Divide"
Sorry man, but the size of government being what it is, the size of the debt, the extent of our empire--too late.
People who support big government: you support looters. Government cannot make anything.
1. It can take from others through taxes or confiscation.
2. It can print money--paper backed by a promise to support the paper--money based on faith alone, and the federal reserve has an explicit goal of inflation--devaluating that currency to pay off it's debt in cheaper $.
3. It can borrow money in the form of sovereign debt.
The bigger the government, the less the tax paying people get to keep. The bigger the government, the more aggressive it's nationalism and war machine, the less the people have, and the less their currency is worth--the money is printed or borrowed.
Now our government has obligated us to $16.4 trillion in debt, and $60 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid, public sector retirement funds (already raided and borrowed against, btw):
What American dream do I have to offer my three kids? Will they have lower taxes than I? Will my 401k be taxed at the same rate in 25 years as it would be if I withdrew it from the account and paid taxes today?
My hope and trust in the .gov to secure any "American Dream" is long dead.
I either make it for myself in spite of nearly 50% wealth confiscation, or I don't make it at all.
IF WE look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power.
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.--Alfred Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, 1935
(emphasis added)
These are the reasons I support States' rights, very limited federal government as originally outlined in Article I Section 8, and am particularly interested in the re-assertion of the Tenth and Ninth Amendments.
One might ask "what is the American dream". It is to to aspire to be what you parents never thought possible, but dreamed for you. Government was NEVER the deciding factor in my fate. It was my own quest for what I dreamed. If we lose this - we lose what it is to be an American.
--Rick Williams, comment on Wall Street Journal article "The New American Divide"
Sorry man, but the size of government being what it is, the size of the debt, the extent of our empire--too late.
People who support big government: you support looters. Government cannot make anything.
1. It can take from others through taxes or confiscation.
2. It can print money--paper backed by a promise to support the paper--money based on faith alone, and the federal reserve has an explicit goal of inflation--devaluating that currency to pay off it's debt in cheaper $.
3. It can borrow money in the form of sovereign debt.
The bigger the government, the less the tax paying people get to keep. The bigger the government, the more aggressive it's nationalism and war machine, the less the people have, and the less their currency is worth--the money is printed or borrowed.
Now our government has obligated us to $16.4 trillion in debt, and $60 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid, public sector retirement funds (already raided and borrowed against, btw):
What American dream do I have to offer my three kids? Will they have lower taxes than I? Will my 401k be taxed at the same rate in 25 years as it would be if I withdrew it from the account and paid taxes today?
My hope and trust in the .gov to secure any "American Dream" is long dead.
I either make it for myself in spite of nearly 50% wealth confiscation, or I don't make it at all.
IF WE look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power.
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.--Alfred Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, 1935
(emphasis added)
These are the reasons I support States' rights, very limited federal government as originally outlined in Article I Section 8, and am particularly interested in the re-assertion of the Tenth and Ninth Amendments.
26 January 2012
First Bill to Nullify NDAA put forward in Virginia House of Delegates
Let's hear it for the Old Dominion! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
via blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com
Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1660 (HB1660) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”
The bill is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee: #2 Civil.
The bill reads as follows:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
Virginia is now the first state in the nation to introduce and consider a version of the Liberty Preservation Act in response to unconstitutional kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Sources close the to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to ten states considering various laws or resolutions in response to the NDAA in the 2012 state legislative session.
From the Constitution of Virginia:
Section 8. Criminal prosecutions.
That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Laws may be enacted providing for the trial of offenses not felonious by a court not of record without a jury, preserving the right of the accused to an appeal to and a trial by jury in some court of record having original criminal jurisdiction. Laws may also provide for juries consisting of less than twelve, but not less than five, for the trial of offenses not felonious, and may classify such cases, and prescribe the number of jurors for each class.
In criminal cases, the accused may plead guilty. If the accused plead not guilty, he may, with his consent and the concurrence of the Commonwealth's Attorney and of the court entered of record, be tried by a smaller number of jurors, or waive a jury. In case of such waiver or plea of guilty, the court shall try the case.
The provisions of this section shall be self-executing.
Section 11.
Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.
That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term "public uses" to be defined by the General Assembly; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.
That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five.
via blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com
Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1660 (HB1660) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”
The bill is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee: #2 Civil.
The bill reads as follows:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
Virginia is now the first state in the nation to introduce and consider a version of the Liberty Preservation Act in response to unconstitutional kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Sources close the to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to ten states considering various laws or resolutions in response to the NDAA in the 2012 state legislative session.
From the Constitution of Virginia:
Section 8. Criminal prosecutions.
That in criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
Laws may be enacted providing for the trial of offenses not felonious by a court not of record without a jury, preserving the right of the accused to an appeal to and a trial by jury in some court of record having original criminal jurisdiction. Laws may also provide for juries consisting of less than twelve, but not less than five, for the trial of offenses not felonious, and may classify such cases, and prescribe the number of jurors for each class.
In criminal cases, the accused may plead guilty. If the accused plead not guilty, he may, with his consent and the concurrence of the Commonwealth's Attorney and of the court entered of record, be tried by a smaller number of jurors, or waive a jury. In case of such waiver or plea of guilty, the court shall try the case.
The provisions of this section shall be self-executing.
Section 11.
Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases.
That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term "public uses" to be defined by the General Assembly; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination.
That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. The General Assembly may limit the number of jurors for civil cases in courts of record to not less than five.
24 January 2012
Newt Gingrich deconstructed by Jon Stewart
h/t to zerohedge.com
The best line I've heard about Gingrich rising in the polls lately was: "The farther up the tree the monkey goes, the more you can see his butt."
The best line I've heard about Gingrich rising in the polls lately was: "The farther up the tree the monkey goes, the more you can see his butt."
23 January 2012
Ten Commandments, Texas style
Cowboy's Ten Commandments posted on the wall at Cross Trails Church in Fairlie, Texas.
via mass email making the rounds...
via mass email making the rounds...
Quote of the Day, 1/23/2012--Tench Coxe (repost)
 |
| "The Pennsylvanian", Tench Coxe |
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize,
and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens,
the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.--Tench Coxe
and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens,
the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.--Tench Coxe
19 January 2012
Mitt Romney on the Confederate Flag
via Dixie Broadcasting
Translation:
"I'm a Yankee, are you nuts? What do you think I'm going to say? As a Yankee, if I say the battle flag is Heritage, or it's OK for you, I denigrate and belittle the whole worldview of Yankeedom going back 150 plus years"
Also:
"You lost, get over it."
"We are one country, whether you like it or not"
"You have no right to claim a unique heritage"
"Southerners/Southrons: You lost your right to self determination 150 years ago. Stop thinking wrong..."
Its like saying:
Basque, you are Spanish. Catalans, you are Spanish. Welsh, Irish, and Scots, you belong to England, and serve England.
You were conquered; stop thinking.
18 January 2012
17 January 2012
Treason, Sedition, and Subversive activities: Patriot bloggers, FYI
Paraphrasing Patrick Henry:
If this blog be sedition, make the most of it!
Background:
Sedition is the illegal promotion of resistance against the government, usually in speech or writing.
What is illegal depends on the government and its regard for freedom of speech. The crime of sedition is alive and actively prosecuted in many countries today.
In the United States, sedition as a crime has been enforced at several points in its history, notably during the presidency of John Adams under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, during and after World War I, and under a 1940 federal law, the Smith Act, criminalizing membership in the Communist Party.
When the U.S. Supreme Court first addressed the question of the constitutionality of sedition laws after World War I, the majority used what was then the traditional standard for judging "seditious" speech--whether it had a tendency, even a remote tendency--to stir people to resistance or rebellion against the government. Later, however, justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Louis Brandeis began to develop a more expansive notion that would give more breathing room to political dissent. One of the most stirring writings in American law in defense of free speech is the opinion by Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California in 1927. Holmes' and Brandeis' theory did not prevail in their lifetimes.
In 1964, in New York Times v. Sullivan, a majority of the the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that punishment for sedition was contrary to the First Amendment, And in 1969, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court set forth the current standard for punishing seditious speech. Source link.
The following is current law:
US Code: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, § 2383-2386
§ 2383: Rebellion or Insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
§ 2384. Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
§ 2385: Advocating Overthrow of Government
Good related summary article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/sedition_is_constitutional.html
Bottom line: If the wind blows one way (i.e. in court), you are guilty of sedition. If it blows another way, you are exercising your right to free speech.
It is up to the .gov whether or not you are worth crushing like a bug.
If this blog be sedition, make the most of it!
Background:
Sedition is the illegal promotion of resistance against the government, usually in speech or writing.
What is illegal depends on the government and its regard for freedom of speech. The crime of sedition is alive and actively prosecuted in many countries today.
In the United States, sedition as a crime has been enforced at several points in its history, notably during the presidency of John Adams under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, during and after World War I, and under a 1940 federal law, the Smith Act, criminalizing membership in the Communist Party.
When the U.S. Supreme Court first addressed the question of the constitutionality of sedition laws after World War I, the majority used what was then the traditional standard for judging "seditious" speech--whether it had a tendency, even a remote tendency--to stir people to resistance or rebellion against the government. Later, however, justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Louis Brandeis began to develop a more expansive notion that would give more breathing room to political dissent. One of the most stirring writings in American law in defense of free speech is the opinion by Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California in 1927. Holmes' and Brandeis' theory did not prevail in their lifetimes.
In 1964, in New York Times v. Sullivan, a majority of the the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that punishment for sedition was contrary to the First Amendment, And in 1969, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court set forth the current standard for punishing seditious speech. Source link.
The following is current law:
US Code: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, § 2383-2386
§ 2383: Rebellion or Insurrection:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
§ 2384. Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
§ 2385: Advocating Overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
§ 2386: Registration of Certain Organizations
An organization is engaged in “civilian military activity” if:
(1) it gives instruction to, or prescribes instruction for, its members in the use of firearms or other weapons or any substitute therefor, or military or naval science; or
(2) it receives from any other organization or from any individual instruction in military or naval science; or
(4) it engages, either with or without arms, in drills or parades of a military or naval character; or
(5) it engages in any other form of organized activity which in the opinion of the Attorney General constitutes preparation for military action;
An organization is “subject to foreign control” if:
(a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an international political organization; or
(b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an international political organization.
Good related summary article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/sedition_is_constitutional.html
Bottom line: If the wind blows one way (i.e. in court), you are guilty of sedition. If it blows another way, you are exercising your right to free speech.
It is up to the .gov whether or not you are worth crushing like a bug.
Pornoscanner for your car. Coming soon to a border crossing or a random VIPR checkpoint near you.
Think you got a right to privacy from gummint?
Think again. Not in your house. Not in the street. Not at the airport.
Not in your car:
Internal Homeland Security documents describing specifications for border-crossing scanners, which emit gamma or X-ray radiation to probe vehicles and their occupants, are raising new health and privacy concerns, CNET has learned.
Even though a public outcry has prompted Homeland Security to move away from adding X-ray machines to airports--it purchased 300 body scanners last year that used alternative technology instead--it appears to be embracing them at U.S.-Mexico land border crossings as an efficient way to detect drugs, currency, and explosives.
A 63-page set of specifications (PDF), heavily redacted, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center through the Freedom of Information Act, says the scanners must "be based on X-Ray or gamma technology," which use potentially dangerous ionizing radiation at high energies, and "shall be capable of scanning cars, SUVs, motorcycles and buses."
Link
Oh, and dont worry bout cancer from the radiation. We're from the government. We'll take care of you.
Think again. Not in your house. Not in the street. Not at the airport.
Not in your car:
Internal Homeland Security documents describing specifications for border-crossing scanners, which emit gamma or X-ray radiation to probe vehicles and their occupants, are raising new health and privacy concerns, CNET has learned.
Even though a public outcry has prompted Homeland Security to move away from adding X-ray machines to airports--it purchased 300 body scanners last year that used alternative technology instead--it appears to be embracing them at U.S.-Mexico land border crossings as an efficient way to detect drugs, currency, and explosives.
A 63-page set of specifications (PDF), heavily redacted, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center through the Freedom of Information Act, says the scanners must "be based on X-Ray or gamma technology," which use potentially dangerous ionizing radiation at high energies, and "shall be capable of scanning cars, SUVs, motorcycles and buses."
Link
Oh, and dont worry bout cancer from the radiation. We're from the government. We'll take care of you.
16 January 2012
Quote of the Day, 1/15/2012 (repost)
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
Cesare Beccaria, Italy, 1738-1794, author of "Of Crimes and Punishments", widely read by the founders of the United States.
This is the position of modern 2nd amendment proponents. It has been demonstrably true for centuries. Laws primarily affect those who obey them.
It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books. Bad guys are bad guys.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
Cesare Beccaria, Italy, 1738-1794, author of "Of Crimes and Punishments", widely read by the founders of the United States.
This is the position of modern 2nd amendment proponents. It has been demonstrably true for centuries. Laws primarily affect those who obey them.
It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books. Bad guys are bad guys.
13 January 2012
Marines piss on the Taliban dead. Get perspective from veterans Allen West and Eugene Sledge
Verbatim post:
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines' video, and has given us permission to publish it.
“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”
As an aside: I don't know about y'all, but I don't believe in coincidences. One media report earlier this week indicated that peace talks were getting started with the Taliban, and a couple of days later, we have a video of Marines pissing on Taliban corpses. We have two factions in the fed.gov with differing opinions on how to proceed with Afghanistan, or the administration has a change of heart on the negotiations with the Taliban, and undermines it with the video. Interesting either way.
Getting back to the topic:
If anyone saw "The Pacific" on HBO, you would have seen depictions of our guys using Ka-Bars to dig out gold teeth on still living Japanese, and one character, Snafu, tossing pebbles into the open braincase of a Japanese soldier with the top half of his head missing.
Splash,...bop ...splash,....bop,...splash...
Here is (native Alabaman and great grandson of a Confederate Surgeon in the Army of Tennessee) the actual Eugene Sledge speaking at the Mises Institute in Auburn, AL about his experiences in the Pacific at Peleliu and Okinawa in 1994:
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines' video, and has given us permission to publish it.
“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”
As an aside: I don't know about y'all, but I don't believe in coincidences. One media report earlier this week indicated that peace talks were getting started with the Taliban, and a couple of days later, we have a video of Marines pissing on Taliban corpses. We have two factions in the fed.gov with differing opinions on how to proceed with Afghanistan, or the administration has a change of heart on the negotiations with the Taliban, and undermines it with the video. Interesting either way.
Getting back to the topic:
If anyone saw "The Pacific" on HBO, you would have seen depictions of our guys using Ka-Bars to dig out gold teeth on still living Japanese, and one character, Snafu, tossing pebbles into the open braincase of a Japanese soldier with the top half of his head missing.
Splash,...bop ...splash,....bop,...splash...
Here is (native Alabaman and great grandson of a Confederate Surgeon in the Army of Tennessee) the actual Eugene Sledge speaking at the Mises Institute in Auburn, AL about his experiences in the Pacific at Peleliu and Okinawa in 1994:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)