Live Traffic Feed

Archives

You can stand against the NSA in court‏

downsizeDC

 

Here’s your chance to strike a blow against illegal #NSA spying. Retweet

Note: If you’re also a subscriber to the Zero Aggression Project newsletter, you heard about this Downsize DC FOUNDATION case late last week. Now, it’s time for DownsizeDC.org supporters to discover it.

We need your help to file an amicus brief in hugely important Fourth Amendment case — Jewel vs National Security Agency. We have a deadline. The brief is being written now, but we’re short on funding. Can you contribute?

Here are the details…

It is obvious that, with DownsizeDC.org, we have a Congressional action strategy. For our work in the courts, we partner with the Downsize DC Foundation (the parent of the Zero Aggression Project). We do this, in part, because contributions to the Foundation can be tax-deductible. And now…

We have a chance to extend the Supreme Court victory we achieved in the case United States v. Antoine Jones. 

Remember, in the Jones case the police attached a GPS tracking device to Jones’s car without a warrant. We uniquely argued that this violated Jones’s 4th Amendment right to be secure in his property against unwarranted government searches.

Neither party to the case and no other amicus brief filed, other than ours, argued that this case should be decided on the basis of property rights. They all argued using the then prevailing legal doctrine…

The privacy doctrine had been the standard for Fourth Amendment cases since the 1960s. No search can occur when a citizen has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

But police had new tools. Their technology was trumping “reasonable expectation.” Fewer and fewer spaces were considered private. Cops could slip a spying device on virtually anything they could argue was “public” (such as a car).

We argued the privacy doctrine was insufficient. The original property right criteria, once restored, would provide a much stronger protection. You have a right to be secure in…

  • YOUR person
  • YOUR house
  • YOUR papers
  • YOUR effects

This property rights criteria had been absent from Fourth Amendment rulings ever since the privacy doctrine took hold.

Our brief led directly to a 9 to nothing decision that restored the property rights standard!

This was a major victory. But one victory alone isn’t usually enough to secure a precedent. We have to build on it.

So our attorneys have been busy ever since. We’ve filed other amicus briefs to extend this property rights standard to more cases. We’ve even had victories. Now we have another opportunity in a huge case that involves the National Security Agency.

The case is Jewel v. National Security Agency.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and several individual plaintiffs filed suit against the NSA for its dragnet surveillance of internet communications. This surveillance was exposed when whistleblowers revealed that AT&T’s entire traffic in the San Francisco area was routed through a secret NSA control room.

The District Court denied that the plaintiffs had “standing” to bring this case because all of AT&T’s clients had been affected equally. In other words, everyone has been violated, so no one can complain.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed this crazy ruling. They rejected it,and returned the case to the District Court so they could try again.

But the District Court then ignored the Ninth Circuit’s instructions! They re-issued essentially the same ruling, but with the additional excuse that prosecuting the case would expose State secrets. In other words…

Government violations of the Constitution cannot be challenged in court because they are secret. Can we — will you — let that stand?

The brief being prepared by our attorneys will argue that…

  • The District Court ignored the Ninth Circuit’s instructions
  • Attack the Catch-22 nature of the state secrets doctrine
  • The government has already admitted a Fourth Amendment violation by acknowledging the existence of its program to capture internet communications.
  • Citizens have a property right to their internet communications

Can you help the Downsize DC team cover the bills for this work? Your contribution for this purpose to the Downsize DC Foundation, made through our contribution form at the Zero Aggression Project, is tax deductible if you itemize deductions on your tax return.

And for providing this assistance, DownsizeDC.org, Inc. will also be listed on the brief “as a friend of the court.” We believe this project is crucial. So please…

Contribute using the Zero Aggression Project’s secure contribution form, or you can discover how to mail a check if that’s you prefer to join this fight.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Co-founders, DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

 

Our copyright policy

Our mailing address is:

DownsizeDC.org

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book


Invitation: Hang out and chat and share ideas‏

New Meetup
The Society of Libertarian Entrepreneurs (Los Angeles)
Added by Thomas Vincent
Saturday, August 22, 2015
10:00 AM
Maple Block Meat Co.
3973 Sepulveda Blvd
Culver City, CA
The restaurant, Maple Block Meat Co. will be opening up an hour early for us, so we can have a quiet place to meet! As usual we will start with brief introductions from everyone about what you do, what skills you have, what philosophical problems you…
Learn more

The Magic Flute

MagicFlute


New tyrannybusters videos and‏ more

 

 

I have some new Tyranny Busters Videos for you. All videos less than six minutes.

What is a tyranny over the mind of man
Victim-less crime of driving without a license
Crime of violating minimum wage laws
What the tyrants don’t want you to know about Jury Nullification
You want slavery
What will you do for freedom??????????
Mike Benoit

Tyranny Busters video on victimless crime‏



Libertarian Events for August 2015‏

porcupinecircle

Libertarian Events August 2015

We want to see you at our next event!

Liberty After Dark – Birmingham Libertarian Meet-Up – August 11, 2015 – 7pm
Saw’s Joint Joint
1115 Dunston Ave
Birmingham, AL 35213

Service Project at Firehouse Shelter 
Our project this month will be serving the dinner meal at the Firehouse Shelter in Birmingham on Saturday, August 29, 2015 from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. We plan on purchasing the food and then preparing the dinner meal for 75-125 people. We hope to cover the cost of food and to raise $500 for this charity event.  If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Leigh.LaChine@LPAlabama.org.   Donations to this cause can be made at:
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/c8EdVwp9/Libertarian-Party-of-Alabama/firehouseshelter

2015-2016 Membership 
As an incentive to join the LPA for 2015-2016, each member that makes a minimum $25 donation receives a LPA Porcupine T-shirt.  If you can’t afford a membership, any one that volunteers five (5) or more hours at our outreach events receives a one (1) year membership.  Remember to be a delegate to the State convention, your membership must be in good standing prior to January 31, 2016.  There are two (2) ways to pay your minimum $25 yearly membership 1). Visit our website at http://www.LPAlabama.org/donate.html and click our PayPal donate icon or 2). Send your check/ money order payable to:

Libertarian Party of Alabama
P.O. Box 101043
Birmingham, Alabama 35210
(Please include your physical/mailing addresses, phone number(s), and email address)

 

Court Fees
Important Follow-Up on Stein v. Alabama Secretary of State

We have been contacted by the Alabama AG’s office seeking payment of the costs owed in this case.   The plaintiffs in this case (including the Libertarian Party of Alabama) are legally obligated to pay the costs awarded to the State of Alabama.

Our counsel is making every effort to convince the AG’s office to settle for something less than the entire amount. But, in order to do so, we need to make some good faith showing that we are attempting to pay the debt.

I am trying to raise $500 towards this settlement, donations towards this goal can be made at the following: http://awe.sm/hO4a3

 

Copyright © 2015 Libertarian Party of Alabama, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:

Libertarian Party of Alabama

PO Box 101043

Birmingham, AL 35210

Add us to your address book


Can you make “South Bay Libertarians Monthly Dinner/Meeting”?

Thursday
Greater Los Angeles Libertarian Party Meetup Group
Thursday, August 20, 2015
6:30 PM
Raffaello Ristorante
400 South Pacific Avenue
San Pedro, CA 90731
6:30 pm:Social Hour & Dinner
8:00 pm: Meeting, Speakers, Discussions
Our featured guest this month is…
Here is a link to our website: http://www.lplac66.wordpress.com/
Learn more

Demystifying Economics: Finally A Fun Economics Book That Members Of Congress Will Enjoy

To read the full column, click here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2015/04/27/demystifying-economics-finally-a-fun-economics-book-that-members-of-congress-will-enjoy/

Ralph Benko

A specter, to paraphrase the opening line of The Communist Manifesto, is haunting America. That specter is the economics profession itself.

Economics has become immersed in arcane modeling. Modeling does not really work well, as even the cognoscenti sotto voce admit. Consider, for example, at the New York Fed’s excellent Liberty Street Economics: Choosing the Right Policy in Real Time (Why That’s Not Easy). This essay concludes, with refreshing integrity and candor:

In the end, we have shown that policy analysis in the very oversimplified world of DSGE [Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium] models is a pretty difficult business. Contrary to what it may sometimes appear from listening to talking heads, deciding which policy is best is very rarely a slam dunk.

Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models? Economics has come to resemble more the model-based pseudoscience of astrology more than the observation-based science of astronomy.

As Prof. Reuven Brenner recently noted in Asia Times:

Most people are unaware of the fact that rulers perceived astrology for almost a century as “science” – pretty much as some perceive “macro-economics” these days.  Monarchs, such as Charles I, as well as the learned and the nobility relied on Councils of Astrological Advisers.  Books, presenting complex geometrical calculations linked to positions of stars, legitimized analyses and forecasts.

Abruptly, after a century, in part due to Galileo’s telescope destroying the science of political lies and hierarchies built on them, the astrological edifice disappeared in a puff – or so it appeared.

Except that macro-economics is now its modern incarnation: Only instead of stars, macro-economists look at “aggregates” gathered religiously by governments’ statistical agencies – never mind if the country has a dictatorial regime, be it left, right or anything in between, or has large black markets, as Italy and Greece do, where tax evasion has long been the main national sport.  So let us first forget about this “macro” stuff, whose beginnings are almost a century old, and offer a simple alternative for shedding light on the situation today and on possible solutions, hopefully demolish this modern pseudo-“science” once and for all.

The most popular book demystifying economics of the 20th century was Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. It sold a million copies.

Now, for the 21st century, comes John Tamny, Political Economy editor at Forbes, editor of RealClearMarkets.com (and a friend) again to muck out the Augean stables. Tamny has published a splendid new book: Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics. It reportedly already is going into its second printing. May it, like Hazlitt’s classic, sell a million copies!

>snip<Tamny loves to be provocative. He’s good at it. He exalts income inequality. He celebrates (organic, rather than government-exacerbated) recessions. Tamny does an especially good job at stripping the bark off the fallacy that career civil servants somehow are smarter or nobler than entrepreneurs and executives in the private sector.

>snip<

Some of Tamny’s jousts easily could be taken out of context and used, by Progressives and other dirigistes, to satirize his positions. Yet his points, to any fair reader, are clear:

Recessions are the cure for what’s wrong with an economy. They cleanse it of the bad businesses, bad investments, and labor mis-matches that got it in trouble in the first place. When the 1920-1921 recession hit, a wise political class sat back and did nothing, other than lower taxes slightly and slash spending. Unemployment dropped from 11.2 percent in 1921 to 1.7 percent by 1923, and the Roaring ‘20s took off.

Contrast that fast near-10% drop in unemployment with the record of the protracted Great Recession, and soggy recovery in which we are still mired, courtesy of the economic policies of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Tamny covers a lot of ground in this book, thoroughly covering the Big Four economic policies. Done right these support the achievement of equitable prosperity. Done wrong these mire us in stagnation and income immobility.

Tamny tackles taxes, regulation, trade, and money.   He does so by reference to popular culture, making lucid that which, in the hands of less gifted writers, often is dull and dry. (Not for nothing did Carlyle call economics “the dismal science.”)

>snip<Tamny especially impresses with the clarity around the matter of money, to which he devotes five full chapters.

>snip<

Popular Economics has attracted great praise from many of the leading public intellectuals dedicated to economic growth (as well as from no less than George Will). Steve Forbes, in his excellent Foreword, says it best: “By breaking the mold of what modern economics has become and by explaining in an engaging way what economics truly is, Tamny has done humanity an inestimable service.”

Buy Popular Economics.

Be provoked.

To read the full column, click here.


Wonderful Al Gore says: “punish climate change deniers!”‏

AuntieSam

Oh Best Beloved!

As reported in TechTimes (and many other places), former Vice President — and, we can only hope, future President, Al Gore recently spoke at SXSW and … raised the bar:

“Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore proposes to “punish climate change deniers.” Gore also suggests that politicians who reject “accepted science” should also pay the price.”

Let your Auntie Sam be perfectly clear.  I love the word “punish!” (And so should you!)  I especially love “punish” as applied to anyone who would dare to disagree with … me.

“Accepted science” is such a fabulous euphemism for that dreary word “dogma,” isn’t it?  What’s not to Love?

Rather than winning our (admittedly dubious) case by paltry things like evidence and logic, yes, it is time to cut to the chase, get down to brass tacks, and, yes, brass knuckles.  Punish!

My least favorite columnist at that perfidious Forbes.com, Ralph Benko, has called out my darling Progressives as “totalitarians.”  (As if that were a bad thing.)

He wrote, there:

“Tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən.

“The New American Oxford Dictionary defines totalitarian as:

“of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a totalitarian regime.”

What a wonderful thing, totalitarianism!

Al Gore is a most welcome ally in pursuing this Blessed Goal.

The Pernicious Benko had the Temerity to quote that reprobate Enemy of the State, George Orwell:

“Let us take to heart what George Orwell wrote, in a letter dated 18 May 1944, talking about the world situation:

‘the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. … Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.’”

Now hear this!  Totalitarianism is Wonderful.  Make no mistake!

The Ministry of Truth so generously teaches us: “War is Peace.  Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”  Let us take this wise counsel to heart!

Come to my arms, oh Best Beloved.

Let me guide us into a most wonderful totalitarian Future.

xxx,
Auntie Sam

P.S. We simply must repel — nay, Punish! — those few remaining proponents of Liberty such as Enemy of the State #1 Rand Paul.

Yes! We! Can!  Forward this to your friends, telling them to subscribe, by clicking here and just signing up for my Weekly Missives. Freedom is Slavery! 


Would people put their money where their opinion is?‏

ZAP

An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

How to get ‘pragmatic’ statists to pause and reflect on the actual worth of political programs. #tlot Re-Tweet

Our last message talked about how you can use the Enforcement Question to move people in your direction. This message will talk about how you can use the Check Writing Question, a powerful tool that causes people to reassess the value of political programs. This is how we do it in our drug prohibition campaign

Would you write a voluntary check to pay for drug prohibition?

It’s easy to say you’re for or against something when you really have no choice in the matter. But what if you did have a choice? What if the costs of enforcing drug prohibition were no longer hidden from you in your tax withholding? What if, instead, you had to make a voluntary decision each month to either…

  • Write a check to pay for drug prohibition? Or…
  • Keep that money to use for some other purpose or cause you value more?

What would you really do if you were no longer forced to fund drug prohibition?

Do you like our Check Writing Question? If so, please use it. You can start doing that right now…

  • Go to this page on our site — use the slider to register your opinion about this question.
  • Sign the drug prohibition petition if you haven’t done so already.
  • Use our social networking tools to share the drug prohibition Check Writing Question on on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter.
  • Please also consider making a contribution so we can spread these arguments to more people. We’ll send you one of our Zero Aggression Principle bumper stickers.
  • Thank you, in advance, for participating in our work.

ZAP The State and have a nice day,

Perry Willis & Jim Babka
Co-creators, the Zero Aggression Project

 

Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book


Debate on debates continues‏

FreePressPublication

 

The first presidential candidate debates are right around the corner, and the large number of GOP candidates has inadvertently helped supporters of minor party and independent candidates in the debate on debates. Because there are currently 17 candidates seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, Fox News will hold two debates on August 6. One debate will have either 10 or 11 candidates, and the other debate will have the other GOP hopefuls. Originally Fox said that only candidates polling at least 1% in 5 national polls would be invited, however Fox executives recently said “the requirement that candidates must score 1% or higher in an average of five most recent national polls” was being eliminated. Michael Clemente, Fox News Executive Vice President, said in a statement, “Everyone included in these debates has a chance to be President of the United States and we look forward to showcasing all of the candidates,” though he made sure to include that Fox only intends to showcase all of the candidates “in the first primary event of the 2016 election season.”

This decision to allow all candidates regardless of polling seems to not only be a double-standard among the media networks, but also among the candidates themselves. During a town hall event in Keene, NH last week, Ohio Governor John Kasich was asked about the primary debates, and responded that he “was not too worried” because the nomination was a “long and winding road.” When asked if he thought there should be more than two candidates in the general election debates,he responded “I don’t know; I haven’t thought about it.” Then he asked who the third candidate might be. After being told that both the Libertarian Party and Green Party candidates in 2012 were on enough ballots to theoretically win the Presidency, Kasich responded “I don’t know. We’ll see how serious they are.”

The problem with Kasich’s “we’ll see how serious they are” response is that seriousness can not be determined by public opinion polls that don’t include the candidate as an option. Ballot access, on the other hand, is a good measure of seriousness. If a candidate or party has exerted enough effort to obtain ballot access in enough states to theoretically win an electoral college majority, that shows the candidate is serious, and it shows that the candidate has a modicum of support.

It strikes me as odd that we still need to have this discussion. However, it would not surprise me if the debate on debates continues well into the future, especially if the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) continues to require a candidate show “a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by the average of five selected national public opinion polling organizations.” If the CPD eliminated the 15% requirement while keeping the other two requirements (that a candidate be constitutionally eligible, and appear on “enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority”), since 1988 there would have been no more than five other candidates on stage with the two major party candidates. Experience has shown that debates can and will happen with ten or eleven candidates. Why can the general election debates not include up to five more voices?


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPRadioNews, , the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular co-host on Free Talk Live.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@fpp.cc or call 202 709 4377


“Drugs minus two” is not good enough‏

FreePressPublication

 

President Obama recently made headlines for commuting the sentences of 46 federal drug offenders. That represents less than one half of one percent of the total number of drug offenders in federal prison. During the ceremony Obama said, “in some cases, the punishment required by law far exceeded the offense.”

However, a little known policy change may end up releasing nearly 46,000 federal offenders before their sentences are complete. The Marshall Project reports the change known as “drugs minus two,” was an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s guidelines adopted last year. “Federal drug sentences are computed with a dizzying arithmetic. Judges assign the defendant an ‘offense level’ based on the quantity of drugs sold. The judge then places that person in a ‘criminal history category,’ based on his criminal record, and plugs both data points into a table to arrive at a final sentence… This year’s ‘drugs minus two’ amendment lowers all drug crimes by another two offense levels. So far, the average sentencing reductions are modest: just under two years.”

Even with this policy change, not everyone will be eligible for a sentence reduction, “including those serving mandatory minimum sentences and those convicted of a ‘third strike’ — even if all three strikes were nonviolent drug convictions.”

One of the first people to be released early under this new policy was David Mosby. In 1991, Mosby was sentenced to 40 years in prison for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamines. He began using methamphetamines to stay awake during his night shift, and started selling to fund his habit. With good time credit, he was initially slated to a 2025 release date. The new “drugs minus two” policy reduced 10 years off his sentence, and Mosby was released in March of this year.

An appellate judge reviewing Mosby’s case wrote, “Under the sentencing guidelines scheme now in vogue, a judge can exercise little, if any, judgment on these matters.” Adding, “While I am obligated to affirm the sentences, I need not and will not put my stamp of approval upon them. These sentences defy reason, but as I have already noted–such is our system.”

I could not say it any better, “These sentences defy reason”! These sentences determined by charts not judicial discretion date back to 1984 when the U.S. Sentencing Commission designed tables to help eliminate sentencing disparities that were then commonplace. Not only did sentences become more uniform, the prison population boomed. Even with the “drugs minus two” policy, the Drug War will continue to be waged, and non-violent offenders will still be incarcerated for decades. The only real way to reduce the prison population is to end the insane War on Drugs, and get rid of mandatory minimum sentencing laws.


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPRadioNews, , the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular co-host on Free Talk Live.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@fpp.cc or call 202 709 4377


Help us match $30k pledge for ballot access‏

LP_Logo

Please help the Libertarian Party take advantage of a $30,000 contribution match from Richard Winger, long time LP Member, to put the Libertarian Party on the ballot in Oklahoma. We’ve already raised $21,124.10 for that purpose.

We’re just $8,875.90 short of what we need for the match. Please help.

Oklahoma is the single state where only a Republican and Democratic presidential ticket was on the ballot in 2004, 2008, and 2012.

Click here to donate, or visit LP.org/okla

Because we’re low on funds overall, the Libertarian National Committee decided we can’t get started on this Oklahoma petition drive until we’ve received $60,000 in donations for this effort.

Click here to donate.

Our Ballot Access Committee Chair, William Redpath, has pledged $1,000 towards this effort. Another long-time member contributed $10,000 for this effort. Several others have already contributed generously. That’s why we’re just $8,875.90 short today.

We have petitioners who are ready to start the signature collection as soon as we tell them to start.

We want to get this petition drive going within a week, so we can run it more cost efficiently before petitioners are in greater demand later this year and next year.

With your help, we can get our candidate for President, and many other offices, on the ballot in Oklahoma in 2016. And then we can start working on the next states.

Please donate today.

Sincerely,

wes

 
Wes Benedict, Executive Director

###

Visit LP.org to share this message

Please donate to the Libertarian Party today. Shrink government — expand liberty.

Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
1444 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.


No Flying Double Stringed Kites!!!‏

AuntieSam

My Darling Poppet,

Ungrateful wretch Parramatta, writing in the UK Daily Telegraph, says:

Nanny State is so last week — we are living in a Granny State that is so focused on keeping its citizens from any sort of harm, that we might as well be sitting tight in our homes where nothing bad can ever happen to us.You can argue that most of the signs are sensible and are designed to keep us safe but the overwhelming effect of the sheer number of them is that they blight the scenery and they dampened the joie de vivre that prompted me to venture out in the first place.

…Here are the signs I encountered: NO DIVING; NO SURFCRAFT; NO SPEARFISHING; NO scuba DIVING; NO SKATEBOARDS OR ROLLERBLADES; NO BICYCLES; NO FLYING DOUBLE STRINGED KITES; NO DOGS ON BEACH; NO SMOKING; NO ALCOHOL; NO CAMPING; NO FIRES; NO GOLF PRACTICE; NO REMOVAL OF FLORA OR FAUNA; NO CAMPING OR STAYING OVERNIGHT; IT’S ILLEGAL TO TAKE OR KILL SEA URCHINS; IT’S AN OFFENCE TO SPEAR BLUE BROWN AND RED GROPER; DANGER: WAVES; DANGER: SLIPPERY SURFACES; DANGER: CLIFF EDGE; DANGER: DO NOT GO NEAR EDGE; BEWARE: UNSTABLE ROCK FACE; SLIPPERY AREA; DANGEROUS CURRENTS; HEAVY CRASHING WAVES; SUBMERGED ROCKS AND VARIABLE TIDAL DEPTHS; DOGS MUST BE ON LEASH; DOGS PROHIBITED; NO COLLECTING (Anemones, barnacles, chitons, cockles, crabs, mussels, octopus, oysters, pipis, sea urchins, starfish, snails and worms)

Admittedly I DO like the sound of “Granny State.” Let’s face facts.  You are a moron who cannot be expected to exercise simply common sense such as staying on the right side of a fence, much like avoid subtler dangers such as … flying double stringed kites.
I’m almost ready to take this to the next stage.  Signs, every 10 feet or so, everywhere, simply stating NO.  Yes, this is what is called for.
Granny State? What’s not to Love?
Your doting,
Auntie Sam
PS, Tired of the remnants of 60s Permissiveness in society?  Aren’t we all!  So tell your friends to join our Righteous Crusade Against Anything Fun … just by clicking here and signing up!

URGENT! Amicus brief needed for Jewel v. NSA‏

ZAP

An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

Here’s your chance to strike a blow against illegal #NSA spying. Retweet

We need your help to file an amicus brief in hugely important Fourth Amendment case — Jewel vs National Security Agency. The deadline is tight. The brief is being written now and needs to be filed on Tuesday, August 11th, but we’re short on funding. Can you contribute?

Here are the details…

We have a chance to extend the Supreme Court victory we achieved in the case United States v. Antoine Jones. 

Remember, in the Jones case the police attached a GPS tracking device to Jones’s car without a warrant. We uniquely argued that this violated Jones’s 4th Amendment right to be secure in his property against unwarranted government searches.

Neither party to the case and no other amicus brief filed, other than ours, argued that this case should be decided on the basis of property rights. They all argued using the then prevailing legal doctrine…

The privacy doctrine had been the standard for Fourth Amendment cases since the 1960s. No search can occur when a citizen has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

But police had new tools. Their technology was trumping “reasonable expectation.” Fewer and fewer spaces were considered private. Cops could slip a spying device on virtually anything they could argue was “public” (such as a car).

We argued the privacy doctrine was insufficient. The original property right criteria, once restored, would provide a much stronger protection. You have a right to be secure in…

  • YOUR person
  • YOUR house
  • YOUR papers
  • YOUR effects

This property rights criteria had been absent from Fourth Amendment rulings ever since the privacy doctrine took hold.

Our brief led directly to a 9 to nothing decision that restored the property rights standard!

This was a major victory. But one victory alone isn’t usually enough to secure a precedent. We have to build on it.

So our attorneys have been busy ever since. We’ve filed other amicus briefs to extend this property rights standard to more cases. We’ve even had victories. Now we have another opportunity in a huge case that involves the National Security Agency.

The case is Jewel v. National Security Agency.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and several individual plaintiffs filed suit against the NSA for its dragnet surveillance of internet communications. This surveillance was exposed when whistleblowers revealed that AT&T’s entire traffic in the San Francisco area was routed through a secret NSA control room.

The District Court denied that the plaintiffs had “standing” to bring this case because all of AT&T’s clients had been affected equally. In other words, everyone has been violated, so no one can complain.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed this crazy ruling. They rejected it,and returned the case to the District Court so they could try again.

But the District Court then ignored the Ninth Circuit’s instructions! They re-issued essentially the same ruling, but with the additional excuse that prosecuting the case would expose State secrets. In other words…

Government violations of the Constitution cannot be challenged in court because they are secret. Can we — will you — let that stand?

The brief being prepared by our attorneys will argue that…

  • The District Court ignored the Ninth Circuit’s instructions
  • Attack the Catch-22 nature of the state secrets doctrine
  • The government has already admitted a Fourth Amendment violation by acknowledging the existence of its program to capture internet communications.
  • Citizens have a property right to their internet communications

Can you help us cover the bills for this work? Your contribution for this purpose to the Downsize DC Foundation, made through our contribution form at the Zero Aggression Project, is tax deductible if you itemize deductions on your tax return.

You can contribute using our secure contribution form, or you can discover how to mail a check if that’s you prefer to join this fight.

ZAP The State and have a nice day,

Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Co-founders, Downsize DC Foundation & the Zero Aggression Project

 

Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book


Should we call it government or something else?‏

 

downsizeDC

Should we call it government or something else? You need better labels. #tlot Retweet

MEDIA ALERT: On Thursday, Jim Babka guest-hosts a radio talk-show. See details in the P.P.S.…

We’ll share some stunning new information with you on Friday. Evidence shows that our so-called government intentionally allied itself with al-Qaeda, even though…

They knew this would lead to the rise of a group like ISIS. 
This evidence is so damning that it calls into question the very nature of our current approach to governance.

It also raises doubts about the long-standing U.S. policy of foreign intervention. Before we share that evidence, we want to discuss the following questions…

  • What is government?
  • Do really we have a government?
  • What should we call it, if it isn’t a government?

What is government?

It’s simple. Initiated force is a crime. We’re talking about kidnapping, extorting, assaulting, stealing, and murder.

Government should only use force defensively. We have police and courts to defend ourselves from domestic criminals. We have a military to defend us against foreign criminals.

But when a government kidnaps, extorts, assaults, steals, and murders, it’s committing crimes. These actions are NOT legitimate.

So how does our current government rate?

It seems clear to us that our current so-called government mostly initiates force.

  • Arrests for peaceful, victimless activities are kidnapping
  • Taxation requires threats of violence to extort money from people
  • Forcing people into retirement and medical programs against their will, along with dictating various forms of “charity” is stealing
  • Killing civilians in the name of foreign policy is murder

Examples of initiated force by government far outweigh instances of defensive force. This argues that we do not have a legitimate government. But let’s dig a bit deeper…

You recognize that when an individual kidnaps, extorts, assaults, steals, and murders, we call it crime. This is not controversial. But…

What if a self-proclaimed “government” does the same thing?

Does wrong suddenly become right if politicians say so? Does a crime cease to be a crime? Should we use some sort of weasel word to avoid calling it a crime? Or should we be honest, and apply the same standard and the same label to similar actions?

Logical consistency requires this answer…

If an action would be a crime for an individual then it’s also a crime when committed by a group, even if that group calls itself a government.
Should any group that behaves this way be allowed to call itself a government? It seems to us that an organization that routinely commits crimes cannot be considered a crime fighter.

So what should we call it instead, if it’s NOT a government?

We’ve begun using labels like these

  • Political government — to denote our being ruled by mere men (politicians) rather than by universally accepted moral laws (such as the Golden Rule and the Zero Aggression Principle).
  • So-called government or “Government” — the scare quotes suggest that we’re talking about a government in name only
  • So-called government — the purpose here is the same as with the scare quotes
  • The State — we capitalize the “t” and the ”s” to distinguish the label from the “little states” that comprise our 50 states. This would NOT be necessary in the rest of the world, where the term “state” is clearly understood to mean an institution that has a monopoly power to initiate force against its subjects.

Why is this important?

Words matter. Define or be defined. We libertarians are constantly accused of being anti-government, but is that really true? Isn’t it the case that…

Only libertarians are arguing for legitimate government.
And isn’t it true that those who advocate the initiation of force to achieve some supposed good are actually urging the negation of government, in favor of criminality?

We want to stress these points now because the ISIS evidence we’ll share with you on Friday raises an important question about the defensive role of government.

The military defense of the country, and of others outside the country, are both legitimate government functions. After all…

The moral legitimacy of defensive force permits more than self-defense. It ALSO allows for the defense of others!

This suggests that…

There should be no libertarian argument against foreign interventions to protect others. 
So…

Why do most libertarians oppose foreign intervention?
We want to address this question directly in our Friday message.

In the meantime…

We encourage you to think of government in the ways described above, and to use our alternative labels.

We’d also like to know if you value this kind of original thinking — new and better ways to present your values. If so, please make a contribution or start a monthly pledge. We accept many forms of payment, and all amounts help us continue our mission.

Thank you for helping us promote the cause of legitimate governance,

Perry Willis & Jim Babka
Co-founders, Downsize DC

P.S. If you’d like to explore this issue further we recommend the following article — “Should libertarians embrace the word government.”

P.P.S. On Thursday (August 6), LIVE on talk radio, Jim Babka will guest-HOST Gary Nolan’s top-rated, radio show. It airs from 9 AM to Noon Central time.

The show broadcasts in Columbia and Jefferson City, MO. You can listen live at http://theeagle939.com/ — click on Listen Live, top right side of the page.

Jim also hosted earlier this week. On Tuesday, he addressed support for the military, when libertarians support intervention, and sex with robots. You can hear Tuesday’s episode for yourself.

 

Our copyright policy

Our mailing address is:

DownsizeDC.org

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book


Intro to the Code of Federal Regulations



TheMagicFlute

MagicFlute


Positive Law, Non Positive Law & United States Code



New videos from Mike Benoit‏


Here are some more videos from Mike Benoit on busting tyranny upon the mind of man. They are all short
Abortion
Handicaps parking
Are judges liars
Mike Benoit


The Political Implications Of Kelley Paul’s “True and Constant Friends”

To read the full column, click here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2015/04/20/the-political-implications-of-kelley-pauls-true-and-constant-friends/

Ralph Benko

Americans have a deep ambivalence about the role of First Lady.

In a 1992 segment of Nightline  correspondent Jackie Judd observed,

Americans are most comfortable, for example, with first ladies who are gracious, stand – by – your – man wives, women who also adopt indisputably good causes. Any more than that, such as when Rosalynn Carter attended some cabinet meetings, makes people uneasy, and now there’s a potential president and first lady who say they’re a package deal.

“GOV BILL CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I always say that my slogan might well be, “Buy one, get one free”.

What ensued (observed Judd) is unprecedented scrutiny and criticism of a political wife’s thoughts, deeds and ambitions.

Presidential candidate Rand Paul has not similarly thrust his wife Kelley into the political debate. That said Kelley Paul now launches the publication of her new book True and Constant Friends: Love and Inspiration from our Grandmothers, Mothers, and Friends contemporaneously with her husband’s presidential campaign launch.

On the surface, a more nonpolitical topic than “the female bond” would be hard to imagine.

>snip<

Nonpolitical?   Let’s take a peek beneath the surface. There are several aspects that make this book relevant to the 2016 presidential race. (For those of my readers who are not political junkies — if any — this book, and its topic, is lovely on its own terms. That said, it has political relevance even if unintended.)

First, feminist cultural critical Carol Hanisch wrote a 1970 essay entitled “The Personal is Political.” This is a concept that became axiomatic to Second Wave feminism and remains relevant today. >snip<

Next. There seems to be a profound evolution ongoing within libertarianism. It has not fully been assimilated by the culture but … could have big political ramifications, especially in the 2016 cycle.  What is this about?

To oversimplify matters… libertarianism emerged as an intellectual reaction to the many pretensions and excesses of Big Government. That gave libertarianism an oppositional cast.

Now, thought leaders such as Cato Institute’s David Boaz, in his book, The Libertarian Mind, and Jeffrey Tucker, “Chief Liberty Officer” of the 4,000 member online social network Liberty.me, are beginning to address the important question of what libertarians stand for, rather than that to which they stand in opposition.

>snip<

The answer to the question of what libertarians stand for which seems to be emerging: society (of which the market is a subset) and culture. This potentially has profound political implications. >snip<  True and Constant Friends – although not a book of social philosophy — offers a wonderful exemplum of the very values that New Libertarian Thought appears to be settling upon.

Now, having saved the politically best tea leaf for last, the introduction to this work is by Senator Rand Paul. Most public writings by officials and candidates are tendentious, calculated, and tedious. Sen. Paul’s seven page foreword to True and Constant Friends is, rather, an intimate, joyful, and very personal tribute to the women who proved powerful examples in his life. Rand Paul pays respectful, vivid, and affectionate tribute, without condescension, to the powerful woman to whom he is married and the strong women from whom he descended.

>snip<

Democratic strategists and Progressive propagandists accuse Republicans and conservatives of prosecuting a “war on women.”  Not so.  Rand Paul’s introduction to True and Constant Friends — although not a document of militant feminism — provides a becoming celebration of strong women, including his wife and to the matriarchs of his bloodline.

>snip<

In True and Constant Friends Kelley Paul has written and compiled an extraordinary work. Its only significant potential political complication resides in its risk of triggering a Draft Kelley Paul for President movement that could consign Ran Paul to future duty in the White House’s East Wing as America’s first First Man.  There are worse fates.


The Modern Drunkard And The Perils Of Free Speech‏

AuntieSam

My darling,

In my devotion to you I have warned, and will continue to warn, of the perils of “Freedom” of the Press and of the pernicious First Amendment purporting to guarantee such a ghastly concept.

Imagine my consternation upon encountering the consequences of such an invitation to libertinage, the online Modern Drunkard Magazine, “Standing up for your right to get falling down drunk since 1996.”

It gets worse.  Modern Drunkard flaunts the profligate drinking habits of our revered Founding Fathers — references to which I thought I had successfully erased from our national consciousness, and rightfully so.

Now, undoing some of my good work, a feature article by Richard English, The Founding Drunkards:

Washington:

“At the end of the Revolutionary War, Washington reluctantly ascended to the office of President of the United States. His inaugural celebration was a hoocher’s heaven. It was illegal at the time to import rum from anywhere outside the states, but Washington ignored that silly law and ordered a barrel of Barbados’s best to go along with the hundreds of gallons of other potent potables he had arranged to keep his guests lubricated well into the night.”

“…If there is anything left to be said regarding George Washington and his presidency it’s this: while in office he spent over seven percent of his sizable income on alcohol. Seven percent. On hooch.”

Jefferson:

“It is true that Thomas Jefferson wrote the original draft of the Declaration of Independence over only a few hectic days. What is not generally known is that he did it while seated at his usual table in the Indian Queen Tavern in Philadelphia while downing glass after brimming glass of Madeira.”

“…When Jefferson left the White House, he was stuck with an enormous $11,000 wine tab (about $200,000 is today’s dollars.)”

It goes on and on.  And on.  And concludes:

“It needs to be noted that the notorious traitor and all-around weasel Benedict Arnold didn’t care for drink and looked askance at drunkards. Which should be surprising to no one.”

“… Let’s raise a tankard to our Founding Fathers. They would’ve done the same for us.”

Such obnoxiousness, even if (even though!) well grounded in history, is intolerable.  Time to Repeal the First Amendment, and, while we are at it, the full Bill of “Rights!”  And … bring back the 18th Amendment!

Lovingly,
Auntie Sam

PS, Surely you know others who deplore Freedom of the Press and those who bitterly cling thereto. They might just be pushed over the edge by this example of the abuse it invites.  Forward this and urge them to sign up for their very own weekly Sam-o-Grams here.

 


Close the Bank of Crony Capitalism‏

downsizeDC

Tell Congress to close the Export-Import Bank, the financier of Crony Capitalism. Please re-tweet.

The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) will close June 30, unless Congress takes action to revive it. Please take action to prevent Congress from doing that.

Tell Congress to let the Ex-Im close using DownsizeDC.org’s “End Subsidies” campaign. 

The hardwired message says simply…

End all subsidies.

You may borrow from or copy these additional comments…

You can start by letting the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) close on June 30th.

Ex-Im subsidizes foreign companies by giving them low-interest loans for buying certain American products. Unsurprisingly…

Ex-Im is ravaged by fraud and mismanagement. Honest accounting says it operates at a loss. (http://herit.ag/1DHPRN8) And…

We don’t need it. In fact, 98% of trade is financed through private investment, NOT Ex-Im! (http://bit.ly/1jLNE65)

Ex-Im only benefits…

* Businesses that are unlikely to make it on their own, and who want taxpayer bailouts if their overseas ventures fail
* Politically-connected, giant Corporate Welfare Queens like Boeing, GE, and Caterpillar

Worse…

Ex-Im often TAKES AWAY jobs from Americans! For instance…

Ex-Im loans enable foreign airliners to buy Boeing jets at lower prices. That gives foreign airlines a competitive advantage in international flights over U.S.-based airlines. That’s wrong, and…

I DO NOT CONSENT!

Free markets, NOT statist planning, are the way to real, lasting job creation and prosperity. That means…

ALL investment should be private and voluntary. There should be NO government banks. So…

Let the Export-Import Bank close!

–END OF LETTER–

Send your letter using our Educate the Powerful software.

Right now, it’s also important that we provide you with this update…

Operating our software isn’t free. In fact, we appear to have an intermittent problem with one browser — Safari. You can probably imagine how frustrating this is to both Safari users and to us. We now believe this is due to a problem we cannot fix on our old servers. So we’ve purchased and assembled two new servers, and we are in the midst of installing them.

If you value the Educate the Powerful system, this is a good time to show your support. Please consider supporting it with a generous donation or monthly pledge.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

 

 

Our copyright policy

Our mailing address is:

DownsizeDC.org

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book


Do you use the Enforcement Question?‏

ZAP

An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

Do you use the Enforcement Question? #tlot  Re-Tweet

You’ve heard it before…

Libertarians are selfish. That’s why they want to end “beneficial” programs like Social Security.
Our Zero Aggression approach defeats this argument in multiple ways. 

First, we don’t want to end Social Security. We just want people to have a choice.

  • Those who want to participate in Social Security should be allowed to do that.
  • But those who don’t like Social Security should be let out.

This approach removes the aggression — the threats of initiated force that extort people to participate against their will. But…

It doesn’t end Social Security, it ADDS something to it — the freedom to choose. And that’s all the libertarian philosophy requires — removing aggression. We want that because…

We care. We feel empathy. We don’t want to tread on others. 

Taking this approach allows you to turn the tables on those who favor mandatory Social Security. You can ask them…

“Why do you want to hurt people who disagree with you? It’s fine that you like Social Security. No one wants to take that away from you. But you should care about other people too. Not just yourself. Let those who disagree opt-out.”
Of course, they may respond with something like this… “I don’t want to harm anyone. Social Security helps people.” When that happens, it’s time to ask the Enforcement Question. We do that like this on our website

What if you had to personally force people to participate in Social Security?

You may believe some good result makes Social Security a necessary exception to the Zero Aggression Principle, but please consider…

What if there were no armed tax collectors to compel people to participate in Social Security? What if you had to enforce participation yourself?

You would feel like a hero if you used force to stop a beating, burglary, or murder. But what if you had to point a gun at your friends, family, or neighbors to make them participate in Social Security against their will? Would you still feel you were doing something moral?

It’s easy to ignore moral principles when the violations are hidden from you, and when you don’t have to do the dirty work yourself. But does that mean no wrong has been done?

Stated differently…

Does initiating force against others become morally okay if you delegate the violence to someone else?

Shouldn’t you stop asking politicians to impose things on other people? Shouldn’t you allow people to opt out of Social Security, forgoing both the benefits and the taxes? Isn’t this Zero Aggression approach the moral position?
Do you like our Enforcement Question? If so, please use it. You can start doing that right now…

  • Go to this page on our site — use the slider to register your opinion about this question.
  • Sign the Social Security petition if you haven’t done so already.
  • Use our social networking tools to share the Enforcement Question on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter.
  • Please also consider making a contribution so we can spread these arguments to more people.

Thank you, in advance, for participating in our work.

ZAP The State and have a nice day,

Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Co-creators, the Zero Aggression Project

Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book


Will Iran nuclear deal prevent future war?‏

FreePressPublication

After what the Washington Post reports as “nearly two years of intense, and largely secret, negotiations,” a deal from the P5+1 was reached last week. Congress now has 60 days to review the deal. Since the negotiations were secret, and details are scant, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding or outright misinformation about the deal. In saying the deal is the best proposal on the table, Reason.com reports, “[security hawks will] say that [the deal] won’t prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — and they’ll be right. They’ll say that it’ll help Iran build its conventional weapons program – and they’ll be right. They’ll say that Iran will never fully honor its word — even as the West lifts sanctions against it, and they’ll probably be right about that too.”

Is Reason.com correct that the deal won’t prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Yes and no. According to various sources:

  • Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
  • Iran will give up 97% of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms’ worth.
  • Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67% enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90% enriched.)
  • Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.
  • After 15 years of restraint on its nuclear activities mandated by the agreement, Iran will no longer be subject to international inspections.
  • If Iran violates any aspect of the deal, sanctions from the US, EU & UN will be automatically re-imposed.

It’s theoretically possible that after fifteen years of producing 3.67% energy-grade uranium, that Iran will suddenly begin enriching uranium to 90% and produce a nuclear weapon, however, it seems unlikely. It’s also theoretically possible that a Republican President could decide that the P5+1 deal is not harsh enough on Iran and re-institute sanctions, or simply invade based on theBush Doctrine, which seems more plausible given the fact that most of the GOP Presidential hopefuls have come out against the deal.

Without seeing the full details of the deal, I reluctantly support it because it lifts sanctions which only serve to harm the people of a country, not the government. In regards to the claim that the deal allows Iran to build nuclear weapons, I ask: since the US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war; why should the US government get to decide who is allowed to own such a weapon?


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPRadioNews, , the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular co-host on Free Talk Live.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@fpp.cc or call 202 709 4377