Members of Congress who’ve read the censored 9/11 pages suggest the government of Saudi Arabia helped fund the 9/11 attacks.
Is this surprising?
* For decades, the Saudi Royals have funded extremist Sunni Muslims and their global causes
* Saudi diplomats met with 9-11 hijackers in Los Angeles and Berlin (http://bit.ly/1doPj52)
* Al Qaeda funding was traced to Saudi Arabia’s Washington embassy. (http://bit.ly/1c4UJPX)
Is the White House protecting Saudi Arabia because it’s an “ally” in our Cold War with Iran?
Are they thereby ENABLING a sponsor of terrorism?
Is that what the 28 pages claim?
DON’T WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW?
You should read the pages yourself. But you MUST pressure the President to release the 28 pages.
Vote to declassify the materials EVEN WITHOUT the President’s consent. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO. (http://bit.ly/1HUCrQZ)
Policy Research Director
P.S. NOTE to SAFARI browser users: There is a problem in Safari 8.0.5 — the most recent update. But Safari 7.1.5, for example, works fine — as does Safari on iOS (either iPhone or iPad). All other browsers are working fine, as well. Our tech staff is aware of the problem, and seeking what is becoming an expensive solution. Providing the Educate the Powerful System isn’t free. Please consider contributing now.
Next week, the Libertarian National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia will host a reception to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the opening of the party’s David F. Nolan Memorial Headquarters.
You won’t want to miss this if you’re in the area!
Admission is free though contributions to help pay off the mortgage of the Headquarters are welcome and greatly appreciated.
Please join us on Saturday, July 18 from 7 to 10 pm at the Libertarian National Committee’s Nolan Memorial Headquarters, 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314.
The Headquarters is two blocks from the King Street Metro stop. Parking is available behind the building.
Beer, wine, and light fare will be served.
Click here or visit LP.org/office-fund if you’d like to donate today.
Yours in liberty,
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
P.S. Earlier that day, the Libertarian National Committee will meet just half a block away at the Marriott Residence Inn, 1456 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 2231. Libertarian Party members are welcome to attend this meeting.
P.P.S. Last year’s opening reception was a hit! Click here to see Nicholas Sarwark’s inspiring speech.
Many people are celebrating the ruling from the US Supreme Court which makes same-sex marriage legal across the country. Some people, like Ted Cruz, say the ruling marks “one of the darkest hours of our nation.”
There are many sound bites from supporters and opponents of the issue. However the ruling itself recognizes marriage as a fundamental right. The majority opinion states, “The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.” Adding, “The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
Fundamental rights are not something that should be regulated or licensed. But what exactly are fundamental rights? It could be argued that the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the fundamental rights, and they are the ones specified in the Declaration of Independence. I would expound to say that anything that is does not cause a real victim is a fundamental right. I say real victim to differentiate between the imagined victim of “society” as the victim if x is allowed to happen unhindered.
Supporters of freedom believe that no person or group has more rights than any other person or group. Meaning that if I have a fundamental right to do a certain thing, everyone else has that same right. There is, however a difference between someone being able to exercise a right – which governments often prevent – and the person actually having the right. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can exercise their fundamental right to get married. Jesse Kline of the National Post wrote, “the central question… is whether the state should be dictating the domestic arrangements of consenting adults.” I say: “NO!” If two consenting adults can get married, then any number of consenting adults should be allowed to do so, as long as the relationship remains consensual. If a man and woman wish to get married, and either partner wishes to bring another person into the relationship, they should legally be allowed to do so, as long as the relationship remains consensual.
The Supreme Court ruling which allows same-sex couples to legally marry may be a small step forward in equal protection under the law for a small group, though it is two steps back in removing government interference in people’s lives and relationships. One can only hope that at some point, governments begin removing licensing and regulations over personal matters.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Please do the same. You may borrow from or copy this letter…
I KNOW that two Senate Committees will hold kangaroo hearings where federal agents will whine about their lack of technology.
They’ll say “national security” is at stake, unless there’s a law _forcing_ tech companies to allow federal access into MY computers and devices.
That’s like forcing safe-makers to give the government the combination to the safe I just purchased!
If the “government,” which can’t even protect the confidential data of its own employees, is given the keys to my machines, then…
WHO CAN’T GET ACCESS?
This security hole make me less safe, not more secure!
But you won’t hear that at these rigged hearings, because…
* The Judiciary Comittee will have just five witnesses (http://1.usa.gov/1H3GSGH). Four will paint a dramatic picture, probably with children dying, if Congress doesn’t give the FBI this unnecessary power. The only one providing even a modest “rebuttal” to State intrusion is a former Obama employee.
But please don’t stop there. After you’ve sent your letter, you’ll get a copy of it in your email inbox. Forward your letter to the one or two friends (not 10, not more) who will be most interested in this message. Ask them to do as you did and send a letter too.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,
Policy Research Director
The Libertarian Party joined Level the Playing Field, the successor group to Americans Elect, and the Green Party to file a lawsuit aimed at the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a Democratic- and Republican-run agency that sets rules designed to exclude third parties and independents from presidential debates.
The lawsuit is filed against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is run by Democrats and Republicans and which refuses to enforce laws that the CPD is blatantly violating.
“The Commission on Presidential Debates is another example of the two old parties working hand in hand to keep the American people from hearing real, bold ideas for how to fix this country,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Nothing scares them more than having a fresh voice on that debate stage.”
“Any candidate eligible for the Presidency and on enough ballots to be elected should be on the debate stage,” he said. ”Anything else is unfair and perpetrates a fraud on the American voter. This lawsuit is just one way we are calling out this sham and fighting for all Americans to hear from all of the candidates for President.”
* Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA and FBI are ALREADY scooping up our personal data without a warrant in the name of “cybersecurity.”
* CISA is both legal cover for and an EXPANSION of their Fourth Amendment-busting methods.
And what do we get for this loss of privacy?
* Since 2006, cybersecurity failures in the federal government’s OWN SYSTEMS increased 11-fold, to nearly 70,000. (http://bit.ly/1I1mBz9)
* And two weeks ago, the Office of Personnel Management was hacked, exposing the personal information for over 4 million federal workers.
How can the feds protect my computers, when they can’t protect their own?
I DO NOT CONSENT to “information sharing” that endangers my privacy and identity.
But please don’t stop there. After you’ve sent your letter, you’ll get an email with a copy of what you wrote. Forward your letter to the one or two friends (not 10, not more) who will be most interested in this message. Ask them to do as you did and send a letter too.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,
Policy Research Director
This year (2015) is widely considered a non-election year, however, that does not mean there isn’t work to do.
The Florida Libertarian PAC has put together some great events to get us all ready for the upcoming election cycle and get involved in the few municipal races that are going on this year.
If you would like to get involved in helping candidates, then come out to our Canvassing 101 class to learn about being effective door-to-door. That event is TOMORROW and you will not want to miss it.
The Florida Libertarian PAC will be holding it’s first fundraising event next month. Come out and join us for our kick-off event. This first fundraiser will be focused on 2015 municipal races and candidates. Grab a drink and get involved.
As noted, Nobel laureate Frederick Hayek, in his 1974 Nobel Prize Lecture, indicted such pretensions on the part of the economics profession of the era as the “Pretence of Knowledge.”
Hayek is not the only Nobel Economics Prize winner with something to say about matters which, boiled to their essence, are a tug of war between believers in mathematical modeling and believers in common sense. One also can cast this as a war between elitists (i.e believers in the ability of an elite to manage society’s affairs better than can the society itself) and populists (i.e. believers in the ability of society to manage its own affairs better than an elite can do so for it).
Prof. Robert Mundell in delivering his own Nobel Economics Prize lecture, in 1999, A Reconsideration of the Twentieth Century, started with a discussion, echoing Hayek, of “in the explosion of our science how in some respects we fall short.” Mundell then goes on to provide an erudite history of money, especially a history of the gold standard. Prof. Mundells’ speech is, in its way, a perfect contra to Keynes’s own Auri Sacra Fames(an argument for the superiority of “representative” money to “commodity” money) and to Krugman’s frequent, albeit sloppy and unconvincing, attacks the gold standard.
The classical gold standard appears to offend, deeply, Prof. Krugman’s pretensions. In the speech as delivered Prof. Mundell observed (around minute 9’30”) that the gold standard “did not require a great theoretical genius to run gold standards… It was automatic. All that mattered is that countries would export or import gold, they’d fix their currencies to gold, and their exports or imports automatically changed the money supply, and the changes in the money supply brought about changes in expenditure which brought balance of payments into equilibrium.”
As economic historian Prof. Brian Domitrovic, like Prof. Mundell a populist, has observed:
The idea that monetary policy takes the enormous exertions of immensely smart and credentialed people is mistaken. Good monetary policy by definition takes virtually no exertions by anybody. John Taylor’s monetary policy rule is 7th-grade algebra. The gold standard that supervised the second industrial revolution, 1871-1914, the greatest period in the economic history of the world, was “so simple a monkey could run it….”
The prepared text of Mundell’s Nobel lecture may be the most thoughtful brief recapitulation of the dynamics of the gold standard, and of the key axioms of monetary economics, in our era.
In his recidivist attacks on the gold standard Prof. Krugman tediously resurrects and refutes straw man arguments drawn from marginal thinkers. Prof. Krugman sets his phaser on stun and points it at the ghost of Ayn Rand rather than tangling with at his peers. (A corollary, of which there appear none in the record, would be a neoclassical economist attacking Keynes by criticizing the novels of Danielle Steel.)
One might speculate that Prof. Krugman fears triggering the launch of a photon torpedo against him, one primed to evade his formidable deflector shields, by one of his intellectual peers. That said, Prof. Krugman’s introduction to the Foundation Trilogy perhaps reveals a deeper motive:
Now that I’m a social scientist myself, or at least as close to being one as we manage to get in these early days of human civilisation, what do I think of Asimov’s belief that we can, indeed, conquer that final frontier – that we can develop a social science that gives its acolytes a unique ability to understand and perhaps shape human destiny?
Well, on good days I do feel as if we’re making progress in that direction. And as an economist I’ve been having a fair number of such good days lately.
I know that sounds like a strange claim to make when the actual management of the economy has been a total disaster. But hey, Hari Seldon didn’t do his work by convincing the emperor to change his policies – he had to conceal his project under a false front and wait a thousand years for results.
“I’ve been having a fair number of good days lately?” Does sound, to me, “like a strange claim to make when the actual management of the economy has been a total disaster.” Prof. Krugman’s celebration of “a false front and wait a thousand years for results” is more appropriate to a pulp medium than to the policies for governing America.
Why acknowledge repeated debacles, over the course of mere decades, when one is prepared to wait a thousand years for the results? Although it be uncharitable to say this, such a pose smacks more of faith than of science. Were Prof. Krugman not such an honored figure such a statement easily could be mistaken for a sort of fanaticism.
A Science Fiction Book Club copy of the Foundation Trilogy, autographed by Isaac Asimov, remains, less than half read, on my bookshelf. From Prof. Paul Krugman we learn that it was this very work that that would propel him beyond the twilight zone of the Neo-Keynesianism into an aspiration to emulate the mastermind behind an imagined galactic empire.
This has a certain grandeur. Still, I beg: have mercy on my bewilderment, Prof. Krugman. I cast my one little vote for common sense as the better approach by which to save civilization.
Mr. Obama raised the subject during a discussion of curbing the influence of campaign donations in U.S. elections. The president said he had never discussed the idea publicly before, but said Australia and some other countries have compulsory voting.
Pundit Charles Krauthammer once defined a liberal as “someone who doesn’t care what you do as long as it’s mandatory.” See? Obama’s a True liberal!
Auntie Sam says: life imprisonment for all Democrats shirking their Civic Duty to vote (Democratic). And the death penalty for those suspected of voting Republican.
We’re desperately behind Russia, which is reported to enjoy 115% voter participation.
Now… that’s Civic Spirit!
Bring it on!
Doting on You, Auntie Sam
PS Forward this and make your friends who failed to vote (or, worse, might have voted Republican) to Repent by signing up for their very own weekly Sam-o-Grams here.
95% of DownsizeDC.org’s communications are written.
That’s one-dimensional. Other outlets like YouTube and Vimeo are missing.
Marshall McLuhan said,”The medium is the message.”
Video is a more personal medium. With it…
I can say things I couldn’t write without being misunderstood. Tone of voice, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues can express things that words, whether on a screen or document, cannot.
For example, we had people asking for us to speak up on the Baltimore riots. Here’s some things I would’ve SAID…
Riots are the health of The State, and this is because the regime media seems to exist to do three things…
Tickle the ears of each partisan tribe, which reinforces partisan division
Create class conflict – even civil war
Use the crisis to bolster interest in statist programs while crushing interest in voluntary solutions
I would’ve said these things, and perhaps more, if only we had a finished studio.
Thanks to a donor for our sister organization, the Downsize DC Foundation (home of the Zero Aggression Project), we’ve been able to mostly-construct a small studio. Here is a picture of me standing in front of the green screen in the back of our Operations Office.
And on Friday, we were testing the studio!
Yet DownsizeDC.org still needs to do its part to finish the studio. With your help, the next hot news item could have insightful, UNIQUE, Downsize DC commentary.
Plus, these videos will also give you another tool to share with others.
Republican politicians and their allies are wailing over the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling which affirmed provisions of Obamacare, blaming the president for the onerous, 17,000-page body of law that is driving up the cost of health insurance premiums and reducing health care access for Americans.
But Republicans are just as much to blame for Obamacare as the president.
Governor Mitt Romney enacting
Romneycare in Massachusetts
During the 2012 primary election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republican politicians ran on repeal of the law. But as soon as Romney secured the GOP nomination, he changed his rhetoric to “repeal and replace.” Most Republican politicians quickly followed suit, punting on the prospect of outright repeal.
Republicans continue to chant the “repeal and replace” mantra today, long after Romney lost his bid.
Republican politicians, to the horror of their rank and file constituency, have long been enemies of health freedom. Their transgressions include:
Republican politicians refused to defund Obamacare despite holding majorities in the US House and Senate.
Republicans nominated Mitt Romney for president in 2012, despite the fact that he championed an earlier version of Obamacare – “Romneycare” – as governor of Massachusetts. Republican governor Romney proposed, lobbied for, and signed into law his socialized medicine scheme – without any prompting from Massachusetts Democrats. He partnered with Democratic politician and darling of socialized medicine advocates, Ted Kennedy, to hoist his decree upon the citizens of Massachusetts, which he revealed after they elected him.
Republican president George W. Bush appointed John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court – where he twice ignored the Constitution and the law to uphold Obamacare.
Republican president Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy to the U.S. Supreme Court – where he also blatantly ignored the law to uphold Obamacare in last week’s ruling.
In 2003 Republican president George W. Bush championed the largest expansion of Medicare since its enactment by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965.
These actions show that Republican politicians not only want to keep Obamacare. They helped to pass and sustain it, one of the most grotesque violations of Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution in U.S. history.
“At its core, the ACA is big government threatening ordinary Americans with penalties if they don’t buy insurance from big corporations,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “Republicans invented it; Democrats passed it; Republicans fully funded it; and a Republican-appointed Chief Justice has twice contorted the English language to uphold it.”
forces millions of Americans to buy insurance coverage that they do not want or need and often cannot afford. Insurance lobbyists and their clients love it; families’ earnings and savings are drying up paying for it.
mandates that small businesses must buy medical insurance they cannot afford, forcing many to close their doors.
raises the cost of insurance co-pays and deductibles – which today cost more than plain old insurance used to cost.
results in insurance companies canceling existing policies, leaving Americans uninsured.
shortens the supply of doctors, forcing many to wait months for care and to suffer in the process, sometimes seriously jeopardizing their health.
imposes gobs of red tape and waste on medical practitioners and patients
forces doctors to take actions that they believe are wrong and which fly in the face of their judgment and experience of what’s best for patients’ health.
denies patients their right to control and promote their own health.
creates dependence on government, undermining more effective methods to provide low-quality, safe and effective health care.
invades patients’ medical privacy.
Sarwark contends, “We need to not only repeal Obamacare, but more importantly, remove the many laws and regulations that harm Americans’ health and drive up costs. Specifically:
“End insurance mandates on individuals and businesses so Americans are free to pursue the health care options of their choice. This will reverse the spiraling cost of monthly premiums, co-pays and deductibles by forcing insurance companies to compete for your business.
“End restrictions on who can sell health insurance, which will spur competition, lower costs even more, and give Americans more choice to get the coverage they want and need.
“Repeal all restrictions on free clinics and other forms of charitable health care so low-income families have access to needed medical services without running to an emergency room or becoming dependent on fellow taxpayers.
“Close down the heavy-handed regulatory powers of the FDA and allow the market to regulate drugs. This will make drugs far more safe and effective than they are today, expedite the development of life-saving cures, and dramatically reduce the price of prescription drugs and medical devices.
“Relax licensing laws that prohibit qualified practitioners from providing safe, low-cost health care. This will lower costs of office visits and procedures while making health care more accessible around the clock.”
The US Supreme Court recently issued two seemingly conflicting rulings on free speech.Scotusblog reports the Supreme Court “gave state governments sweeping new control over the messages that can be put on auto and truck license plates but restricted governments at all levels from using differing rules to control the messages put on billboards and other outdoor signs.
As a combined result of two new rulings, government both gained added power to speak for itself but faced the loss of some of its power to control what others may say in public displays. And the meaning of the First Amendment, in general, became somewhat more confusing.”
The ruling involving signs involved a church in Gilbert, AZ. The church did not have a physical building, and relied on signs to notify people where they would meet. The city had an ordinance regulating the size and duration of signs depending on the message. Signs expressing a philosophical message were only required to be under 20 square feet. Whereas a sign informing people of an event were prohibited from being over 6 square feet, and could not be place more than 12 hours before the event or remain for more than 2 hours after the event.
Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reports, “The key sentence in the decision is ‘Thus, a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.’”
In a seemingly conflicting ruling, the high court “cut back motorists’ right to choose the messages they wanted to convey on their state-issued plates,” however Scotusblog added, “The First Amendment was not the decisive factor in the license plate controversy. The Court, dividing five to four, ruled that the messages on those plates are ‘government speech,’ and, as such, the First Amendment imposes no direct curb on the content of that message.”
It is unclear if the restriction of license plate content will extend to the text of vanity plates, or if it will only allow states to prohibit the issuance of specialty plates. It also leads to the question of how expansive Reed (the sign case) should be applied. Justices Breyer, Kagan & Ginsburg said in their concurrent opinion that the ruling, written by Justice Thomas, was so sweeping that very few public sign laws were likely to survive that analysis. Should Reed be applied to all sign ordinances? Will Reed help political parties that can show they’re being discriminated against?
Winger adds, “The [Reed] decision may also help the Libertarian and Green Parties to win their pending lawsuit against Arizona voter registration forms, which make it more difficult for voters to register into those parties (even though they are ballot-qualified) than into the Republican and Democratic Parties. The decision may also be useful for lawsuits filed against ballot formats that make it more difficult for voters to vote for independent candidates than for Republican and Democratic nominees.”
Only time will tell if Winger is correct in his assessment, though it’s possible a court will claim that political affiliations and ballots are “government speech” that can be more strictly regulated than other forms of speech.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Much has been written about the causes of crime, and why crime rates are higher in some countries than in others.
Individual or collective responsibility?
It’s not about “income inequality”, “poverty”, or “diversity” of race or nationality, but of class and culture. It has been studied as the “culture of poverty“, but technical poverty is not the key factor. It is more like the “culture of depravity”, and yes, some are depraved because they are poor, but more are poor because they are depraved. It is the culture of mutual predation, crime, neglect, and exploitation. Alcohol and addictive substances don’t help, because it results in generations of impaired people. There really are entire communities where most of the youth celebrate crime and criminals as their role models, and actively discourage people from becoming educated and rising out of that condition. The cause is mostly not racial discrimination, but discrimination against those perceived to be of the lower class is a factor when it is the result of profiling rather than individual merit.
Some might object that “depravity” is too strong a term, and perhaps suggest “corruption” or “decadence”, but those are just parts of the same spectrum.
Depravity of this kind is like an infectious disease. If it is kept out of a community that community can remain virtuous for a long time, but once the infection sets in it can take over and dominate for generations. Like the proverbial rotten apple in a barrel. I have seen that at the level of public corruption, communities that after WWII had all honest officials, but then one or two dishonest ones got in and were not removed. That brought in more, until there was a tipping point when all of them went corrupt and conspired to keep honest ones out of government. Try to find an honest judge in entire jurisdictions of the U.S. today. They have been bought or intimidated by the drug dealers. In Mexico the expression is “plata o plomo”, “silver or lead”.
Discrimination by much of society is sometimes blamed, either for creating the conditions that encourage crime, or by provoking crime as acts of resistance or retaliation. We can identify several of the most important bases for discrimination that might do that:
Appearance. That includes race, ugliness, deformity, height, and other attributes over which the target has little or no control.
Ability. Sometimes important for some role in society, and sometimes not.
Class, culture. Behaviors deemed undesirable, such as habits of speech, dress, grooming, cleanliness, vulgarity, manners, rejection of education, or disrespect.
Morality. Behaviors that are harmful to others, negligent, fraudulent, sociopathic.
Ethnicity, nationality. Behaviors that seem strange, threatening, or distasteful.
Discrimination on the basis of each of these may be acceptable in some situations, and unacceptable in others. They are sometimes combined, but discrimination on the basis of one may be misattributed to one or more of the others.
A common misattribution is to accuse someone of discriminating on the basis of race when the discrimination is really on the basis of class or culture.
A classic exposition of this theme is the play Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw, and its musical version, My Fair Lady. In class-conscious British society, the character Eliza Doolittle is looked down upon, not because of her economic condition or occupation as a street vendor, but because of her dialect. The character Henry Higgins raises her social status by teaching her how to speak upper-class English. The play is somewhat contrived, but it makes a valid point. Everyone engages in profiling to some degree, based on first impression, when there is not time to get to know someone well. Therefore, making a good first impression is critical to social acceptance.
Discriminating on the basis of class or culture is often regarded as improper, but the signs of being low class are strongly associated with immorality or inability, and it is to be expected that profiling will be done on that basis.
Rebellious adolescents will often adopt low-class behaviors as a way to irritate adults, and defend their behavior by arguing they have a right of free expression. Of course they have the legal right, against the coercion by government, But if their nonconformity to social mores reaches the level that most high class adults regard as threatening or disgusting, then, then they have no one to blame but themselves if they are treated badly.
So, for example, it is one thing for Blacks to speak a ghetto dialect (that some have called “Ebonic”), or dress or act like a “gangsta”, in an artistic performance, such as a stage play, but it is quite another to be unable or unwilling to speak in refined, educated English, or dressing in at least business casual, being well groomed and clean, when trying to get a job or talking to a police officer in an intense street confrontation.
Indeed, it is generally not a good idea to act like an adolescent, especially when one is too old for it. We live in a culture that celebrates adolescence, mainly because now they have enough money to buy things that appeal to that aberrant state of (hopefully) temporary insanity, but things were generally better before they had any money they didn’t work for doing socially responsible things. We might want to regard adolescence as charming and mostly harmless, but in today’s world it too often is seriously dangerous.
So to people, especially young people, we can offer some words of advice:
Speak and write proper, educated, English, without a dialect or accent.
Dress in good, clean, clothes in good condition, at least business casual and preferably in suits. Push schools to require school uniforms.
For males, get short, neat haircuts, and shave every day.
Blend in. Don’t flash bling. Don’t call attention to yourself unless it is raising your hand in class with a question or an answer.
Exhibit good manners to all persons at all times. Never show disrespect, even when you are disrespected.
Embrace and seek as much education as you can. Don’t show disdain for learning or self-improvement, or disrupt the learning of others. Become very good at doing things, and work hard.
Focus on helping others, and yourself only to the extent you must to enable you to help others. It’s not about you.
Don’t tolerate misbehavior by others. Stay away from misbehavior and addiction.
Defer gratification. When in doubt, do without. Instead of satisfying your desires, eliminate the desires.
Don’t hang with your peers. Hang with your betters, such as responsible adults. Learn by the example of people who know things instead of those who don’t.
If all “disadvantaged” people were to take the above advice, they might be surprised at how fast what they now perceive as racial discrimination would fade away.
As for the crimes that have been getting the most attention, mass killings, aside from the ones motivated by terrorist agendas, what almost all of them have in common is not guns but use by the killers of psychoactive substances. There have always been mass killings. The word “amok”, as in “run amok”, is a Malay word for instances of that from ancient times. But almost all of the instances in recent times in the United States can be attributed to things like drugs, alcohol, pollutants, and the stresses common to dense urban environments. The shooter in the recent tragic Charleston killing is reported to have been taking suboxone, commonly (over)prescribed to combat opiate addition, but itself addictive, and having paranoia, hatred, and violence as known side effects. Perhaps if everyone who takes such drugs were placed in some program of constant electronic surveillance violence might be prevented.
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
13359 N Hwy 183 #406-144 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78750 512/299-5001 email@example.com
One of the ways rights are being threatened by government today is the creeping practice of what may be called displacements.
In psychology displacementbehavior is the substitution of behavior that is easier, safer, but unconducive to one’s own best interests, for behavior that is more difficult, more risky, more conducive, but perhaps unacceptable in a larger context. The classic example is venting one’s rage by uselessly smashing an inanimate object instead of doing something rational and effective about the real source of the frustration. It is usually to reduce emotional tension, without regard for solving underlying problems.
In law one of the forms displacement takes is making crimes out of what would previously been considered only evidence of a crime, often weak and circumstantial. This is usually done because the basic crime, the malum in se, is difficult to prove. So possession or production of evidence thought to be associated with the underlying crime is prosecuted, as an act of discretion in which the courts defer to the judgment of the prosecution that the suspect is a bad guy, having that reputation with the prosecutor, even though the prosecutor is unable or unwilling to actually prove he committed that underlying crime, or even that such a crime was actually committed by anyone. Presumption upon presumption, until the burden of proof falls on the accused to prove his innocence instead of on the prosecutor to prove his guilt.
Transactions and communications with government agents
A recent suspect involving two of these is former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, charged with money structuring and making false statements to FBI agents, about payments to a blackmailer in amounts of less than $10,000 each to avoid, to conceal his alleged acts of child molestation when he was a schoolteacher many decades ago. He was not charged with child molestation, prosecution of which is barred by a statute of limitations, and the payment of blackmail is not a crime, so the payments are not evidence of a crime, because there is no crime. Only the several payments made in amounts of less than $10,000 are considered to be the crime.
The legal theory for making a crime out of any false statement to a “government investigator” is that it is “obstruction of justice,” like physically impeding officers while they are working. However, the statute is worded so vaguely that it can be used as a tool to prosecute anyone who says anything to a government agent, as long as two agents sign a form report that the statement was false, without providing any evidence like a recording of the conversation. Indeed that form can be signed without there having been any conversation at all. And it doesn’t have to be a federal investigator working for what is usually perceived as an investigative agency. It could be a census taker. It could be a state or local agent, or even an agent of a foreign government outside the U.S. The hapless defendant, who may have just been trying to help, is treated as though he were under oath when he is not under oath.
A predictable response whenever there is an especially heinous shooting incident is to call for “stronger gun control laws”. Yet almost none of the statutes proposed would do anything to prevent incidents like the one that occurred. Almost all seem to be predicated on the demonstrably false model that gun laws reduce the numbers of firearms generally available, and that that would reduce the firearms available to criminals. Yet it is more likely to result in more shootings by criminals who will have no trouble getting firearms and use them in a target-rich environment of unarmed victims. That kind of simplistic linear thinking is common to most kinds of displacement proposals.
The rational solution would be to so organize society that it can identify dangerous individuals and intervene before they can do harm, but most ways government might try to do that would be a danger to civil liberties and standards like due process of law. So some people seize on doing something easy so they can say they are doing something, even when what they are doing is useless or even harmful.
CONTACT: Darryl W. Perry, Owner/Managing Editor
Phone: 202-709-4377 NEWS RELEASE
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Announcing the coming publication of A Rebel’s Journey
Free Press Publications is pleased to announce the upcoming publication of A Rebel’s Journey, which details Presidential candidate Darryl W. Perry’s the path to the ideas of liberty. Perry says his path to the ideas of liberty began as a search for traditional values.
Perry, who has written and published several book, is opting for a less traditional publication of A Rebel’s Journey. He is holding a fundraiser to to offset the profits that he would have earned through a more traditional publication of the book, and will then make the book available as cheaply as possible. He said, “The funds raised will allow me to get the book into the hands of more people, and promote the book to a wider audience.”
Perry said, “Donors can get the e-book and the audio book for free, as well as bonus audio content (including interviews with Jeffrey Tucker, Lynn Ulbricht, Ben Stone and more) OR a signed copy of the paperback book and more!”
Additionally, if the goal is surpassed then donors can get additional perks. The fundraiser is running through August 7, and the book will be published this fall after donors receive their perks.
Free Press Publications is an independent alternative media and publishig company, founded in June 2009, with the mission of “ensuring a FREE PRESS for the FREEDOM MOVEMENT” and is committed to spreading the message of peace, freedom, love and liberty. FPP also gives new authors an avenue for publishing freedom oriented material.
Do you want to be a Libertarian candidate for office?
Candidates are one of the most important pieces in the fight for liberty. It is also the piece so often neglected in third parties. Becoming a representative at any level of office is the most direct way to change policy in this state and country. There are over 18,000 elected positions in Florida and only 27 of them go to Washington DC. We need Libertarians at every level.
While everyone focuses on these 27 races in our state, it is the local, county and state level elected officials that directly affect our everyday life and are the most important races to focus on.
You will spread the message and educate the people but in most cases you will inspire, motivate and give people hope again. Being a candidate is not for everyone and knowing your own limitations and how they would affect a prospective campaign will help process whether this is the right avenue for you. Before you decide to run for office, you need to take an honest look at yourself, your life, your time, your home and your personal characteristics and make sure you have what it takes to be a serious and viable candidate.
The Florida Libertarian PAC was created to support principled, professional candidates here in the state of Florida for local and statewide offices. We look for candidates whose goal is to win and are putting in the commitment needed for victory.
If you would have any questions or would like to get involved contact The Florida Libertarian PAC today.
If you would like to JOIN the Florida Libertarian PAC CLICK HERE.
If you would like to DONATE and help us support principled and professional Libertarian candidates CLICK HERE.
In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriage and recognize those marriages entered into in other states.
Libertarian candidates, including the party’s 1976 presidential nominee, Roger MacBride, have been bravely calling for marriage equality since long before it was politically correct. In fact, they’ve been doing so when it was considered downright dangerous.
David Boaz, Vice President of the Cato Institute, noted in a column in The Advocate, “The Libertarian Party endorsed gay rights with its first platform in 1972 — the same year the Democratic nominee for vice president referred to ‘queers’ in a Chicago speech. In 1976 the Libertarian Party issued a pamphlet calling for an end to antigay laws and endorsing full marriage rights.”
“I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the equal rights for all Americans that the Libertarian Party has been fighting for, for over forty years,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
“We applaud and celebrate this victory, and we will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness and prosperity in any way they choose,” he said, “as long as they don’t hurt others or take their stuff.”
Paul Krugman, a few years ago, wrote at length to extol the magnum opus of science fiction grandmaster Isaac Asimov, the Foundation Trilogy. Prof. Krugman’s reflections thereon are of keen interest.
I met Asimov once, 40+ years ago, at a world science fiction convention. I even got him to autograph my Science Fiction Book Club copy of “The Foundation Trilogy.” This compilation of three novels is an SF classic. I, then and since, found it too dull to read in full. (Asimov’s I, Robot then was much more engaging to this long-ago SF geek. But nothing Asimov wrote really rivaled Heinlein’s early, nor Arthur C. Clarke’s best, novels.)
Prof. Paul Krugman, galactically more influential than me, declares that he found the the Foundation Trilogy his formative inspiration. Therein hangs a tale: one of technocracy, which he exalts, versus mere common sense.
Prof. Krugman’s reflections were published in the UK Guardian at the end of 2012: Paul Krugman: Asimov’s Foundation novels grounded my economics (apparently, a reprint of Prof. Krugman’s introduction to the Folio Society edition of the same). Prof. Krugman there wrote, “I grew up wanting to be Hari Seldon, using my understanding of the mathematics of human behaviour to save civilisation.”
>snip<Prof. Krugman commonly makes a whipping boy of the pulp works, and of some who have dared to recommend them, of the politically insignificant, and always tendentious, Ayn Rand. Meanwhile the pulp fiction of Isaac Asimov here is … exalted. Krugman writes:
[T]he way Asimov’s invented societies recapitulate historical models … goes right along with his underlying conceit: the possibility of a rigorous, mathematical social science that understands society, can predict how it changes, and can be used to shape those changes.
F.A. Hayek, like Krugman, won — in 1974 — the Nobel Prize in Economics. John Cassidy, one of our era’s premier economic journalists, wrote, in the February 7, 2000 TheNew Yorker that “on the biggest issue of all, the vitality of capitalism, [Hayek] was vindicated to such an extent that it is hardly an exaggeration to refer to the twentieth century as the Hayek century.”
Contrasting Krugman with Hayek does not represent a meaningless exercise in sound and fury. Krugman vs. Hayek is a battle of the centuries.
Hayek’s Nobel lecture, The Pretence of Knowledge, contains perhaps the best refutation of Prof. Kruman’s pretensions of using “the mathematics of human behaviour to save civilisation.” Hayek:
We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.
It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences — an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude — an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.” I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error.
>snip<Although rarely cast as such this is a “War of the Worldviews” in the political and policy sector. This war is about the nature of reality. This war, not mere partisanship, is an underlying cause of political gridlock, at least for economic policy. Prof. Krugman, notwithstanding all his delightful bombast, does the world a great service in helping to make this long war transparent rather than occult.
One side in this war — let us, for the sake of taxonomic convenience, arbitrarily call them the “Axis Powers”– dominates federal agencies, academe, and the elite news media. To pick one example at random: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve has a reported 300 PhD economists in its headquarters staff alone. That really is exemplary of the Axis perspective. The Axis believes, as a matter of faith, in mathematical modeling. Krugman might well be the “Lord Haw-Haw” of these contemporary Axis powers. Bring it on, Paul.
The other side — let us, arbitrarily, call them the “Allies” — roughly speaking is represented by certain thought leaders in the Congress such as Joint Economic Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, and center right policy institutes such as Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Atlas Network, and, of course, American Principles in Action (which I professionally advise). Let us also praise a few maverick academics such as Profs. Lawrence White and Brian Domitrovic. These professors, shamelessly, wallow in mere data and rigorous analysis rather than hewing to prevailing fashion.
The Allies are more interested in the correlations between policy, job creation, and equitable prosperity (or the erosion thereof) than in the correct pronunciation of Shibboleth. The Allies tend to align with Hayek.
>snip<Krugman gives “common sense” — toward which the Allies incline — short shrift, lumping it in with popular prejudice: “I’ve been struck these past several years by just how much power good economics has to make correct predictions that are very much at odds with popular prejudices and ‘common sense’.” No hobgoblins of foolish — or any other — consistency haunt the capacious mind of Prof. Krugman who, earlier in his Foundation Trilogy introduction, observes how “the actual management of the economy has been a total disaster.”
Paul Krugman long ago left the twilight zone of Neo-Keynesianism to boldly go where no man has gone before. There isn’t a better “sciencefictionomist” than Prof. Krugman. That said, a coin has two sides. Sciencefictionomics has far from won its war on common sense.