If you want CCW, obey the law.

I have been getting email newsletters from a guy named Tim Schmidt from Jackson, Wisconsin who runs an organization called the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) for about a month now. At first I was interested in what the organization might offer to American citizens. I was especially enthused by Tim’s assertion that all citizens that can conceal carry should because it benefits everyone to have law-abiding citizens out there that the Bad Guys (BGs) don’t know are packing. Well, my enthusiasm hit a brick wall today. Something about the Wisconsin address seemed a little funny to me so I looked closely at the concealed carry laws for the state of Wisconsin. I was shocked to see that Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states in the nation that DO NOT issue concealed carry permits, period. Tim Schmidt is not just publishing a magazine about guns, he is publishing a magazine about the conceal carrying of firearms. Additionally, he has sent out another email newsletter (the last one I’ll ever get from him) in which he openly stated that he does carry a concealed weapon. As you probably already know from my previous posts, I am a Bill of Rights advocate. That Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment and I am a solid supporter of states efforts to pass Right-to-Carry legislation. People like Tim Schmidt do a great deal of damage to the Right-to-Carry advocates by taking away our assertion that Right-to-Carry legislation will do good because it will put more law-abiding citizens on the streets with weapons that can be used to stop criminals. I think that if Tim wants to be a leader in his state in the effort to pass Right-to-Carry legislation that would be great, but for him to openly advocate concealed carry in a state where it is illegal simply makes Tim a criminal. I have emailed USCCA to tell them that what their President is doing is illegal and undermines Right-to-Carry advocacy all of the country. I think that anyone who cares about the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms should write or email USCCA and ask Tim to step down as the head of the USCCA and to condemn anyone that breaks the law by carrying concealed in an illegal manner. You can write to them through their website at: http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/department6.cfm.

Conservative does not equal Economically Literate.

I don’t have many opportunities to say this, but THANK YOU Rush Limbaugh! The King of Speaking Off the Cuff has let the cat out of the bag. In his show today Rush Limbaugh said that the Democrats had won several recent Congressional elections by running candidates that were more Conservative than the Republicans. He even went so far as to call them Socialist Conservatives. Thank you Rush Limbaugh! You have made my point in those two words so much better than I could ever manage in pages of this blog, my point being that Republicans and more importantly Conservatives do not believe in Free Market/Austrian Economics. Conservatives are all about Guns and God. Now if you don’t believe me, just listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Republicans and Conservatives couldn’t give a flying leap about Austrian Economics and the Free Market advocacy that blooms from that fertile foundation. They simply roll out Milton Freedman whenever they are forced to appeal to all of the limited government and free market crowds that they have fooled into remaining a part of the Republican coalition after the Conservative take-over. Worse, when they do talk about market forces they have corporations whispering the words of great economists into their ears and twisting the issue to suit the corporations needs.
Take a look at the Global Warming issue. Instead of getting the facts and showing real leadership by ignoring whether or not it may be man made and denying the idea that Global Warming can be stopped, they stand out there and spout copious nonsense about how what is being done to stop Global Warming will hurt the economy. While that is partially true, it is more truthful that the fraudulent cure for Global Warming will hurt their corporate sponsors. There are some things that could be done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that could really unleash our economy, such as permitting new nuclear plants and reducing the massive regulatory atmosphere that squashes the development of new technology. They are so focused on pseudo-economics that they completely deny that Global Warming is even happening. This critical error ignores what is scientifically certain. Global Warming is happening. Whether or not Global Warming has a human source is debatable but that debate needs to happen after we start dealing with the immediate issues of Global Warming. In my opinion, those two things include the rezoning of areas that will be submerged when (not if) the sea level rises and increasing development for fighting tropical diseases. These two things will happen. We will not stop Global Warming, we need to deal with it. By allowing the debate to be between Human made Global Warming and no Global Warming at all, both sides get to ignore what really needs to happen to help humanity.

Why the Global Warming crisis needs to be shaken not stirred.

First, if you want to look like an idiot, go into a bar and order a martini James Bond style. If the bartender knows anything, he/she should laugh at you and ask you to order something else. A martini is a SERIOUS drinker’s drink. It is mostly gin or vodka, and depending on how dry you want it, mixed with either a splash of vermouth or nothing at all. All alcohol, no fruit juice, no soda, no ice. Why don’t you ask for it to be shaken? Because vermouth is a wine and shaking it will bruise the wine and alter the taste of the drink. Asking for a martini shaken not stirred marks you as a person who doesn’t know jack about a martini. OK, that is a lot of information that you probably didn’t know about a drink that everyone has heard of but almost no one orders anymore.
To me Global Warming as it is known to most people is a lot like a martini. It is mostly politics mixed with a splash (if any) of science. Science has been rolled out as a main ingredient by men like Gore, Al Gore. Al Gore doesn’t know jack about science. We should be laughing at him and asking him to stick to the beer and shots menu. Instead, Al Gore has a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. The tragedy involved with allowing men like Al Gore to direct the environmentalist movement is that most people are genuinely concerned about the environment but don’t know that they are being swindled by politicians.
So what is going on? OK,
#1- There IS GLOBAL WARMING!! Happy now? Why is there global warming? Historically (geologic history, not human history), the planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles. All of the hows and whys are still not clear, even to scientists that have been studying it all of their lives. What I am going off of here is simple observation. The planet is coming out of a cooling cycle and is warming. In fact, if the historic sea level curve is correct, we have a lot more warming ahead of us. OK West, you agree there is global warming, don’t we need to do something??? You bet!! We need to (gradually) move cities back from the coasts and get prepared to farm in Canada. We need to put more effort into controlling tropical diseases which will spread when the tropics spread as the Earth warms. We can actually plan for global warming and sea level rise. Human caused or not, we have global warming. Now, if you want to do a 20 or 30 year study (preferably double-blind, we wouldn’t want it to become political now would we?) of the atmosphere to determine if there is a man made component to the problem, be my guest, but first things first, let us concentrate on problems at hand.
#2- Humanity causes damage to the environment! Wow!, not what you were expecting? I am fully aware of the damage that we do to the environment. For the most part I think that we are moving in the right direction. People are demanding green products and green policies. Companies are responding to that demand. What I think we need to improve on is population control and population density. This is what we are going to be fighting over a lot in the next few decades. The realization that we need to stop damaging the environment needs to be accompanied with an understanding of what contributes to that damage and a plan reduce that damage as much as is economically feasible. Why do I use a term like economically feasible? Because as an environmentalist; unless you are willing to kill yourself to stop yourself from damaging the environment; you must dedicate yourself to minimizing your impact. Remember, a politician asks you what you want, and economist will ask you what you want more. That is what it will come down to. What you are willing to change in your lifestyle and what technology we develop to help with environmental problems will determine what is economically feasible. Now, just in case you think that I am pointing the finger at Al Gore but am a hypocrite myself, I live in a second floor 1000 sq ft condominium and drive a compact car. In my opinion, if everyone else followed suit the amount we consume as a whole would be greatly diminished. The reasoning is that you can only pack a certain amount of crap into a 1000 sq ft condo. :)

Today is the 134th running of the Kentucky Derby. Three years ago over thirty thousand thoroughbred foals were born in green pastures all over the US. This year 19 colts and one filly will run in today’s race at Churchill Downs. One will win. One will set off a storm of speculation about the Triple Crown and if today’s winner can do what no horse has done in 30 years.
That leaves about 31,999 (American Horse Council, 1998) thoroughbred horses that won’t even be footnotes in horse racing history. Some will win other races, many will lose other races. Some will find loving forever homes where they will be treated like champions no matter if they never ran a single race. Sadly, many will be betrayed by the people that bred them, the people that trained them, and the people that invested the soft hope of spring three years ago as foals frolicked with their mothers. Those same foals will have grown into horses that will be sold to kill buyers and slaughtered for human consumption.
Today while you are watching the Kentucky Derby and sipping on a mint julep, I ask that you think about the foals that were born this year that will never race in the Kentucky Derby in three years and will end up in slaughterhouses because of over breeding and an attitude that these animals are expendable. Write the American Association of Equine Practitioners and ask them to renounce their stance that horses bred to be racers, riders, haulers, and lawn ornaments are just livestock animals that deserve no better than to be slaughtered for human consumption.
PS- My thoughts go out to the owners, trainers, breeders and anyone else associated with 8 Bells who was lost during this year’s race.

A matter of faith.

You know that I am a Libertarian and an agnostic. I want to explain why I am both. It all comes down to the fact that I have no faith. My favorite definition of faith is believing what you know just ain’t true. I think Mark Twain came up with that one. I have noticed that I even have a hard time using the word believe. I prefer think or understand.

In regards to religion, why is believing in God so important? What does it do for you? Religion is supposed to answer three big questions.
How did we get here?
Why are we here?
And probably most importantly for the deeply religious people I’ve observed,
What happens when we die?
My question is; why does it matter what happens to us when we die? You’re dead. Period. Religious righters love to preach about loving life and right to life, but what are they doing with theirs? Worrying about what happens to them after they are dead? Wow, they want to make sure more people can be born so they can spend their life worrying about what happens after they die. WHAT? Let’s just leave it that the third important question that religion answers is actually best answered by a FUNERAL DIRECTOR. Will that be buried or cremated? And you ain’t getting anything to go. Looking for Paradise? You better make yours in the here and now!

Science studies the world around us to try to help us understand how we got here and what we can do with what we’ve been given. For me, that takes care of: how did we get here?

Why are you here? You are here to live your own life. Living with the fear of God and in the needy arms of the Church (any Church, Synagogue, Temple, Mosque, or other religious construct) is living your life for someone else. They will tell you that someone else is God or Allah or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The reality is that the someone else is whoever is leading the group and their favorite causes.

OK, I think that takes care of why I’m an agnostic. It’s not that I don’t think there is a God; it’s just that I don’t care. Being an atheist means I have to spend my life trying to prove that God doesn’t exist, no thanks.

Why am I a Libertarian? It is the same lack of faith issue. To believe that government is anything less than evil you have to believe something that you know just ain’t true. You have to believe in altruism. You have to believe that public servants serve the public. You have to believe the politicians are going to do what they say they will. You have to believe that the rules apply to everyone equally. You have to believe…well I think you have to believe an awful lot that just ain’t true.

I am a Libertarian because I will not believe, I have to know. I need to know that the rules apply to everyone equally. I need to know that when I buy something, that I am buying the best thing for my needs, not just believe that the government has the best of intentions when they restricted what I can buy. I need to know who is making the rules, not believing that campaign finance reform can stop the abuse of the system the politicians enjoy or that bureaucrats have any other motive in mind other than CYA when they set out regulations (which is a power given to them when politicians who are too busy abusing their power abdicate their responsibility to the people by giving that power to bureaucrats).

Conservatives???

Cato Institute just ran a series of public opinion polls. In one they asked people if they thought of themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal and received 58% positive response. They then changed the question to include the words "otherwise known as libertarian" to the end of the first question and the positive response dropped to 44%. OK, so people are mostly libertarians but don't want to be called libertarians. Why? is the question the Libertarian Party really need to be asking itself. Even people who would be willing to be identified as libertarians are not registering as Libertarians. Instead they glom on to the false hope that the alliance of so-called-conservative causes known as the Republican Party will really represent their interests. Even after multiple Bush terms that should have convinced them that the Republican Party left them long ago, these Libertarians-should-Be's stay with their unfaithful party.
What do I think the Libertarian Party needs to do about helping the American public with their identity crisis? In this age of consensus I say that the Libertarian Party needs to denounce "conservatives" and Republicans for their lack of economic knowledge or backbone required to institute proper economic policy. The reason many conservatives will never be Libertarians is because they will never sign on to the social liberties that libertarians feel are a critical freedoms in a state that doesn't pose as a victim. The likelihood of overcoming that aversion is very low. Libertarians must find the will to simply walk away from these closed minded people and walk in the direction that follows their principles and hope that the people follow them. As much as it pains me to say this, that includes walking away from Ron Paul now that he has declared that he will not leave the Republican Party (sorry Ron but the remnant is not in the Republican Party and hasn't been for a long long time).
This leaves us with everyone else with their varying levels of economic education. Some people don't even understand that the free trade of goods and services is the only economic system that is compatible with a free society. Some people who could be convinced of that still think that becuase Republicans say they are free-market advocates that any free-market advocate is automatically a corporate shill due to the overly comfy relationship Republicans and corporate America have. I think that it is this almost indelible stain on the free-market name has bled through from the conservatives and has sullied the reputation of Libertarians. Libertarians need to openly declare that the conservative adoption of the free-market name is a sham that they perpetuate purely with the intent to continually abuse the power of their offices and dole out favors to their corporate allies. Now, in case you are thinking that all of this venom is directed at corporations let me clear things up for you. Corporations are not moral creatures (no matter how much they pretend to be, or how much anyone WISHES otherwise) and they will take any advantage they can. If it takes buying politicians to limit their competitors from entering their markets then odds are they are going to do exactly that. What we need to get straight here is that this problem was not created by corporations, it was created by corrupt politicians that ignored the restrictions on government power put in place by the Constitution. The solution is not punishing the corporations but simply taking away the politicians power to play favorites. I think that once Libertarians make this point crystal clear to the economically literate voters that we will have more and more of them choosing to walk along with us down the path to real Liberty embodied in true free markets.

Go Ron!

I cannot believe that it was just days ago that I said that all Ron Paul has to do is hold on until the convention to win the nomination. Today the NY Times breaks the news that John McCain has had an affair, not just an affair, but an affair with a LOBBYIST!!!! Mr. Campaign Finance reform! LOL!!! Unbelievable. Go Ron Go!

Why Ron Paul can win

Right now the media and the Republican party wish Ron Paul would just
go away. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for them Ron Paul
isn't going anywhere. With only two other Republicans left running
for the nomination Ron is not far from winning by default. John
McCain is a RHINO and the party faithful (pardon the pun) know it.
Huckabee came in late and also lacks the reputation of being a solid
free market Republican. It may only take a few leaks about either of
them and Ron Paul will be the only one standing. McCain is more
likely to fall to such an issue and we have seen what kind of muck
governors have in their closets. Time will tell but as long as Ron
Paul is at the convention in September he still has a chance. Stick
in there Ron and good luck.

--
John West

A rising tide lifts all boats - JFK

A couple of notes for the Democrats

I am a Libertarian; therefore you should expect a set of principals to guide any policy I suggest. In this post I will be making a few suggestions to Democrats concerning their policy decisions in the future. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of anything the Democrats represent but only as suggestions to them concerning the detrimental effects of some of their policy decisions.
First, I would ask the Democrats to be careful about the size of the stick they give the government. In specific, they are boasting about socializing health care in this country. As a Libertarian I am completely opposed to this course of action but I know that I am only shouting at a wall when I try to talk to Democrats about the virtues of a market system providing superior health care. So I will take a different tack. Democrats, before you dance in the streets celebrating the triumph of the Everyman in gaining universal (socialized) health care I want you to think carefully about what the Republicans will do with your precious system when (and yes it will only be a matter of when) they regain power in DC. Don't worry about them dismantling it, they are not interested in smaller government anymore. In fact they will look forward to controlling a national single payer health care system, because it will do one very important thing for them, it will remove the need to make abortions illegal. Thats right, no more fighting over Roe vs Wade, or fighting against anti-protest laws at abortion clinics. You will have given them financial control of those clinics and they will simply stop funding abortions in the United States. Even if the Doctors tried to open new clinics to provide abortions as a service, the Republicans would only have to deny them the necessary licenses to open the clinics. Really, what good is universal (socialized) health care if there is any competition from the free market? That's what you really want isn't it? To get rid of nasty free market greed. To get rid of competition becuase that doesn't protect the common good as well as government regulation, right?
Second, with all of the hubbub about global warming and the destruction of the environment that has been saturating the media lately I want to talk to you about the basic core of why we have some of our current environmental problems. Cars are one of your favorite targets. Why does everyone feel the need to drive everywhere? Why can't they walk to where they need to go? The other issue I always hear Democrats complain about are McMansions. Why do people feel the need to be so wasteful? Why do they need such big homes on so much land so far out in the suburbs? Here is a bombshell for you, I agree with you! I abhor McMansions and Hummers. I think they are just as wasteful and abnoxious as you do. However, the reasons for why these things exist are where we part ways. You think it is just about American greed. I think it is becuase people cannot stand to be around other people in this day and age. I think the reason they cannot stand to be around other people is becuase we live in a society not where we are our brothers keeper, but where our government wants us to be our brothers warden. Unfortunately, it is human nature to want to stick our nose where it doesn't belong. I will return to a common idea now. You want to make sure the government has the power to do the things that you want it to be able to do. The problem is, when you give the government that kind of power it becomes a two sided sword that the Republicans happily use to enforce their morality on society. Not to say that Democrats are not willing sacrifice their civil liberties in the pursuit of their Utopia but simply to say that many of the anti-social policies that drive people away from each other come from laws that legislate morality rather than justice. Now imagine with me. Take a bong hit if that will help (I promise not to tell anyone). Imagine a world where people are free to do ANYTHING they want to as long as they do not harm someone else while doing it. ANYTHING. Want to carry guns with you anywhere you go, fine. Want to do drugs out in the middle of a playground, fine. Want to throw a sex party at our place, fine. Want to start a company because you are convinced that you have found THE better mousetrap, fine. Want to do something that you are pretty sure most people will find highly offensive on your balcony in full view of the world, fine. All of those things need to be legal. As long as you don't hurt someone else, go for it. Being offended is not the same as being hurt, grow up. If you are damaging your body, hey, its YOUR body. No one should have the right to demand that you live a certain way for them. It is my belief that if we lived in a society that let you live your life as you see fit without hurting others and a society that was taught to value to resources that we have and wanted to live in the most efficient manner that you would have your Utopia. Urban sprawl would be replaced by compact city centers where people could live and work and shop and play within walking/biking/taxi distances. The biggest barrier to that reality right now is not American greed, its American busybodies.

Outlaw the jerks!

I just want everyone to take a moment for a little mental exercise after listening to the brain deadening news coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech. Everyone has heard the anti gun rhetoric some of you may even spout it religiously. Now for the exercise. Substitute the word jerk for gun. A 9mm jerk was used in the VT killings. This jerk had no business being on a college campus. In fact, there are laws in place forbidding jerks on school property.
I think that puts the problem into better perspective. Right wingers would be the ones on the bandwagon trying to push legislation through for stricter jerk control. While the leftists would be yelling and screaming about how you can't send out the stormtroopers to gather up people because someone reported that they were a jerk or maybe they were just hiding a jerk in their home. Could you imagine some Boulder hippie type out there chanting: "If you outlaw jerks then only outlaws will be jerks!" ?
Something gun cotrol advocates need to consider is that we live in a real world where there are jerks and guns. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of the jerks or the guns. What it will do has been illustrated in almost every school shooting, innocent, law abiding people will be killed at will by jerks with guns.
To both sides I would like to remind you that America is supposed to be a free society. Like anything else there are good points and bad points. This country represents unlimited opportunity and any thing that changes our basic rights affects that. We have to accept that the amazing benefits we get from living in a free society come at a cost. Sometimes that cost must be paid in blood.

Why is Congree acting like Homer Simpson?

Come on and say it with me, NUCULAR. Admit it, its a guilty pleasure to know that you can pronounce a word that our President can't get right. Unfortunately, even though most of Congress can pronounce nuclear properly, it doesn't stop them from messing it up too. We have American and world leaders yelling from the rooftops about how we (which convienently doesn't include them) desperately need to stop using fossil fuels. Now I want to take a quick moment to remind you the Congress didn't need to subsidize Henry Fords production of the Model T in order to alleviate the high numbers of horse buggies in use at the turn of the century. Likewise, if Congress hadn't already placed so many barriers in the way of American business by the end of the century we wouldn't be talking about our addiction to Middle East oil. Its not like the US is lacking in technology and intellect, at least outside of Congress, but with out a literal act of Congress America cannot bring our considerable brainpower to bear on what is being touted as our single biggest problem. Every American should feel at least a little shame when told that France has better nuclear technology in place than the US does. There are currently designs for nuclear reactors that pose no possibility of a meltdown and produce many times the energy that an equivalent weight of coal produces. The Europeans have devised a method for reducing radioactive waste to ash that when used to create glass ingots completely eliminates the possibility of release of isotops into groundwater. So, what is Congress doing to help America harness the answer to our energy dilema? You guessed it! They are not only not helping us, they are standing firmly in our way. I don't want to explore the miriad excuses that the burrocrats may come up with for their gross negligence of science, lets leave it that unless someone actually harms someone else, the government has no business in our business or science for that matter.

What is government?

Why does humanity need government? Simply put, animals kill each other for territory, food, mates. Government should be an understanding among humans that no person can initiate force against another person. Government provides people with a rule of law that provides a clear outline of what is not allowed and what the consequences are for violating the law. Ideally, government should set the rule of law as clearly as possible and then walk away and let the courts provide for the exceptions. Jury nullification should be part of the basic jury instructions for any court. Once the rules are clear the courts can provide for justice, even if justice includes ignoring the rules. The meddling, busy-body mentality of a legislature to set law for every little contingency is micromanaging at its worst and in most cases defeats the rule of law by making the rules too muddled to be enforced. Likewise, forcing courts and juries to use certain standards defeats the use of courts to provide justice. In courts it’s not what is true, it’s what you can prove. Setting barriers in legal procedure means that even less truth can make it into what can be proven.
What does the Constitution need to be?
The Constitution was intended to be the set of rules by which the country was governed. With proper concern for individual rights the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. For whatever reasons, the Founders were not able to set a clear set of rules. What the Constitution needs to be is a clear set of what is legal for the Government and what is illegal for citizens. This clarity is important because what the government should be allowed to do needs to be inclusive while what the citizens are allowed to do needs to be only exclusive.

Muzzle the politicians!

Hey all! The new year is here but the problems with government remain. I am now faced with the nanny state invading my backyard. The town council has decided that a pit bull ban is a good idea. Wrong! Breed specific legislation has been denounced by all of the major animal welfare groups that I was able to find. All of them point out that all dogs can bite. Training and health are much bigger contributers to the tendancy of a dog to bite. If the town council wants to up the penalties for have a dangerous animal or vicisious dog, I'm OK with that. Owners definately need to be held responsible for the behavior of the dogs, but banning all dogs of a specific breed really is the action of an elementary teacher punishing the whole class becuase of the actions of the class clown. It doesn't solve the problem, but it is easy and makes them feel like they have done something. It doesn't make it right.

NASA needs to be grounded, forever.

Mission control- come in mission control. To all of you boys and girls at NASA, slowly push back away from your million dollar toys, the professionals are here to do the job right. That's right, trying to re-launch the shuttle program now is a bit behind the times. Burt Rutan, the White Knight and Space Ship One are the wave of the future. While you were sitting on your thumbs trying to figure out how to keep your jobs, Spaceship One was successfully launched into space TWICE within two weeks and returned to Earth safely. Game over, give it up. NASA had a Cold War fueling the fervor of the 60s and 70s, but the good ol' US of A is back to worshiping the almighty dollar and corporate America is about to hand you your pink slips. There is money to be made in space and the idealistic relic known as NASA is sitting squarely in the way of real innovation. If you want a case of compassionate euthanasia in Florida; PLEASE put NASA out of its misery!
On a different note Farm Aid is back for a concert in Chicago. I wonder if John and the other dozen Mellancamps will be there with their hands out? At least they're asking for cash this time and not preaching about how overtaxing the G-8 nations will make the world a better place.
SOMEBODY TAKE MY GOVERNMENT AWAY!!

Keep your eye on the ball!

American politics can be summed up with the following two words: shell game. The politicians try as hard as they can to get the voters to focus all of their attention on something other than the true objective of the game. Sometimes they give you sex scandals to distract you and other times they simply play with words to get you to think that what they are doing is going to be good for you. The whole idea of campaign finance reform is a great point for the latter. The politicians have more power than they should have, power to make or break people, companies and even countries. That power is a commodity that forms a market where it is bought and sold. The politicians play their little game with you though and sell you campaign finance reform which they tell you will take the money out of politics. They know that they are the problem but have sold you on the idea that money is the problem. Campaign finance reform is now law but it hasn’t taken a dime out of politics. Why? Because the power is still there and there is still a market for that power. The only way to stop the money is to take away the market which means taking away the power that the politicians have marketed for so long. The politicians have also sold you on the idea that making drugs illegal will make them go away. Has it? No, drugs are still available because there is still a demand for them and a very enthusiastic supply base. The only thing the "War on Drugs" has done is make drugs that are dangerous to their users dangerous to everyone around them. Last night I heard that prescription drug abuse has doubled in the last decade. Now abuse of Oxycontin and Ritalin is higher than abuse of cocaine and heroin combined. Which is the way they want it. They don't want you to not take drugs they just want you to take their drugs. For society in general, alcohol is more dangerous than any illegal drug. It causes more domestic violence, more car accidents and more health problems than any other drug out there. The politicians already tried to outlaw it once with disastrous consequences. The same problems this nation had with alcohol prohibition are the same problems we see today with drug prohibition. The politicians have sold us something much more dangerous than drugs, they have sold us the idea that the government can do something about them.

Do fireworks=freedom?

Here we are, another Fourth of July behind us. Every year that I have been alive our government has gained power and individual citizens have lost freedoms. This year as in several years past fireworks were illegal to use in the state of Colorado. Our benevolent dictators once again felt the need to protect the ignorant citizens from themselves. So there I sat last night, all of my patriotic fervor packed into a state sponsored fireworks display. I will be the first to admit that the big fireworks are fun to watch. I would have been all for a few of the guys at the fire department setting up a fireworks fund for the community so everyone here could enjoy the big fireworks as they were set off by trained firefighters. Unfortunately, sitting there watching the fireworks I could not get my mind off of the idea that the dollars spent for those fireworks were forcefully taken by the government. The same government that recently outlawed almost all other fireworks. The government really hates competition when they're stealing from you. The phrase they used for what you could use was "Safe and Sane" fireworks. WHAT?? Fireworks by their very nature are neither. You don't use fireworks in day-to-day life because they are dangerous. People who make blowing things up their jobs don't use fireworks because gunpowder is too unreliable and doesn’t pack enough punch. Fireworks are only a manifestation of our celebratory spirit meant to be miniature recreations of the "rockets red glare...bombs bursting in air". They are dangerous and with every liberty there necessarily comes a responsibility. Too many parents don’t take their responsibility seriously and kids get seriously hurt. It only takes so many pictures of poor little Billy standing their with three fingers left and no eyebrows to open the door for the nannyists to walk in spouting about protecting ourselves from ourselves. And voila!! I'm sitting there on a Fourth of July "enjoying" my local state sponsored fireworks show wondering how much freedom I have left for them to take.

Alan Greenspan: Rock Star!?!

Here it is at last the Live 8 concerts, proudly brought to you by the same people you saw sleeping in the back of your economics class. They don’t want you to give charitable donations this time; they want you to ask your government to tax you out of your money after the government forgives debts to Africa. On that single basis along the debt relief is a bad idea; I for one don’t need more taxes. To make things worse, it WON”T HELP!!! The problem with Africa is not that the people are poor, the problem is that the way the governments work in Africa no one will ever have property or money. The dictator du jour found in most African governments creates instability. The laws in the African countries do not recognize individual property rights. They do not allow for banking systems like they do in the First World nations. Africa is made up of Third World nations not because they lack resources or they compassion of the G8 nations. It is because their governments will not institute laws that allow them to modernize their economies and become First World nations.
Let me attempt a little lesson in logic here. What all of these singers and movie stars are doing is called (in the Latin) argumentum ad verecundiam. Otherwise called argument or appeal to authority. They are singers! When Bono wins a Nobel Prize in economics he can lecture all of us about how debt relief will save Africans from their own governments. Until then as far as I am concerned the only thing Bono knows about economics is that when U2 puts out a new album his bank account grows. I wouldn’t necessarily want Alan Greenspan to put out a new rock album and I definitely don’t want Bono standing in as an economics professor.

Where's the nation going? Why are we in this handbasket?

The Supreme Court has been handing down some interesting decisions lately. One decision came down yesterday that was a 7-2 vote that made it impossible to sue a police department for not enforcing a restraining order. What I heard on the radio yesterday was that during the hearing a Supreme Court justice directly asked the legal council for the police department what an officer’s duty was if they saw a man being beat up by five other men. The response was a bone chilling nothing. That's right, police duties have been reduced to protect their jobs and serve them more donuts. The blue canaries really are not there to protect anyone or to enforce the laws, not unless they feel like it.
The court has been accused of being too conservative or too liberal; I am going to accuse them of something else, being far too pro-government. The Constitution is no longer regarded as a limit on government and instead the legal system is being used to shackle the American people. Government can now do pretty well what it wants to. These non-elected, non-representative officials have tilted the balance of power squarely into the hands of the government. I feel like Obi-Wan yelling at Darth Vader: "You were supposed to bring balance to the Constitution. You were supposed to defeat the nannyists, not become one!!!"
I will offer one piece of advice to the courts and the government in general. Not that I expect any of them to listen. Consider what you are taking away from the American people, because in addition to the rights you are taking away you are also taking away hope. When the people believe they have no hope left they will hand down a decision of their own: secession.

Got Freedom?

Rush Limbaugh has a saying: "Freedom has worked every time it has been tried." Of course he likes to trot that saying out in defense of our efforts in Iraq, but what about here, at home? If you equate freedom with the maximum absence of government then our freedom is in a hurting state of affairs right now. As Limbaugh himself has stated that our federal budget only grows. What politicians call cuts are only cuts in projected growth rates, not actual cuts into any department’s budget. Now we have the Supreme Court deciding that the commerce clause of the Constitution can be projected to include federal prosecution of marijuana users who grow their own plants and never cross state lines. The interstate commerce clause had already been bent out of recognition, now it is totally broken. We have a sitting President who has made his administrations policy one of pre-emptive warfare. If anyone cares about national sovereignty it should be the US, yet our policy is now to INITIATE hostilities towards other sovereign nations. I agree that freedom needs to find its way into every corner of this world but modern nations need to establish means that agree with the intended ends. How do you say we want you to enjoy freedom so we are going to attack your country? There we have it, the trifecta. Our congress is ignoring the constitution, our judicial is breaking the constitution to meet their needs, and the executive branch is invading other countries. You can try to rationalize any of these actions however you would like but you cannot dismiss the underlying truth that the government is ignoring the ground rules this nation was founded on. For the record, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in essence an agreement between the government of this country and the people. It establishes the rights of the people and the limits of the government, not the other way around. The ground rules established by these two documents only protect the people if the people enforce the rules. Americans have taken the path of least resistance and allowed their freedoms to slip away from them. The fight to regain those freedoms will be difficult and needs to start soon before the Great Experiment becomes a footnote in the history books of the socialist future.

Triumph for the weird.

I know everyone and their dog will be chiming in on the Michael Jackson verdict today. However, that will not stop me from throwing in my two cents worth. The way I see it the verdict was a triumph for the weird. People can still stand there and talk all they want to about how an older man shouldn't have young boys in his bed but that is simply a moral judgment and what we saw yesterday was justice. Society has had a hard time distinguishing between the two lately. Too many moral crusaders have used the power of concentrated interests to put into place laws based on morality not justice. After this verdict I don't have a doubt that there will be ugly bills drafted all across our beautiful nation that will specifically say that what Michael Jackson did is a criminal act, not that Jackson would be caught dead living in most of those places. For that matter, I would be surprised if he stuck around the US at all. Given the toll this trial took on his health I can't say that he should feel all that welcome here when his own government tried to take him to task on charges that could not stand up to a trial by his peers. Ten counts, that is how many laws the prosecutor felt he could convict Jackson of violating. Not a meager amount of work involved there. He must have felt he really had the law on his side, didn't he? Or did he simply jump into the arrest and trial of a man he knew he would have a hard time convicting simply because he as an individual felt outrage over Jackson's moral indiscretions? My vote is for the latter. In my opinion, the prosecutor needs to have his decision reviewed by his peers on the bar and if they feel he did not press the charges with the intent of getting an actual conviction, then he needs to be disbarred. This is all assuming that the legal community has the courage required to police their own. We have enough moral crusaders writing the laws, we don't need more of them enforcing the law. The jury found Jackson innocent on all counts, but the peanut gallery of moral crusaders never will because they have, and will continue to confuse morality with justice.