The Global Climate Scam

It looks like the lid really came off the global climate scam this week.

Actually I’ve been on the fence about the science for quite a while. Because I don’t know anything about the models or their data that show global warming or enough about the models or data of those who would refute the warmers, I just have not had a strong opinion about the facts. I just don’t know.

On the other hand, I have definitely been opposed to the eco-fascist policies that have flown like diarrhea from the minds of the political class. Global warming is an excuse for a naked power grab. Funny thing though, if global warming really were happening, the government would be the last entity that I would want addressing it. If the state took responsibility you could guarantee that there would be massive budget overruns, corruption, and absolutely no results. Well, except the degradation of whatever liberty we retain.

But beyond the particulars of this case, the current debacle fundamentally calls into question the validity of the governmental-scientific complex. It’s no secret that governments fund a great deal of the scientific research that is conducted today, and that most U.S. universities are practically branches of the federal government. The conflict of interest inherent in this state of affairs cannot be ignored.

Good science requires honest debate and unending skepticism. Such skepticism should be doubled in the face of government funded research that calls for more government. Government scientists, in fact any scientist, can not be assumed to be unbiased or to have our best interests at heart. Rather like corporate scientists, we should assume that government scientists will come to conclusions that please the hand which feeds them.

Whatever the case, we should demand that the source code of any computer model used to guide public policy be fully disclosed.

Individualism vs Collectivism

by Jeff Wright

We are closing to perigee of the ongoing struggle to find out if the one system can dominate the non-system. The 20th century was a warm-up. Marxist/Leninism will not die. Like a chameleon, it just changes its color from Red to Green to blend into the background. There is a willful part of the human race that always seek to dominate in one form or another. So many “conservatives” accept the paradigm without even realizing the fundamental differences with their supposed principles. So-called “liberals” don’t even realize how much of what they think is so at odds with their own innate nature. To Wit:

“The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.

“Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

“Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

“These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.”

Ayan Rand, 1946

The apotheosis of the green movement into the religion of the times is but one more false paradigm that humans are apparently going to be driven through, as so many cattle, once again. It seems the human collectivists (always and eventually revealed to be some form of insane, meglomaniacal cabal with a single public head) can’t stop creating new forms which attempt to take control over the individual.

From your local HOA, school board, special district, city council, etc., through every level of human abstract political thinking, the forced collectivists that join those bodies always try to wind up at the Big/World Government; the Big Kahuna for their fantasies, the Giant Global Tribe. They are trying it once again through environmentalism and the dissipating remnants of Marxist experimentation of the last century. Fortunately, it will fail again. If not through active opposition, then through its own inevitable, dead-weight collapse. However, they won’t stop trying. No matter how self-evident the individual nature of true human existence, even of those would-be collectivists.

The involuntary collectivists will fail because forced human collectivism is ultimately so comprehensively un-natural. It is against the nature of humans and it is against nature itself. Strangely, it is even against the true fundamental spiritual philosophy of most of mankind, though not against most religious teaching. Much of religious teaching is of collective thinking (an interesting but very explainable phenomena when one thinks of why) that supports the church, not the spiritual nature of humans. Beings that are unalienably created equal are, by definition, individuals who must then be free to practice liberty without imposition of any collective except through voluntary contract.

Many (if not most) people are fooled by the false comparisons of efficient and harmonious colonies operating analogous to ant and bee colonies. The analogy is completely false. Just a short study of ant or bee colonies reveals that they do not operate as top-down imposed organizations. Instead, they operate as distributive, cooperative arrangements between the individuals in the colony. They are successful because the individuals act in mutually cooperative ways with the other members, not in some top-down abstract order.

Unlike human monarchial-, dictatorial-, or even democratic-collectivist regimes, there is no abstract order and organization passed down from above. Instead, each individual in the colony is born with a small set of instinctive instructions that they repeat, based on varying feedback, with other members in order to successfully operate the colony. The small set of 7-10 simple rules allow them to properly react and communicate amongst themselves with no centralized instructions ever generated. And unlike human collectives the insect Kings (drones) and Queens actually perform a vital function for the colony. In human collectives the rulers are parasites and many times generate violence and death for many members of the collective. In the natural world ‘kings’ and ‘queens’ generate life and effectively are actually subservient to the colony in their natural role. They are also not indispensable. If a queen dies, the other members of a colony can create their own queen simply through special feeding of any one of the available remaining larvae.

The natural distributed, cooperative model is very similar to the operation of the global internet (which has millions of distributed, independent switching nodes). It is the reason distributed desktop/internet computing became so successful, so quickly over the centralized-hierarchical mainframe model. As in human collectives the mainframe technological along with the industrial model are subject to single-point-catastrophic-failure (SPCF). Because of that irrefutable fact and its operation, more evident with each passing day, the current industrial and post-industrial model of organization is in fact a dead-model walking and has been obsolete for decades. As in the case of the technological-mainframe model, centralized-hierarchical management and organization models only appear to be successful techniques in their early development and operation. Once they mature, only then does the inherent weakness of the SPCF become readily apparent and demonstrate the need for replacement. However, the power structure is attempting to hold on to that legacy, even as it so clearly and comprehensively is failing right in front of our eyes everyday, every way and in every form. It is also the reason they hate the internet, as it does not allow them to control the distribution of information. The Genie accidentally got out of the bottle and they can’t put it back.

The centralized-hierarchical model is not only fully opposed to our nature, but also antithetical to our Constitutions and law. The Republic was organized and founded based on individual liberty and a distributed, cooperative organization of states, each independent and sovereign in relation to the Republic as is true for each individual in relation to the states and the Republic. Ultimately, the sovereign is the individual and which again is supposed to be self-evident. The extremely limited amount of power that was centralized in the founding was also distributed among seperate branches of the state and federal governments in order for them to remain weak and never be in control of the individuals or states respectively; only to arbitrate and regulate among them for controversy and dispute.

That model has been nationalized in subtle, steady progression since the latter half of the 19th century right along with the industrial model of economy and society. Nationalization is another false paradigm. It has been achieved via illegal operation, political manipulation and the acquiescence of the population and states. These are not only false paradigms, but have “become destructive of these ends” and thus, our nature. Only active awareness and constant focus on their dismantlement will insure their demise in this cycle. However, as others have so clearly stated, it is only through “eternal vigilance” that we can avoid their return, yet again. As Thomas Jefferson so forcefully put it, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

As well, “Give me Liberty or give me death,” is not an abstract political rant. It is the nature of our existence, however cloaked by the current operation of the power structure.

JW

Of Third Party Payer Systems

By the time I turned 16 years old I had learned what is still probably one of the most important lessons of my life – the middle man always gets his cut. He might increase the price, he might dilute the quality, or he might lessen the quantity, but make no mistake he gets his. And that’s okay, he’s providing a service, connecting the person with the demand to the person with the supply. It’s a vital role, but it’s best to cut him out if possible.

Since my wife become pregnant about 9 or so months ago and my daughter was born less than two weeks ago I have been in more doctor’s offices and more hospitals than I have in my entire 32 year life up to that point. My experiences have been mostly good. Care is adequate, although seeing the same doctor in a large clinic from appointment to appointment seems a near impossibility. And they are always late, which is really frustrating. When I make an appointment with someone I keep it. I expect the same. But overall the care we have received is good.

Thing is we were walking out of the pediatrician’s office a few days ago and I was looking at the slip of paper the nurse gave us to check out with. It said that we had racked up $377 worth of charges. And that didn’t even include the current appointment. Wow! They saw my daughter in the hospital, a basic checkup that took less than 30 minutes. Then we came in to their office 2 days later. They weighed her, measured her, and talked with us. Then we came back about a week later and they did it all again. Only at the hospital did we see an MD, the other two times we saw a Nurse Practitioner. We were in the presence of a professional for a combined total of, dare I say, 1.5 hour tops. All for the low low price of $377.

But that’s okay the insurance company is going to get it.

Well I suppose that ’s okay, but it occurs to me, this is all routine stuff. All newborns have these types of appointments. What are we insuring against?

Insurance is a tool to pool risk. For example, if 2 random individuals out of 100 are going to suffer some fate then each of the 100 can contribute a small  amount of money (in proportion to how much each would need to have if he were one of the 2 unlucky ones) to a pool to ensure that the 2 people who will experience the insurable event will be taken care of when said event occurs. This is insurance. It’s spreads risk. It allows us to account for random events.

Newborn checkups are not random events. Pretty much all newborns have them. All newborns should… (No, we didn’t have the Hepatitis-B vaccine for those who are wondering. The CDC has some wonderfully scary propaganda with respect to that one, but that’s another story for another day. We’ll be getting many of the other vaccines.) In any case, all of this stuff is predictable. Insurance just doesn’t make sense. And yet insurance companies cover these things. Why?

If something has a near 100% chance of happening and I pay a third party to “insure” me against its happening, am I not just cutting a middle man into the action? I pay the insurance company, I go to the doctor, the insurance company pays the doctor. Well it’s not that simple. The doctor has billing agents to deal with the insurance companies, and the insurance companies have droves of clerks, managers, executives, and such. All of these people must be paid. And of course, the insurance company itself should make a profit for its shareholders. I do not begrudge them that, but that’s one fat ass middle man.

So wouldn’t it be better if I just paid the doctor cash myself? If all of us did? At least for routine things?

But why would I? My insurance covers it and I pay for my insurance. Then there’s the fact that the insurance is often subsidized or discounted through an employer, and there’s tax benefits to getting it through an employer and they are required by law to provide plans that cover certain things, like newborn visits.

So we pay for the insurance and we use it. I haven’t done any rigorous calculation about what it would take to drop the current insurance, buy a true insurance policy, pay the extra taxes on the money previously used to buy the employer provided insurance, and then find a doctor that was willing to take cash. Of course said doctor would have to be charging a lot less than $150+ per visit. I haven’t figured all of that out. Whatever, given the current system, I am not so sure that it would be cheaper. If my time is worth anything it is especially questionable.

The insurance companies (HMOs) got a hell of a scam going. Granted they still insure in the traditional sense, but they take money on policies and pay for routine things and make (probably a lot of) money doing it. They are just leeches in this process. We don’t need them for this type of stuff. Cutting them out of routine care has the potential to save a boat load of money.

But the deck is stacked against us. Regulations prevent employer’s from offering stripped down policies (it’s a funny thing insurance companies support these regulations), doctors are not in the habit of providing cash discounts (if you don’t use the middle man you shouldn’t have to pay for the middle man), or taking cash at all really. And of course if I buy health insurance on my own I have to pay taxes on the money used to buy it, while on the other hand if I buy it through my employer I get to buy it tax free. That’s a big incentive to buy it through my employer…

So the newborn visits are covered. In this rigged game I have no real incentive to change my behavior. That is, given the rules of the game I’m probably making the best decision possible.

If only we could change the rules to allow for a little more liberty, a little more personal responsibility.  As it it now we have been corralled into a horribly inefficient situation.

But it could be worse, the wonderfully craptacular federal government could be the third party payer.

A Teachable Moment at the Dingell Romulus Town Hall Meeting

by William Bigler

I am a long-time libertarian but a fledgling protestor. I attended my very first town hall meeting Thursday night in Romulus. Representative Dingell was there to address us about the Health Care Bill. To his credit, he withstood our protests and answered a few pertinent questions—possibly from our audience. Before he spoke, there was a little lady who spoke in favor of the bill. During her remarks, she said, “I challenge any of you to look me in the eye and tell me I don’t have a right to health care!”

The room that was more than half-filled with angry, rebellious anti-HC protestors, who had been booing, guffawing, and yelling out rebuffs aplenty to pro-HC crowd members and speakers alike, were notably silent. Nobody took her up on her challenge. She was either born a little person and/or she had suffered some disfiguring disability and complained that she couldn’t get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. I don’t know what silenced us. I don’t know if we felt that it would be picking on the disabled or politically incorrect to challenge a little person. Some might have thought she was correct in her assertion. All I know is that she cowed us all including me.

Now, I am a novice at all of this. I have never been to a town hall meeting before. I tend to be a little shy around strangers and in new situations. This probably comes as a shock to Marianne and Cornelia, two of our Ann Arbor Patriots, whom I had just met a few minutes before. I bet they had me pegged as an outgoing, effusive guy which I was when I met them, but I felt connected to them because we had the AAP’s association so I felt as if I already knew them. In any event, I didn’t react as I wish I would have to the lady’s dare.

Here’s what I wish I would have done. When the lady issued her challenge, I wish I would have stood up, approached her, looked her in the eye, and said: “Here I am, Dear, eye to eye. You don’t have a right to a solid gold Cadillac, to marry Brad Pitt, or to health care. You do have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to try to obtain a solid gold Cadillac, to try to marry Brad, or to try to get health care. But you don’t have a right to health care because the only way you get that kind of right is at the point of gun. You only get that kind of right by turning to that lady next to you, pointing your gun, and saying, “Give me the money for my health care or I’ll take it from you by force and, if you resist me, I’ll kill you to get it.” Now, I’m sure you would never do that, but that is exactly what you’re advocating that the government do to folks every time you say, “I have a right to health care” because those kind of rights only come at the point of a gun. We owe it to one another to be better than that. We owe each other liberty. We owe it to one another not to initiate force to achieve our ends and our government owes it to us to treat us with the same respect for our liberties that we show to one another.”

So, instead of talking about your right to health care, why don’t we talk about non-coercive ways to make our health care better? Why don’t we talk about ways to get the gov’t laws and regulations out of the way of improving our health system? Why don’t we look for ways that we can free up and expand our options and opportunities for better health. Let’s put away the heavy yoke and the pointed gun of government and see what a free market in health care could do if we ever gave it a chance.”

That’s what I wish I had done and said. I’m hoping I get a chance to redeem myself in the future. Then, maybe, when I get to the pearly gates of that great Galt’s Gulch in the sky, Ayn Rand, John Galt, Murray Rothbard, and Harry Browne will reckon that I have made up for past transgressions and will welcome me in.

John Dingell Romulus Townhall

I showed up to the event about 20 mintues early and there was a line forming outside. I was probably about 20 or 30 people or so back. We were informed that the building was full and we were not going to be allowed in. I started talking to the folks around me, most of whom opposed HR3200 (aka the Healthcare Bill). From there we got onto other topics like the corrupt system of central banking that we are saddled with and which is well on its way to enslaving us.

Turns out there was a big anti-Fed guy standing right next to me. I hope I convinced him to sign up for the Campaign for Liberty. In any case he did sign up for my newsletter. I got 3 or 4 new subscribers actually.

We talked and time passed and then I looked back and there must have been at least 250 people behind me in line. Probably more. People with signs and flags and other paraphenalia. The anti-HR3200 people probably outnumbered the pro-HR3200 people by 10 to 1. Also remember there were already at least 250 people in the buliding at this time.

And there were flags and placards and signs. There was a picture of Barack Obama with a Hilter mustache that said “I’ve Changed.” Of course the gadsen flag was on proud display. The anti-abortion crowd was out to as HR3200 would provide government funding for abortions, which really is just abhorent. Of course there were some pro-Obama signs, but so very few in comparison.

After a while folks started to get tired and began leaving, but then the Dingell staffers came out and said he would have a second meeting with those who were still waiting outside.

By this time I had been standing around for a while and the conversation around me was petering out, so I went and got my HR1207 (Audit the Fed) petitions and started getting signatures. So very few people refused to sign and I only got about 1/6 or so down the line before the second meeting started. Still I got 60 signatures or thereabouts. If there had been 3 or 4 more of me I could have had over 200 signatures easy. Auditing the Fed is such a braindead obvious thing to do.

One guy was just abosoutely hell bent on thrwarting me though. For instance he says, “you don’t trust the government so how could you trust the Congress to Audit the Fed?” You just can’t argue with these people. What are you supposed to say, “yeah well, I’d rather we break the US into 50 independent republics?” How well is that going to go over? I cajoled him and he agree to sign the petition. But he just wrote Xs where his signature and address were supposed to be. Uggg.

I saw another girl standing in line with a “Healthcare is  Right” badge on, but still of course asked her, “would you like to sign my audit the Fed petition?” She shook her head. She seemed very lonely, standing there all by herself, unhappy, no friends, so trusting of our Imperial Federal Government. I kept moving. Most of those around her were talking about how corrupt and useless Washington is.

So after all of that I never went into the meeting, but from what I heard it was a typical political dog and pony show. Dingell puts all of his apologists and supporters in the front rows with signs, asks people to write down their questions, cherry picks the questions he’s going to answer and then proceeds to answer. I did hear some chanting from outside and apparently there were some disturbances inside, and some ranting by his constiuents, which I full well support.

I’m sick of the political class regardless of political party. They are abjectly corrupt and inept and they all need to be thrown out. Thursday evening was just another reminder of that.

Honduras Coup: An Act to Save The Honduran Republic From A Hugo Chavez Would Be

by Mitch Cummins

I don’t profess to be an expert at Honduran politics or constitution, but I have been here a while and stay pretty involved with what’s going on in Honduras and especially Roatan. For those that don’t know me, I’m an American investor that has lived in Honduras full time since 2002. I’m very active on several commissions and have met with minister level executives of the Honduran government many times in the past few years.

There have been a lot of comments, descriptions, and hypothesis over the past few days. I’ve spent a LOT of time reading Spanish and English reports, talking to a lot of people on the islands and on the mainland, and listening to the local politicians. I’d like to present my take on what’s happened. This is especially for Nick who’s been posting on the Roatan Tourist discussion group, but hopefully it will help clarify some points for others as well.

Mel Zelaya was elected 3 ½ years ago with an underwhelming 49% of the vote. He was seen as a fairly conservative member of the liberal party. The general feeling when he was elected was that he wasn’t the greatest pick, but his background as a wealthy logger and rancher coupled with his more liberal social policies would probably be OK.

Almost from day 1, Mel started shifting Honduras policies to the left.

Remember when he tried to nationalize the oil industry – forcing all fuel distributors to buy from 1 company so that Mel could control the price? The US rightfully reminded Mel that the US oil companies had a lot invested here and the confiscating of those assets would not be a good thing. Mel changed his mind a couple of days later.

Mel gave away the fishing rights to an area that Honduras has been fishing for decades if not a hundred years. He gave those rights to Nicaragua for nothing – or at least nothing that was ever publicly reported. Mel forgot to mention this transaction to anyone in the country, let alone the fisherman. Guess how the fishermen found out? The Nicaraguan Navy confiscated several boats over a period of a few weeks. The crews on these boats were detained from a few days to a few weeks. Some of the boats were eventually returned to the rightful owners – after paying “fines”. Some of the boats even had the electronics and gear still on board when they were returned to the owners. The Honduran government did absolutely nothing to repatriate these boats.

Mel wanted Honduras to join ALBA – a collection of countries that was formed by Cuba and Venezuela to counteract NAFTA/CAFTA from the US. When this was announced, there was a lot of concern – especially from the business community. I was in a meeting with the local congressman less than a week before it was ratified. The message being sent was that this was just a way to get cheap oil from Venezuela. The congress wouldn’t consider ratifying this treaty for 6 or 8 months and by then Mel would have the oil that he was after. Again, less than a week later Mel got the treaty was ratified by the congress.

Not too long ago, the minimum wage was raised from L. 3,500 per month to L. 5,500. That’s about a 60% increase. I’m not saying that the minimum wage didn’t need to be raised, but this huge increase was 3 times more than the labor unions were requesting (20%) and 6 times more than the business organizations had offered (10%). These increases caused tremendous layoffs on the mainland. Many maquillas (garment factories) began to move to Nicaragua because the cost of business in Honduras had gotten too high. This was another huge drop in jobs. I’ve not seen the actual number of jobs lost
because of the 60% increase in minimum wage, but it was staggering.

The Honduran constitution says that each year the President presents the annual budget to congress for approval. If the approval is not obtained by a specific date (I think it’s the end of January, but am not 100% sure) the budget from last year will be used until the new budget is approved by congress.

Mel never submitted a budget for 2009, hence the Congress can’t approve it so Honduras is operating in 2009 on 2008’s budget.

Now, why would a President not submit a budget? Who knows for sure but one of the possibilities is that 2009 is an election year. Mel would like to stay in power past 2009. The budget in 2008 didn’t include an election, so in essence there is NO money available for the 2009 election because we’re operating on 2008’s budget. There are other theories about hiding graft and corruption, but I would assume that anyone that becomes President in Honduras wouldn’t be concerned about hiding corruption and theft in the budget – he certainly didn’t mind doing it the previous 3 years!

Somewhere along the way, Mel decided to take a lesson from his mentor (Chavez) and arrange it so that he could remain in power for as long as he wanted. There was a little problem with this. The Honduran constitution, enacted in 1982, has 378 articles. 6 of these articles are “cast in stone”, meaning that they can NOT be changed. These 6 articles deal with defining the type of government, territory claims, and presidential term limits. They are the basis of the Honduran democracy.

One other tidbit from the constitution – Article 42, Section 5 says that anyone who is found to “incite, promote, or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” would face loss of citizenship. Remember this one later on in this saga.

To further complicate things for Zelaya, ANY changes to the constitution have to be initiated by the legislative branch. The congress has to convene a constituent assembly. That’s basically a group of people selected by the congress to analyze any proposed changes and form those ideas into the new constitution. After the proposed changes are formulated, the congress would approve them to be put to a national referendum. The executive branch (the President) has nothing to do with that process.

Mel didn’t think that the congress would go along with his ideas of staying in power so he decided he’d call his own referendum. He doesn’t have the authority to do that – remember that constitutional changes can only be done by the legislature AND the term limits are one of the articles cast in stone – but he goes ahead and calls one anyway.

The Honduran Supreme Court says “Sorry Mel, you can’t do a referendum. That’s not within your power as president”.

Mel, or more probably one of his advisors, figures out that if a referendum can’t be done, we could probably do a survey or a poll instead! Great idea – nobody will figure out that the poll that we’re now going to do is exactly the same thing as we were going to do with the referendum.

Damn those people on the Supreme Court! They figured out the ruse! They ruled unanimously that regardless of what you call it, if it acts like a referendum the president can’t do it. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . . .

Mel continues to talk of doing the poll on June 28 regardless of the Supreme Court

The Congress looks at the poll that Mel wants to do and gives an opinion that the poll would be illegal and they will not support it. Remember that Mel’s own political party is in control of the congress.

The Attorney General also analyzes the poll and determines that it is illegal. Over the course of the weeks leading to June 28, the AG reiterates many times that the poll is illegal and anyone participating in the poll would be committing a crime and could be arrested.

Mel runs into another logistical snafu. He needs some ballots printed. The entire political structure of Honduras (except him) has ruled that the poll is illegal. It’s a pretty sure bet that he can’t get the government to print the ballots for an illegal referendum so he asks his buddy Hugo Chavez to print the ballots. Of course Hugo says “No Problem Commrade!”

The rhetoric in the 2 weeks before the “poll” gets tense. Every legal opinion in Honduras says that the poll is illegal. The Supreme Court reaffirms its ruling that the poll is illegal. The Attorney General keeps saying that the poll is illegal and that anyone participating is committing a crime. Mel’s own political party says that the poll is illegal. There literally is not one legitimate group in the country that is siding with Mel about the poll.

Traditionally the military handles the distribution of the ballots and voting materials. The head of the military, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez says that the military will not participate in the poll because the Supreme Court is the entity that determines what is legal and what is illegal in Honduras. The Supreme Court has determined that the poll is illegal, so the military will not participate.

Mel Zelaya promptly fired Romeo Vasquez. The other heads of military (Navy and Air Force) as well as the Minister of Defense resigned in support of Vasquez.

The next day the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Vasquez was fired without reason and demanded his reinstatement. Zelaya refused.

The ballots arrive in Honduras (from Venezuela on a Venezuelan flagged plane). The Attorney General demands that the ballots be confiscated and held at a military installation.

Mel decides that if the military won’t distribute the ballots, he’ll get his own people to distribute them

Mel gets a couple of busses and a few cars full of supporters. They drive to the Air Force installation that was holding the ballots. They forcibly entered the installation and took the ballots. Not only was this “breaking and entering” it was a complete betrayal of a lawful order of the Attorney General

The Attorney General says that the President has committed treason and asks for him to be removed from office. The congress created a commission to  examine Zelaya’s actions and determine if removal from office is appropriate.

A side note here about removal from office. I’m in no way a Honduran constitutional expert, but from what I understand, there’s not a clear means to impeach a sitting president. In a lot of constitutions, the impeachment of a president would be done by the legislative branch. In Honduras, there’s no such structure. There could be criminal charges brought against the president and the trial would be handled by the judicial branch. Not much different than anyone else accused of a crime. I’ve not heard of any provision to temporarily remove a president from office until the criminal charges were adjudicated. What would you do? Let a man accused of treason remain as the sitting president until the trial was completed? That would be insane, but that may be the only choice.

On Saturday, June 27, Mel got most, if not all, of the ballots distributed around the country. The polls were set to open at 7am on Sunday.

The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya. The Congress decided to remove Zelaya. The Attorney General stated many times that Zelaya was committing illegal acts and in fact committing treason. The military determined that the poll was illegal and that their responsibility was to uphold the constitution as opposed to supporting the president.

Early Sunday morning, about 6am, the military went to the president’s house and removed him from the building. He was put on a plane to Costa Rica. This was done to enforce the ruling from the Supreme Court.

This is where Article 42 of the constitution comes into play. The way that I read that article, Zelaya should have lost his Honduran citizenship at this point.

Once Mel had been removed, the President of the Congress (Roberto Micheletti) was sworn in as the new President of Honduras. This was exactly the person that is indicated by the constitution. It was a proper and legal succession of the presidency. The first thing that Micheletti did was confirm that the regularly scheduled elections would be held in November. His post is temporary until the new President was duly elected.

It’s been said all over the press that Mel was arrested in his pajamas. I personally don’t believe that. In an hour he would have been at some polling place to vote and also to motivate those that showed up. This was the biggest day of his life. I’d be amazed if he slept at all I know I wouldn’t be able to. There was one report that Mel was actually in suit pants and a crisply ironed white shirt when he was arrested and he asked to change into other clothes. Quite frankly, I see this as more likely.

I believe that this is an accurate depiction of the events that led to Zelaya’s expulsion on Sunday. If I’m wrong on a any points, I don’t think I’m off by much. The salient points are certainly accurate.

I personally think that it would have been better to arrest Zelaya and hold him somewhere in the country. He was removed from Honduras in the interest of public safety. The feeling at the time was that if he was held within Honduras, his supporters would take violent actions to release him from captivity. It would be a difficult decision and I’m sure the powers that be did what they thought was best.

I have been disgusted at the world reaction to these events. It=92s like they only looked at what happened on Sunday morning and ignored what events led to that day. I don’t understand how the removal of Zelaya was anything less than a small country demanding that their country remain democratic.

Their constitutional process worked exactly right to remove a rogue president with an agenda that was detrimental to the Honduran constitution and society. While the actions of June 28 would fit some definitions of a coup, it was certainly a legal and CONSTITUTIONAL coup. There have been several articles written that state that it was a MANDATORY coup. That’s a very difficult concept for most people from the first world to understand, but there are some coups that are good and even required.

I’ve read so much over the past few days that I can’t remember where I read this, but the author was talking about the events in Honduras. He concluded by stating quite simply that if you find yourself aligned with Castro, Chavez, and Ortega – you should REALLY look at where you’re standing.

I think that the Hondurans should be honored for what occurred. I know that I’ve never been prouder of a group of people than I’ve been of Hondurans the past several days. Instead of being isolated from the world and denounced as being “anti-democratic” they should be lifted on the shoulders of all free men around the world. I’m sure that there are plenty of people in Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea that would LOVE to hear the story of what a small country can do to ensure democracy lives in their society for their children to enjoy. That is if the people in those countries ever hear of the great accomplishments of a small third world country with ideals and principals larger than the “democratic showcase” of the first world.

=B7         On Saturday, June 27, Mel got most, if not all, of the =
ballots
distributed around the country. The polls were set to open at 7am on =
Sunday.

=B7         The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya. The Congress =
decided to
remove Zelaya. The Attorney General stated many times that Zelaya was
committing illegal acts and in fact committing treason. The military
determined that the poll was illegal and that their responsibility was =
to
uphold the constitution as opposed to supporting the president.

=B7         Early Sunday morning, about 6am, the military went to the
president=92s house and removed him from the building. He was put on a =
plane
to Costa Rica. This was done to enforce the ruling from the Supreme =
Court.

=B7         This is where Article 42 of the constitution comes into =
play. The
way that I read that article, Zelaya should have lost his Honduran
citizenship at this point.

=B7         Once Mel had been removed, the President of the Congress =
(Roberto
Micheletti) was sworn in as the new President of Honduras. This was =
exactly
the person that is indicated by the constitution. It was a proper and =
legal
succession of the presidency. The first thing that Micheletti did was
confirm that the regularly scheduled elections would be held in =
November.
His post is temporary until the new President was duly elected.

=B7         It=92s been said all over the press that Mel was arrested in =
his
pajamas. I personally don=92t believe that. In an hour he would have =
been at
some polling place to vote and also to motivate those that showed up. =
This
was the biggest day of his life. I=92d be amazed if he slept at all =96 =
I know I
wouldn=92t be able to. There was one report that Mel was actually in =
suit
pants and a crisply ironed white shirt when he was arrested and he asked =
to
change into other clothes. Quite frankly, I see this as more likely.

=20

I believe that this is an accurate depiction of the events that led to
Zelaya=92s expulsion on Sunday. If I=92m wrong on a any points, I =
don=92t think
I=92m off by much. The salient points are certainly accurate.

=20

I personally think that it would have been better to arrest Zelaya and =
hold
him somewhere in the country. He was removed from Honduras in the =
interest
of public safety. The feeling at the time was that if he was held within
Honduras, his supporters would take violent actions to release him from
captivity. It would be a difficult decision and I=92m sure the powers =
that be
did what they thought was best.

=20

I have been disgusted at the world reaction to these events. It=92s like =
they
only looked at what happened on Sunday morning and ignored what events =
led
to that day. I don=92t understand how the removal of Zelaya was anything =
less
than a small country demanding that their country remain democratic. =
Their
constitutional process worked exactly right to remove a rogue president =
with
an agenda that was detrimental to the Honduran constitution and society.
While the actions of June 28 would fit some definitions of a coup, it =
was
certainly a legal and CONSTITUTIONAL coup. There have been several =
articles
written that state that it was a MANDATORY coup. That=92s a very =
difficult
concept for most people from the first world to understand, but there =
are
some coups that are good and even required.

=20

I=92ve read so much over the past few days that I can=92t remember where =
I read
this, but the author was talking about the events in Honduras. He =
concluded
by stating quite simply that if you find yourself aligned with Castro,
Chavez, and Ortega =96 you should REALLY look at where you=92re =
standing.

=20

I think that the Hondurans should be honored for what occurred. I know =
that
I=92ve never been prouder of a group of people than I=92ve been of =
Hondurans the
past several days. Instead of being isolated from the world and =
denounced as
being =93anti-democratic=94 they should be lifted on the shoulders of =
all free
men around the world. I=92m sure that there are plenty of people in =
Cuba,
Venezuela, and North Korea that would LOVE to hear the story of what a =
small
country can do to ensure democracy lives in their society for their =
children
to enjoy. That is if the people in those countries ever hear of the =
great
accomplishments of a small third world country with ideals and =
principals
larger than the =93democratic showcase=94 of the first world.

The Declaration of Independence

by Thomas Jefferson

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Are You a National-Socialist and don’t know it?

by Jeff Wright

There’s a reason why secessionist talk still runs through American discourse–America was born of secession.  Today, what’s looked at as fringe, was mainstream when the country was founded and for about 30-40 years.  Then it all started to break down.  The breakdown proceeded through the Civil War and then accelerated in the late 19th Century.

However, there’s also a very practical down-to-earth reason secession remains of interest:  Large, centrally-controlled entities simply don’t work in the long-run, they are ultimately highly inefficient (even though appearing for awhile to be efficient) and they tend to break up on their own anyway.  Actually large, centrally-controlled organization is mostly an artifact of 19th and 20th century industrialization that has likely run its course for both business and government.  It is gasping for air in the throes of its own disassembly.

It should be obvious that America was not founded as a large, centrally-controlled anything.  The states were meant to be their own mini-countries, the “laboratories of Democracy,” tied together in a loose federation having minimal centralized and very limited functions.  That distribution of power and control was meant to be the strength of America, with individual freedom and liberty the hallmark of our former country.

That model changed after the Civil War and into the industrial age as the power aggrandizers and despots started seeking ways to drive centralized control into the country and the move towards “nationalization” proceeded.  That’s when references to the United States changed from “are”  (as in “the United States are…”) to “is.”  It was becoming a single “thing.

The distorted homogenization and nationalization of the country has proceeded virtually unfettered throughout the 20th century as opportunists took advantage at every turn of fortune and misfortune to make nationalism the centerpiece of the citizen’s thoughts of their former state and country.

We are now beginning to see the weaknesses and the danger in having large, centralized control structures in banking, finance, and economic planning of any type.  Soon will follow with the inherent weaknesses of such structures of governance.  Such systems may not fail often, and indeed can appear to be highly successful for a time, but when they do fail it is catastrophic because it fails everywhere, all at once.

Today, most Americans erroneously think in completely nationalistic terms about the United States as “one nation, under God, indivisible…”  Even the pledge of allegiance, from which the term flows, was the creation of a Fabian Christian Socialist by the name of Francis J. Bellamy whose mission was to get Americans to think in more nationalistic, socialist terms (look it up! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy).  The phrase, “and to the Republic, for which it stands…” is completely oxymoronic to the line that follows it with virtually no one questioning the obvious fallacy.  Long practice and constant recitation have embedded it deep into the conciousness of the population in a way that will make most react violently to the truth of its origin and meaning.

It would appear Bellamy and many others have succeeded.  It is complete historic irony that most people think it approaches blasphemy not to stand and commit such a nationalistic act as reciting the “pledge” en masse.  Speaking ill of the “pledge” can start a fight with almost any citizen today.  The brainwashing is that complete.  Just think about how your mind is already working for ways to justify maintaining “our sense of the nation” rather than our country.

A population that thinks in nationalistic terms is much easier to control as it behaves in massively conforming ways easier to manipulate and frighten into following the central “authority,” usually with unthinking obedience.  However, that is not the country the founders intended or in any way wanted or died to secure.  That is specifically the transition from a country they sought to avoid.

For the moment, the nationalists have won.  Nationalism has spread to virtually every corner of thought and speech throughout the country.  Just as “our Democracy” has substituted for “our Republic.”  The true independent, free-thinking and law-abiding American is now looked upon as, at minimum, highly unusual.  At worst, they are looked upon as actually dangerous to “social order.”  That is the result of 150 years of creeping, insidious nationalism.  There is hope that in the ongoing failure and natural disassembly of the current centralized system of control and power that a return to historic and fundamental American values will be resurrected.  At this point, it is only a hope.

The Fed and Iran

by B.J. Lawson

I hope you are enjoying a beautiful and bountiful summer. We’ve just finished up the political organizing season with an interesting NC GOP convention, and we’ve been taking some family time to get our personal house (well, gardens really) in order while preparing for what’s next.

There’s more to come on both of those fronts, but I wanted to drop a quick note on recent events with some good news. Just this week the Obama Administration presented its plans for (re)regulating the financial system, and Treasury Secretary Geithner was defending the proposal on Capitol Hill yesterday.

As you might imagine, educated observers are not impressed. Perhaps the greatest oxymoron is giving the Federal Reserve additional authority as a “systemic risk regulator,” despite its demonstrated incompetence in preventing, predicting, or even recognizing systemic risk of its own creation over the past two decades, culminating in our current crisis.

Despite the Fed’s performance as grounds for skepticism, I still run into people who are comfortable placing more trust and authority in our central bank. Apparently its placing $15 trillion of public funds at risk in one year (yes, that’s around our total GDP) isn’t reason enough to seek more fundamental reform. How can that be?

Helpful hint: when you find folks who articulately defend the status quo, and don’t think transparency and accountability need apply with money and banking, ask for their resumes. Chances are they have spent more time benefiting personally from the system than understanding and experiencing its undesirable side effects.

The good news, however, is that our fight for Federal Reserve accountability is bearing fruit. H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, now has 234 cosponsors — that’s a majority, with broad bipartisan support.

Given our recent success, it’s no surprise that the Federal Reserve is hiring veteran lobbyist Linda Robertson to represent its interests on Capitol Hill — the ultimate irony is that Ms. Robertson is best known for heading Enron’s lobbying office before its 2002 collapse. Clearly, hiring Enron’s former lobbyist means we’re making progress!

On another encouraging note, I hope you’ve been able to follow the revolution unfolding in Iran. Despite media restrictions, courageous Iranian citizens are documenting their growing uprising against tyranny via cellphones, video cameras, and intermittent Internet connections.

While it’s dangerous to draw conclusions from real-time blogs, cell phone videos, and Twitter, there are some encouraging signs. For example, we continue to see graphic videos of beatings and shootings by the private militia loyal to the current regime as they seek power through fear and intimidation. As the  crowds have swelled, however, some of these Basij militia are now covering their faces to avoid retaliation by protesters.

As our Independence Day approaches, I do hope our Supreme Court is watching the videos of home/dorm invasions, beatings, and killings by the Basij militia. As noted by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, the purpose of our Second Amendment has never been clearer.

Tea Parties and All That Jazz

It has been an interesting week. Another rape, err tax day, come and gone. But this time there were some surprises. Looks like some folks have had enough. So they held Tea Parties. Sadly I had a meeting and couldn’t make it to Lansing, but that’s not going to stop me from offering up my opinion on the whole matter.

First I have found it very entertaining how the folks at the New York Times, CNN, and other dinosaur media outlets have been downplaying the significance of this. It must scare the crap out of them to see so many people that disagree with them getting together. So they deny and disparage and hope that the storm will blow over. They call these folks stupid, mildly racist, and other names so as to prevent themselves from having to think.

They ask: “where were these people when Bush was on his spending spree?” And frankly I wonder the same thing because I know where I was and I know where many of my friends were. We were trying to get Ron Paul elected! Meanwhile I know damn well many of these Tea Party people and their ilk were actively thwarting us. I can only hope that they will come around and realize that interventionism abroad begets interventionism at home and vice versa. Simply, Constitutional government is incompatible with imperialism abroad.

In any case if we’re pointing out hypocrisy I feel compelled to ask where the anti-war left is now that Obama has been elected? He is pursuing policies that are nearly identical to Bush’s. In some ways he’s even accelerating them. Where are you guys? Anti-war one moment and apologists for your team the next. You have no principles. You make me sick. Perhaps one day you will realize that interventionism at home begets imperialism abroad, that socialism is incompatible with peace, that it is at its very core a horribly violent ideology.

But to get back on topic, there is some truth to what CNN and the dinosaurs were saying, because of course all good lies must contain a kernel of truth to be effective. It was pretty obvious that the right wing establishment was trying to harness this, despite the fact they say “this is all grassroots”. I’m sorry when Fox advertises a rally and proclaims its grassrootiness out of one side of their mouths, while out the other side of their mouths they are telling you to attend…  Well one just has to step back and wonder: “What the hell is really going on here?”

Yeah, of course the Republicans want to harness all of this disgust with spending. They want to be back in the seat of power controlling the spending. Who wouldn’t want to be in charge of a 13 figure budget? Really, a trillion dollars can buy a lot of things…

Seriously though, let’s not forget that the Republicans are responsible for doubling our nations public debt over the course of the last six years. Let’s also not forget Reagan’s horrific record when it comes to being thrifty. Despite the talk they just do not deliver, not fiscally. Not on anything really. Just consider the bi-annual pro-life dog and pony show. Tell me, after 30+ years of this, what exactly does the pro-life community have to show for voting Republican?

Despite their rhetoric the Republican Party has never delivered the small government goods. But I guarantee you they’ll be just like the guy that beats his girlfriend. They’ll be like: “Take me back baby. I promise I’ve changed. I’ll be good to you from now on.” That day will come and to all of you out there who are as disgusted as I am. We have to call bullshit. If the Republican Party captures this disgust and just uses it to spring back into power and then just gets back to their same old tired act, then this whole thing will have been worse that a failure. If we want to use the Republican Party as a vehicle for this disgust, we’re going to have to clean house. Big time.

So CNN was saying that the whole thing was staged, and Fox was touting its grassrootiness. At the end of the day it was both. The very act of Fox promoting it made the event lose some credibility in my eyes, although the irony appeared lost on them. CNN called bullshit. What they both failed to notice was Ron Paul’s mark on this event. Have a look at some of the pictures. Do you see the signs about the Federal Reserve? Do you see the Campaign for Liberty Signs? Do you see even the few Ron Paul signs? Yeah, we were there and we reject out of hand both the CNNs and Foxes of the world.

We got out there, we talked to people, we informed, we spoke to the root causes of our current predicament and to the solutions, which are simply a return to the core principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Words can not describe my level of happiness to see so much anti-Federal Reserve material on the TV over the last few days. The message is getting out there. It stirs up some hope in my cynical bones. Sadly there wasn’t too much actual reporting on that aspect of things. Instead the mainstream news wasted their time debating the grassrootiness of the whole event and how this was or wasn’t a big Republican con job.

Seriously though, who cares, we have to stop accepting the way the mainstream media frames these debates, which they do either because they implicitly endorse the duopoly, because they are shallow thinkers, because they are lazy, or a little from columns A, B and C. Either way this left/right, Democrat/Republican box of out-dated generalizations that is so representative of our country’s semi-retarded political debate has to go. It only serves to obscure the important issues. Smash this box. Then burn it. Then bury it. Then proclaim good riddance to the left/right box of claptrap. I hope that the Tea Party goers who have not already come to this realization will eventually, preferably sooner than later.

In the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald: “Either you think—or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you.” It’s well past time to start thinking.