First encounter with the iphone

Cost of ditching work for an afternoon: $70

Cost of buying the latest and greatest cell phone: $600

The feeling you get opening the box for the first time: you know the rest

Yoga with Tara Stiles, Ford Model

Puppies are cute (part 2)

Gimme my money back

Outraged about the scamnesty garbage that is being marketed as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform?" If you donated money to the RNC here's a solution:

Why Ron Paul should be President (reason 2,342)

I actually think Cavuto's head is going to explode at the thought of a different way to look at the income tax (not that his head isn't gianormous already):

Cover song of the week

Ben Folds doing Dr. Dre's "Bitches ain't Shit"

Why Ron Paul should be President (reason 2,342)

If YOUR Presidential candidate is not saying something like this, he's probably a fascist and wants to make you his/her slave.

Tamper Proof National ID cards

Another thing that Giuliani has been advocating is this idea of a national ID card. It shows how far the GOP has come that this is even up for discussion as a plank in a party that Goldwater and Reagan once epitomized. Here is my opinion on a National ID Card in response to a couple of Newsmax.com opinion pieces that showed up here and here:

The idea of a "fool-proof, tamper proof ID" is silly on its face. Set aside for a moment the obvious un-Constitutionality of having such an ID. The "fool-proof" and "tamper proof" characteristics for an ID would last about as long as it would take for a criminal enterprise to make their own, or steal the equipment to make their own, or hack into the database that would store our citizens info. Think about the HD DVD encryption code that was recently hacked and posted online. A private enterprise spent years and untold millions developing that technology to secure their information. The code for it was posted on the internet and all of that work was rendered useless. I'm a conservative and I don't think government could do any better (government would be able to spend more money, but the end result would be the same). Nothing is fool proof, or tamper proof, banks still get robbed, cars still get stolen if the incentive for doing so is great enough and the risk in doing so is acceptable. I believe that being able to access the personal information of every single one of our citizens in a national database would be invaluable and ripe for abuse and fraud and exploitation, by an individual, a criminal enterprise, or a government (our own or someone else, see the cyberwar between Russia and Estonia as only the latest example)

My solution for solving illegal immigration? Decidedly low tech: A) build the wall (the one Congress authorized but did not fund). B) eliminate the minimum wage - let our own citizens compete for the jobs that employers want to hire illegals for. The argument goes that illegals do jobs that our citizens won't do. The reality is honest employers can't hire someone whose output is worth $3 per hour if they have to pay them $7. C) Go after employers who hire illegals D) bring back Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" E) this could go with B - eliminate all entitlements for illegals, welfare, Social Security, schooling, etc. My solutions try to eliminate the incentives for illegals to cross the border for economic reasons. Terrorists who want to sneak into our country and attack us? That's a whole other response.

Christopher Hitchens flips the bird to Bill Mahers audience

Hitchens nails Mahers audience and doesn't even care. That's awesome:

Yoga with Tara Stiles of Ford Models

I gotta admit this about Tara Stiles. She's a model, into yoga, if she were into politics and economics and the Constitution and could cook I'd marry her.

The CIA's "Family Jewels"

Kidnapping, illegal wiretapping, "behavior modification" programs and experimentation on unwitting citizens, assasination plots, all of it sounds straight out of a Robert Ludlum novel. Not quite, it is the work of the CIA. Recently released documentation of the "Family Jewels" show that all the kooks might be right.


The release from the National Security Archive and additional documentation.


I'm just waiting for the press conference where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in his full on General uniform with all the medals to roll out a little red wagon with a blanket over the top and for him to pull it off exclaim "Yes, it's also true, we are not alone in this world!" and then ET comes out.

If only the hatemail I recieved was this creative

So Michael Savage's fans are emailing C-Span for something or other. Here's the hatemail Brian Lamb is getting:



Haha, ass-loser communist. lol. Brian Lamb said ass loser.

Where we going?: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 06/21/07

Where we going?: GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 06/21/07

The big question is, and I hope yes is the answer, is, will all of this internet popularity translate into actual votes?

What do you get when you once weighed 400lbs and lose it?

A whole bunch of leftover skin.

I gotta give kudos to the guy for losing all that weight...(link here with pictures)

MacGyver lesson of the week

Ping Pong Gun - The funniest videos clips are here

Yoga with Models

Yoga for Jocks courtesy of Tara Stiles, Ford Model:

Bob Barker on Sportscenter???

Beth and Val are hepatitis flexible yay!

Beth And Val on Paris Hilton

These girls make me laugh, I'd make retard babies withem, both, at the same time.

A quaint lesson in history

According to this AP article, there is a boutique hotel in Germany that has as its theme "East Germany, 1985":

The four clocks behind the reception desk of Berlin's new budget hotel
Ostel show the hour in Moscow, Berlin, Havana, and Beijing. Time, however,
appears to have stopped here sometime before 1989, when communism was still
entrenched in all four capitals.

The Ostel offers a renewed whiff of life in the former German Democratic
Republic, welcoming travelers with portraits of communist leaders adorning the
walls.

Furnishings — except for mattresses, bed linens, sink and toilets — are the
real thing, dug up by founders Daniel Helbig and Guido Sand from flea markets,
friends, family and eBay.

And once again, freedom, capitalism and the free market prevail.

What's wrong with the Siege at Ed and Elaine Brown's House?

Whether you agree or not with the position that Ed and Elaine Brown have taken regarding the income tax there will be some sort of resolution to this situation. It is not without a hint of irony that New Hampshire, the live free or die state, is the setting for a showdown between the government and its citizens. Like it or not, the way that the government handles this should be scrutinized as thoroughly as possible because, truly, if the government comes knocking at your door, this could be what to expect.

Why would Randy Weaver, of Ruby Ridge fame, be compelled to meet up with the Browns? What circumstances justify the use of SWAT teams, snipers, helicopters, etc. for a couple with no history of violence? Sure, they are telling the government to go fuck themselves, but isn’t that part of our national character? There is a peaceful way to settle this standoff, according to Ed and Elaine, show them the law. Why doesn’t the government just show them the law?

There is something more insidious at work here. It is the not so subtle message that you can’t tell the government to pound sand and get away with it. Sure, the government is okay with subsidizing urine soaked crucifixes as artistic expression, but demand them to show you which law you are breaking and you aint gettin’ nuthin. It is the ultimate statement of arrogance on the part of the government. We as citizens should be as, if not more, outraged at this situation as we are about the comprehensive immigration garbage that is being shoved down our throat AGAIN. Following is a link o rama regarding Ed and Elaine:

WMUR is a local TV station with video on Ed and Elaine Browns public statement today

We the People has an overview of what has led to this standoff

Here's the official myspace profile

This is an AP wire story on the Browns and Randy Weaver

Danny Riley is a friend of the Browns who was literally walking the dog and stumbled on government snipers casing the Brown residence. Here's his video account of his encounter with the feds. He got tasered, he was held for questioning and then admonished not to talk about his experience to the press.

Ed and Elaine Brown

Doug Powers of Worldnetdaily on the Ed and Elaine Brown siege:

The terms "fortified compound" and "tax evasion" usually seem to go hand-in-hand in stories such as these. "Fortified compound" is a term applied by the government for psychological reasons that is repeated by the media out of
psychiatric reflex.
The government has trillions of dollars, tanks and armies of heavily armed individuals at their disposal. Our politicians have access to around the clock protection and bunkers that can withstand a direct nuclear strike. Not only that, but try running into any mainstream media building in New York or Los Angeles without being tackled by armed guards and tasered until your nose gives off a 75-watt glow.

But a married couple who lives in a six-bedroom colonial that might have an extra bolt on the door are the ones who the government and media says have a "fortified compound." The government and media parrot terms such as "fortress-like home" to imply paranoia, which implies mental illness, which implies there's a good reason for the government to move in and save the "fortified compound" dwellers from
themselves and the rest of us. What's gone wrong?

Puppies are cute

Durham DA Mike Nifong resigns

Good riddance. This whole Duke Lacrosse story should be made into a movie of the week. I feel for those boys who were falsely accused and put through a year long hell. I'm wondering if the cops investigating the "crime" are facing justice as well.

Durham in Wonderland is the blog of record for the whole sordid affair. Good work KC Johnson!

UPDATE:

Nifong guilty and to be disbarred:

District Attorney Mike Nifong will be disbarred for his disastrous prosecution
of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape, a disciplinary committee decided Saturday. Even the veteran prosecutor said the punishment was appropriate.

Such an egregious abuse of his prosecutorial powers and judgement. This should be the least of his worries, could there be criminal prosecution? what about any civil litigation? I'm hoping.

And people want more government?

For those wondering how free a country we live in, Reason magazine has an excellent recounting of the events surrounding Ruby Ridge and Randy Weaver:

The eight-week trial of Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris grew out of such a bizarre set of circumstances that it’s not surprising it took a while for the jurors to sort things out. It probably also took them a while to come to grips with the idea that government agencies could so blatantly engage in entrapment, lying, cover-ups, and the killing of innocent people. As one alternate juror, excused before deliberations were completed, put it: "I felt like a little kid that finds out there is no Santa Claus"

Here's video with Randy Weaver and his daughter years later.

One of my favorite campaign ads

I like this:

Keith Olbermann is a Hypocrite

In response to Maximus' post below:

Does Olbermann, et al, make a good point about habeas corpus? Yes. However, his perspective on this issue is completely at odds with his political belief system. Here's how:

Generally, there are two types of rights, rights that are protected by the Constitution and rights that are granted by the Constitution. As an example, the Constitution grants Congress has the right to coin money. This is not a right that is inherent to Congress or any group or individual, but rather is a right that is granted by way of the social contract that we call the Constitution. As a people, we have agreed to allow Congress the right to coin money. However, the Constitution protects our rights to freedom of speech and religion. These rights do not derive from the Constitution, but rather are rights endowed on us by the Creator.

Typically, liberals think of the Constitution as granting rights to individuals, when in reality it merely protects them from being infringed by the government. An excellent example of this is every liberals interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They believe that the 2nd amendment only grants rights to militias to carry weapons, but in reality, it is designed to protect our inherent right to protect ourselves from aggressors, be they individuals or in government, from infringement by the government.

Now, apply this to the habeas corpus issue. Olbermann seems to make a fundamental, inherent rights argument by claiming that the government is infringing on the rights of a non-citizen by not allowing them habeas corpus proceedings. Since someone apprehended in Iraq who is not a US Citizen would not be subject to the US Constitution, his argument would mean that the rights associated with habeas corpus (confront accuser, know the charge, speedy trial, etc.) would derive not from the Constitution, but from the Creator. The problem is that you can't pick and choose which rights the Constitution grants to individuals and which it protects from government. Our rights as individuals do not derive from government, but exist as a consequence of our humanity. This makes him, and all others who attack this issue on these grounds while not having respect for other Constitutional protections, a hypocrite. Check out this link for a hysteria based commentary on the disbelief that the Constitution grants the right of habeas corpus. A telling line for my point is the last line of the essay.

There is something a little more nefarious going on here, though, and it is the reason why I can't agree completely with Keith that all of the enemy combatants should be allowed to utilize habeas corpus. For the last 50-60 years, liberals have realized that they cannot change policy to match their views through the political process. As a result, they have appointed sympathetic judges, who have lifetime appointments, and similar political beliefs. These judges also have no qualms about ignoring the text of the Constitution to achieve a political end, as evidenced through Roe, Newdow, and many other cases in recent memory. These are the judges who would be hearing the habeas corpus claims, and Olbermann knows it. This means a great many individuals who pose a danger to this country, or who have information about pending terrorist plans or the locations of terrorist leaders will be released because it furthers the political agenda of the liberals.

Finally, if Bush had gotten a declaration of war from the Congress, this may be an issue for debate, but the Constitutionality would not be up for discussion, since during a time of war, the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus almost without oversight.

Follow the Money

Curious how much money your candidate has raised?


http://www.fecinfo.com/2008presidentialpotentials.htm


Has all of the info for last quarter.


According to this article: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192&fb=1

Ron Paul has raised a crapload of money since the first GOP debate:

Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands -
but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of
support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign
say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he
had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below

$5 million in 2 months? Let's see, when I'm not spamming online polls, I send money. My check for $2.5 million just cleared. Since me, Pat Buchanon and Bill Maher are Ron Paul's only supporters, that means Pat and Bill had to come up with the difference.

Keith Olbermann is a douchebag

but he does have a point about habeaus corpus:

Who's most likely to take Jack Bauers place

in that Chinese prison? Probably this woman:

A young clerk with no knowledge of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown
allowed a tribute to victims slip into the classified ads page of a newspaper in
southwest China, a Hong Kong daily reported on Wednesday.

The rest of the article is here.

D Day

Normandy




This was a project by an eighth grader!

The Third Republican Debate

Wolf Blitzer is a douchebag...

Watching the debate online was pretty cool with the different pipelines available.

Ron Paul didn't get enough time on camera.

Rudy McRomney is like the big budget summer blockbuster that has major marketing and starpower and the big opening weekend. But you walk out of the theater after spending $40 and are thinking "the movie was OK". The message being, yeah the special effects were cool but it wasn't that great.

Ron Paul is the indy film with the cachet of being esoteric or not as well known. But, once you see it, you realize the message is right on. And it sticks with you, and inspires you and shows you something you've maybe never seen before. That is greatness.

The end.

The Daily Show

John Stewart's ClusterF@#K To The Whitehouse


Ron Paul interviewed by Jon Stewart

Paris Hilton vs Sarah Silverman

For a moment, I had a twinge of sympathy for Paris Hilton as Sarah Silverman unloads on her at the 2007 MTV Movie Awards last night. Then I remembered that Paris Hilton is a pretty shitty person. If I were a comic with a national forum and a chance to goof on someone who is a no talent, droopy eyelidded, self indulgent, no shame having, self absorbed, famous for having sex on camera and posting it on the internet coke whore. I would think that that would be like manna falling from heaven.

For the record, I think that Sarah Silverman has gone up 6 gazillion points in my book. In about a minute, she eviscerates Paris Hilton and reduces her to the verge of tears:

The Democratization of Porn

The Webpreneur.com has a snippet about the tough times that the porn industry is going through right now (the whole post is here):

According to a New York Times article today, it has become more challenging to make money in the porn industry. Why? Thanks to online sites such as PornoTube and YouPorn (not work safe sites), porn enthusiasts have begun filming their own movies at home and uploading them to free sites. This shift in porn consumption has caused a 15 percent decline in pornographic video sales and rentals. And you thought music companies had it tough

So there's porn on the internet? And you can get it for free? Wow, I only use my high-speed internet connection to keep in contact with my friends and to do research on rehabilitating and raising orphaned panda bears...I could never imagine trying to do a google search on videos of college freshman sorority lesbian coeds on spring break in Cancun...I wouldn't have imagined that if you did that, you would get ANY results...

Jail Time for Uploading '24'

I hope that CTU has set up a perimeter for this dangerous criminal. Apparently, Jorge Romero gained access, through the Internet, to the first 4 episodes of '24' before they aired this season, and he uploaded them to another website which made them publicly available. Under a new law, signed by President Bush in 2005, this is now punishable by large quantities of jail time and enormous fines. This guy could go to jail for three years for uploading these TV shows.

This shows how disproportionate the punishments for copyright infringement have gotten compared to the damage caused. If this guy had stolen the tapes from Real Time Studios (the production company for '24'), as long as he didn't try to upload them to the Internet, it would probably be considered petty theft. However, upload them to the Internet, and all of the sudden, it's a major felony. The kowtowing of the US Government to the RIAA, the MPAA and the TV studios (content owners) is really unlike any other industry in America.

Also, it's not as if Mr. Romero was a person who had special access given to him by FOX or Real Time Studios. According to the story, he actually found the episodes on another website, which means he wasn't the first to have them on the Internet. The moral is clear: repeatedly drive drunk and with a suspended license, go to jail for 23 days. Upload a TV show to the Internet, throw away the key.

Update: Check out this link for a partial list of congresspeople who take the blood money from the RIAA. Some notables: Obama, Clinton, Specter, and Feinstein.

Guitar Hero II

So - I started playing Guitar Hero II for the Xbox 360 this week... talk about addictive. I've now accomplished unlocking every song in the game... I got to play Freebird. Apparently, its something of a hobby for people to post YouTube videos of them playing Guitar Hero II songs on the highest difficulty. Also, it is possible for some Playstation 2 owners to add additional songs into the game... don't ask me how they do it, but there are a lot out there. Here's my favorite song, as interpreted by Guitar Hero II:

Too bad he couldn't get the end in, but an admirable effort nonetheless.

Fred Thompson "exploring" White House Run

Fred Thompson today formed his exploratory committee for the 2008 Presidential campaign. Assuming he is able to raise some money (almost a foregone conclusion) and the polling is at least somewhat positive, this means that he will become the 11th major candidate for the Republican nomination. Once he enters the race, it is widely speculated that he will immediately become the overwhelming front-runner, much to the chagrin of Rudy and Mitt. I personally have been hoping that Thompson will run, simply because I feel that he is very electable, and he is politically in line with me (for the most part).

Here's a linky to Fred's page at On The Issues. This represents his congressional career and it has been a few years, but there are still many relevant issues. A summary of the big ones:

Abortion - tough, but his rhetoric suggests that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, he will leave it to the states.

Education - yes on vouchers, abstinence education, plus tax cuts for school expenses, his feelings are unknown on the federal Dept. of Education.

Energy - yes for drilling in ANWR, unknown on nuclear power (my pet issue)

Government Intervention - voted for removing federal restrictions on violent video game sales to minors, pro McCain-Feingold, pro banning union/corp contributions, pro photo ID for voting

Guns - anti gun control

Social Security - pro privitizing at least part of social security, pro personal accounts

Taxes - pro internet tax moratorium, voted for tax cuts, voted for requiring supermajority for raising taxes

That's all I can summarize so far.

Peggy Noonan jumps ship

The Wall Street Journal contributor writes about her estrangement from the Bush administration:

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.

Read the whole thing here.

I want my $39 million back

It's not so much that it's Murtha playing the game. It's the game itself.

The MI Abrams tank

I think this is the first time I've ever posted a video of war footage. It's a pretty good editing job and the music a cover of Snap's "I've got the power"

Fred Thompson, helping Ron Paul get elected

Here is an interesting take on what could happen if Fred Thompson decides to run for office (from Liberty Update):

As of right now there are three front runners; Guliani, McCain, and Romney. Each spouting off a very similar big government neo-con message that differs only slightly. If each of these candidates stays out front until the election they will split the big-government neo-con electorate. If this happens, Ron Paul will need only 25%of the Republican primary vote (a few votes will most likely be split among the other 6 neo-cons as well). He'll have the full support of the small government conservatives since there will be no competition for that slot. In a state like Iowa where in 2000 there were 86,000 Republican primary voters he would only need 21,500 votes to win.

A very shrewd and interesting analysis, I'm (wishfully) hoping that he wins the nomination handily and the general election in a landslide. But I'll take the win in whatever form it comes in.

The whole post is here.

Venezuela and the Strongman

Saying "south american dictator" is like saying "smelly frenchman" or "brazilian supermodel" it's just part of the language. Our hemisphere to the south has a tradition of being taken over by strongmen.

It's no surprise that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez would try to takeover the oil assets of his country (it's the country's most valuable export). It's also no surprise that Chavez would try to eliminate dissenting voices as well. What has been surprising to me has been the reaction to his shutting down the TV station that broadcasts opposition programming critical of Chavez. Students, professionals, other citizens are demonstrating in the streets. Are we going to be witness to the overthrow of a dictator? I hope so. I also hope it's as bloodless as possible.

There are a bunch of links at Gateway Pundit. Also Fox News has continuing coverage as well.

Fox News reporter Adam Housley

6:13 p.m.: We have now moved yet again, our fifth location today. We are now live, the only network in the world, on the street between protesters and the police. Thousands are amassed on the streets to me; to my left, they're chanting and singing, faced off with police; to my right, the police are shoulder-to-shoulder, standing under a major overpass. An armored car is wedged within the line.
6:22 p.m.: Shots ... SHOTS FIRED! I grab a bag and slam it against a cement wall. It's as if I am standing on the banks of a roaring river. I'm close to danger, but safely on the bank. Rocks and bottles fly. The crowd scatters as the police lunge forward. I'm staying close to the ground and behind their shields. They open rapid fire with shotguns armed with rubber bullets. Some turn their heads as the blasts continue. Pop, pop, pop, pop ... we are against the wall. I sneak out, just a bit, to get our remaining piece of gear. My mask is covering my nose and mouth, in case of tear gas. I have goggles over my eyes. Some students have their own military-style gas masks. The police lunge further; the students have stopped about 100 yards away ... more rocks, more bottles. I grab my microphone with the FOX News logo and
hold it up yelling, "PRENSA, PRENSA!" (Press, Press!) I duck in behind the
police to get my photographer shooting video of the clash. Together, we dash
back to safety.
6:25 p.m.: The shooting stops and so does the rock throwing. The crowd chants again and the police retreat. Once again, there is a 20-yard space between the two. We are at an impasse. Periodically, over the next 30 minutes, students approach the officers with their hands in the air. Both sides talk, at least for a short bit and the standoff continues.
6:50 p.m.:
The students are still singing, but now they're sitting by the thousands. They
will not move, and neither will the police. I also get a call; apparently the
same types of clashes are taking place near the American embassy, and I am told
that a local cable station will be shut down by the government tonight.
Globovision is a local cable channel, like RCTV, and it's critical of the
Chavez reforms. Rumor has it that the owners and main anchor will be arrested.

Ron Paul on Bill Maher's Show

Who get's the biggest cheers when you're sitting at a table with PJ O'Rourke, Ben Affleck and Bill Maher? Why Ron Paul of course.

The scam that is the Income Tax (part 6,864)

The inimitable Paul Harvey (listen here and fast forward to 4:10)



Transcript
"For what it's worth, the 9th circuit panel of San Francisco has been reversed. The Internal Revenue service had ruled that Valerie and Robert McKee (or McKey?) had owed the government $31,000 in unpaid taxes until Valerie and Robert demonstrated in court that the tax law was so complex that nobody could understand it. And the court had to agree. The law was so complex that nobody could understand it and the court reversed itself and the IRS gets the bill. The government sought and got a stipulation that this verdict would not be made public. Well, it just was. Paul Harvey, Good day!"

What doesn't kill you...

Jeeez, Memorial day weekend isn't even over, and Lindsay Lohan is in the papers AGAIN. Let's see, she was arrested on Saturday for being intoxicated and for leaving her car after crashing it, the same car that the police found "useable amounts" of cocaine in. Well, it's monday and it turns out there are pictures of her passed out in a friends car this morning as well (maybe to celebrate getting out of jail?)

This is going to end up badly for her. She's not even 21 yet and it seems like she's been around forever. Maybe it won't, but I'm pretty sure that if your diet for the past 5 years has consisted of cocaine, vodka, and semen, it's pretty safe to say that a reexamination of lifestyle choices is in order. (I know I lifted that line somewhere, probably here, he cracks me up)

What's more gay?

What’s more gay?

a. Richard Marx
b. Not being able to find a specific Richard Marx video on the internets
c. Finding a specific Richard Marx song on youtube but having it as background for a Buffy and Angel video montage



The correct answer is d: posting a blog that has Richard Marx in it over a Buffy and Angel montage

Libertarianism, Ron Paul and why Kucinich sucks

Where do you stand politically?

With the Soul of the GOP at stake it's Rudy vs. Ron (Part 1)

All of the political junkies out there who watched the second GOP debate a couple of weeks ago saw an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul that could be considered the first round of battle in what ultimately could be considered the fight for the soul of the Republican Party.

Rudy Giuliani is America’s Mayor. He revived New York City, cleaned up Times Square, reduced crime, and boosted tourism to record highs. It was on his watch that New York City was attacked. By nearly all accounts, he handled that day and its aftermath better than one would have expected. His performance earning him accolades such as a Knighthood from the Queen of England, and Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2002. He is a man of accomplishment who has shown leadership in the most trying circumstances.

Dr. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4000 babies. He is an 11 term Congressman from Texas whose initial Congressional campaign run, by his own admission, was done on impulse. His reputation as a principled legislator who unfailingly measures his actions in Congress against what is explicitly expressed in the Constitution has earned him the moniker of “Dr. No”. He and his wife are proud parents of five children, and 17 grandchildren.

The contrasts between these two are numerous. Rudy is the man from the big city. Ron is the doctor from flyover country. Rudy’s personal life has been fodder for the gossip pages for years, having to endure a very ugly and public divorce. Ron, from what I’ve been able to glean from the tabloids, has five children and 17 grandchildren, and a wife named Carol. This is to say, you probably wouldn’t find him in magazines like US Weekly, or People, ever.

It is in the political arena that you would find the most differences, and they are stark. Rudy Giuliani has a campaign machine that is well financed, he is consistently named one of the leading contenders to win the nomination, and he currently polls in the top three as far as popularity among voters.

Dr. Paul has a fraction of the campaign funds that Rudy has. He is considered a second tier candidate, not even warranting inclusion in certain polls because of lack of name recognition. He is truly a grassroots candidate, his supporters, while not legion, are enthusiastic, vocal, energized, and active. They are technologically savvy and, through the internet, are able to communicate with each other as well as spread Dr. Paul’s ideas.

Like with Howard Dean in 2004, the internet is proving to be the great equalizer between Rudy and Dr. Paul in getting the nomination.

Conan and "The Interrupter"

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto

Girl looking for serious LTR

Cute, lonely girl, looking for serious LTR. Pretty funny.

Why Ron Paul?

If anyone out there saw the GOP debate last week, you would have seen this:



The exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Dr. Ron Paul certainly brought to life an event which up, until that moment, would more accurately be described as a Debate In Name Only (DINO). Out of the 10 candidates that night, 9 of them seem pretty interchangeable. Sure, Mitt Romney might have a better tan and more hair than Rudy. Also, John McCain is the only candidate I’ve seen who actually tried to paraphrase/sing the Beach Boys (badly and awkwardly at that). But if you look really closely, they aren’t much different from each other. I get the feeling that if the nomination came down to those three, I couldn’t bring myself to, once again, vote for the candidate who sucks the least.

If you take a look at my recent posts, it’s obvious I’m a Ron Paul supporter. Why him? Hope. History is littered with the wreckage of failed empires, the map of which our country is following. Entangling alliances, oppressive government policies on it own citizens, failure to protect and defend its borders, continued currency devaluation. It’s all there. I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Ron Paul gives me hope that it is not too late. That the ills our country faces in the near and long term can be cured. That the constant and increasing intrusion of our government into our lives can be stopped and the correlating freedoms that have been stamped out can be restored.

He gives me hope because he knows that the map to restoring our greatness exists, it is tried and true and it will work. When I say greatness, I don’t mean having the biggest and best military, we have that. There is greatness in the people that make up this country; for the most part we are generous, hardworking, optimistic, law-abiding citizens. When I talk about restoring greatness to this country, I am talking about setting its people free. Free to pursue our dreams, free to think what we want, free criticize our government, free to defend ourselves, free to choose how we live and free to fail and accept the consequences of that failure.

That is what America is about, choosing the path that makes the most sense to us. The audacious idea that each and every one of us has the ability to choose the life they want to lead because we know what’s best. That is what attracts people to us. That is why we won the great war against communism. That is what made my parents move half a world away with only each other to build their life around. That is what will save us from an economic and political meltdown.

I didn’t mean to turn this into a flag waving exercise but it turned out that way. I did intend to say that Ron Paul is the man whose vision of what our country once was and once again can be, and how to get there is most aligned with mine.

Randolphus

Sarah Connor is on TV this fall

and she's played by the same actress that was Leonidas's wife in "300". And I think that the young girl is the same one from the movie "Serenity"

Classic moments from Ari Gold Superagent

Ron Paul on CNN Sunday Edition

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson

Things to think about

From economist Walter Williams:

Question: What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common?

Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones."

So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?

I've always liked him.

Pat Buchanon defends Ron Paul

From Worldnetdaily.com:

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

Is he right?

Breakdancing and Babies

withleather has video of a baby tragically getting kicked when he wanders into the path of a rogue break dancer:




well that wasn't the end of the story. Someone took the footage and edited it for clarity, and I can't... stop...laughing. I'm going to hell.

Ron Paul

I'm posting the comments I've made at www.ace.mu.nu because it's a crapload of typing I did over there in reaction to Ron Paul at the debate. I tried to format it and fix some links that were broken. You can see the whole thread here:


My original comment:

I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict
constructionist" candidate. I don't think for a second that if Congress formally
declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending
troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be
douched.

It bothers me that we, as a party, want to send judges to the Supreme
Court who will follow the the Constitution to the letter but when it comes to
electing a President or Congress it doesn't apply.
Posted by: Randolphus at
May 16, 2007 03:48 AM (5naUR)

171 I'm putting my
support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate. I
don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11
against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if
necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.

How do you reconcile that
belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his views on
foreign policy very clear last night.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007
09:15 AM (R8+nJ)

172 I don't care how
many advanced degrees he has, anyone who believes what Paul said last night, is
a moron. And anyone who thinks that Paul believes exactly the opposite of
what he said, is also a moron. People like Paul, and anyone who plays
apologist for him, should be shunned.And don't bother with the fancy latin words
for name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, sometimes it really is that
simple. Truther = Moron.
Posted by: Mob at May 16, 2007 10:19 AM
(f+cPk)

173 I don't think
for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida
Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to
whatever craphole needed to be douched.

So exactly what do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are unquestionably
open-ended military acts of war against other powers? I did not notice the
Constitution's required form for a declaration of war. Is it in an
appendix maybe?

As for the "debate" over whether an MD can be a moron, some ideas
are so amazingly dumb they seem to require advanced degrees for people to
promote them.
Posted by: VRWC Agent, BA, BA, JD at May 16, 2007 12:51 PM
(Z3AmO)

174
I'm
putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist"
candidate.

Being a strict constructionist doesn't come close to excusing The
Crazy. I'd love to see the federal government return to performing only
those powers allowed for in the Constitution and the end of the 10th Amendment
being ignored, but that's not going to happen overnight, and it sure as hell
isn't going to happen under Ron Paul.
In closing- Fuck You for supporting
this Blame America First Truther douchebag.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 16,
2007 01:16 PM (plsiE)

175 How do you
reconcile that belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his
views on foreign policy very clear last night.

I believe that since he's a
strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war if it was
declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his duties as
President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't follow
the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is what
makes him appealing.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007
01:20 PM (5naUR)

176 So exactly what
do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are
unquestionably open-ended military acts of war against other powers?

An abdication of Congress in its duty. By authorizing military force, it gives
Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can be blamed on the
President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to say yes or no,
not it depends.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007 01:48 PM
(5naUR)

177 I believe that since he's a strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war
if it was declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his
duties as President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't
follow the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is
what makes him appealing.

Where in the Constitution does it spell
out the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy? I don't have a
problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I have a problem with his
refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the luxury of
isolationism.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007 02:09 PM (R8+nJ)

178 By authorizing
military force, it gives Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can
be blamed on the President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to
say yes or no, not it depends.

Huh? Sorry, dude, but
authorizing the use of military force against someone is a declaration of
war. Unless you believe it is possible to blast an enemy's infantry, raze
their buildings and roll tanks down the streets of their capitol without making
war on them. The Constitution does not require a magic phrase to be
uttered when war is declared and no magic phrase would prevent the traitorous
left from undermining any war in which our interests are at stake. Had the
war resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.Your
argument is silly.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at May 16, 2007 08:34 PM (gjy1/)

179 Had the war
resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.

The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's
Surveillance Authority, indicates there is a distinction:
GONZALES: There was
not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an
authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there
are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're
possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is
a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war
declaration. This is an authorization only to use military
force.

There is absolutely a difference between an AUMF and a
declaration of war (which grants much more power to the Executive
branch). One of the biggest being that Congress doesn't have as much room to
politicize the prosecution of the war. If you look at our declaration of
war against Germany in 1941, you can see that the language has no caveats.
Compare that to the AUMF in Iraq. I would argue that with a formal war declaration, criticisms such as warrantless wiretaps, and holding terror suspects in Guantanamo would have been neutralized to a certain extent because there is justification in doing so http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF see page 3. Posted by: randolphus at May 17, 2007 03:03 AM
(5naUR)

180 Where in the
Constitution does it spell out the need for a non-interventionist foreign
policy? I don't have a problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I
have a problem with his refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the
luxury of isolationism.

I don't think that non-interventionist and
isolationism are synonymous. Isolationism to me means we don't trade or have
contact with anyone outside of the US. Non-interventionist means to me we don't
get into places like Darfur, or Somalia, or Kosovo because it's none of our
business. We get our troops out of Europe and Japan and Korea and let them pay
for their own defense. We get out of the UN and kick them out of Turtle Bay. If
you want to trade with us, then lets trade. The other (and more
important) part of a non-interventionist policy would be to make it clear
that if you fuck with us then we turn into Denzel in "Man on Fire" and tear
apart who ever it is and their families piece by piece. The failure of
Clinton's foreign policy was that terror groups thought they could strike us
(and they did) and our response would be weak (and it was). So much so that on
9/11 there was footage on the news from some country (in the Middle East) where
people were out in the streets cheering. If there were any other blatant sign of
our foreign policy shortcomings at that time I can't think of it. The only
reactions that I should have seen on the news that day were expressions of
sympathy and allegiance with us. Or, silence because of the collective worry
and "oh shit we shouldn't have done that" that was going through the minds
of our enemies from what our response was going to be.

The Debate

Sean Hannity is a douche bag - the debate is for the candidates to go after each other...

Governor Thompson sort of has a "deer in the headlights" look in response to his question, his answer not so great...

Dr. Paul hit it on the head with his response "why didn't we declare war?"

McCain reused his drunken sailor joke, it got a better reaction this time...

"Congress spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop." Huckabee has the line of the night so far...

Congressman Brownback gives an impassioned plea against abortion...

Is there really such a thing as "tamper proof ID card?"

Ron Paul has his Achilles heel with the Iraq war at least within the GOP...

Tancredo is looking for Jack Bauer, score. A lot better showing for him than last time.

Overall, a much better debate format from FOX than MSNBC. You could see the candidates really go after each other.

Michael Moore vs. Fred Thompson

Michael Moore challenges Law and Order actor (he hasn't declared yet) Fred Thompson to a debate. From Drudgereport

Fred Thompson responds

The McLaughlin Group

I can't belief that this show is still on. McLaughlin is still bombastic, bullying, and right about 80 percent of the time.

Ron Paul for President

Why Ron Paul? Because he's the strict constructionist candidate with the track record in Congress that doesn't make me wretch. 2008 is going to be the election that will be a milestone for the GOP. Is the idea of individual freedom dead? Is out of control government spending and intrusion into its citizens lives the wave of the future? Are Romney, Giuliani, and McCain really what the mainstream of the GOP really want? Stay tuned.
My prediction is that Congressman Paul is going to make a lot of noise over the next year.

Watch this video:

Graduation Day

With the $80,000 drinking binge that was your college career now in the
rear-view mirror, you're looking forward to your new adult life with hope in
your eyes and a freshly-printed diploma in your hand.

courtesy of Cracked magazine

Check out the rest of the article here

20 Best Nike Commercials

Parlayer has a nice compilation of Nike commercials. Here's one of my favorites that didn't make the list:

More Yoga by Models

Jewish Girl Prank Calls Parents

This is pretty funny:



Jewish Girl Prank Calls Her Parents - Watch more free videos

Classic Video

Why? Because what is old is new. Milton Friedman is the man whose ideas relegated Keynes to the ideological and historical dustbin. We need to keep Keynes there.

Milton Friedman:




Gore Vidal vs. William F Buckley - A discussion about the Constitutional right to assembly turns into Vidal calling Buckley a "crypto nazi" and Buckley in turn responding by calling Vidal a "queer" Hat tip "Hot Air"

Why not a Strict Constructionist for President?

The candidate labelled by Peggy Noonan as "obscure but intellectually serious" Ron Paul has hit a chord with the political junkies who pay attention to debates conducted 18 months before an election. His message, based on initial readings of an informal poll by MSNBC after the Republican debate last Thursday by supporters of the Congressman (including this blog) and others, show that a campaign run on adherence to the Constitution might have resonance for members of the party that had lost majority control in Congress in 2006. From the Ron Paul for President blog:

Paul realized a massive decrease in net negatives (a favored indicator early in the Primaries). This places Paul's negative rating the lowest among ALL CANDIDATES by far and his positive just ahead of 2nd place candidate Romney.

McCain and Giuliani both got hammered good on their positive rating 11% and 13% with Giuliani registering 5% more negatives than before the debates.

Romney seems to have helped himself improving both his positive and negative rating but these numbers indicate a coming out party for Ron Paul.

The Drudge Report had the Reagan Derby Poll that showed Congressman Paul came in 3rd place behind Romney and Giuliani after the debate. The gap between Giuliani and Paul in this vote was 2 percent (out of 102,805 votes)!

His message, and his voting record in Congress, appeal to the strict originalist that the conservative base looks for in Supreme Court nominees. Which begs this question: Why shouldn't our expectation of all branches of government be fidelity to the Constitution, especially from the Republican Party? Why isn't there more campaigning for strict constructionist Presidents and Congressman?

Take a look at some of the reaction from other conservative blogs on Ron Paul at the debate:

Ron Paul: Someone needs to be a friend to this man and tell him to go home
now.
Heading Right

Ron Paul also showed that he should depart the race as quickly as possible.
He gave one-note answers about federalism and the original intent of the
founders for every question asked of him.
Captains Quarters

Ron Paul… sigh, yes, thank you for telling us how a libertarian idealist
would do it.
National Review Online

Based on those reactions, mainstream conservative blogs weren't too impressed by the Congressman from Texas. To which I would say, "If its good enough for the Supreme Court, it should be good enough for the President!" (I give permission for the Paul campaign to use that as a blurb)

Yoga, models, and the internet

Ford Models has a youtube channel that has clips of models doing various things. Anyway, I found three that have a model doing yoga. She's cute in a goofy, nerdy, sort of way. But you can see she's very flexible. Also, as someone who is also a model and into yoga, I can tell you that the handstands are tough. Good job!

So, aside from the mental and physical benefits that yoga can deliver what else can yoga do? Why fight off two highly trained kung fu masters of course:

The MSNBC "debate"

Reaction! I want to hear from you:

The questions that were asked of the candidates for the most part were dumb. Especially the ones that were read from the website politico.com

Chris Matthews was the worst choice possible as moderator. Keith Olbermann doing the post debate show? Ridiculous. Lucianne.com had quoteworthy commentary:

The democratic candidates wouldn't go on Fox because they said Brit Hume is
biased. But, they have no problem whatsoever with letting Chris Matthews host
the republican candidates who had the decency to appear on MSNBC.

Here was one of the last questions that Matthews asked last night at the Republican debate: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?” No bias at all. At the next debate, the moderator should ask the candidates "Would it be good for America to have Carter back living in the White House?"

Mitt Romney came across as very presidential, but he reminded me a little too much of George Hamilton: a little too polished and too slick.

Ron Paul is the dark horse candidate, a lot of his positions do not hold sway with the social conservatives of the Republican party, however, his stances appeal to the activist/internet generation. Which skews, I believe a lot more libertarian anyways. The war in Iraq would be the achilles heel for obtaining the nomination for Dr. Paul in the sense that most of the Republican party is wedded to staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. Dr. Paul's position on leaving immediately could be labeled as "cut and run" by his opponents.

No questions on nominating justices to the Supreme Court? If there were any comments about it I missed it.

Ron Paul for President

A nice primer on my pick for President in 2008:

Three of my favorite movie scenes of all time

"Glengarry Glenn Ross" with Alec Baldwin in the only non crappy role he has ever had. Now that I think about it he's pretty good on "30 Rock":



Michael Douglas in "Wall Street": "Greed is good" was the catch phrase written by hippie/director Oliver Stone that was turned into the rallying cry of the Reaganites of the 80's.




R Lee Ermey in "Full Metal Jacket": Gunnery Sergeant Ermey (he is a real life Marine) tells stories of people even today who have come up to him and tell him it would be an honor if he would choke them.

Veronica Mars

I started watching Veronica Mars when I found them filming in downtown San Diego (I thought they were going to start filming "Renegade" again) and let's be honest, she's totally my type. Witty, smart, well-written, sort of like Buffy meets Nancy Drew meets JB Fletcher. Check out the big brain on her.

Pat Buchanon is Wrong

His latest column links the VT shooter to the influx of immigrants to the United States:

What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been
happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of
strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to
disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s...Before 1970,
we were a people, a community, a country. Students would have said aloud of Cho:
"Who is this guy? What's the matter with him?" .

See, this is where he loses me, when he makes his point about the inherent flaw of having a "gun free zone" I'm with him. But what Pat fails to note is that one of his instructors demanded that Cho be removed from the class she taught because of the red flags he was waving (the violent imagery in his writings, for example). It's not even mentioned. Also, Cho had a record of sending threatening and harassing emails to women. So yes, the people around him were wondering what was wrong with him. No one who could do anything about it did anything about it. That was the problem.

70 Percent of Praise is Sarcastic

Report: 70 Percent Of All Praise Sarcastic

Sesame Streets

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if Martin Scorsese directed "Sesame Street"? No, well fuck you. Fuck you and your mother:

Freedom to Fascism

We are on the road to complete tyranny unless the citizens of this country wake up:

And Justice for All

More links.

Welcome to America-

www.paynoincometax.com

www.givemeliberty.org

http://triallogs.blogspot.com/

The Great Communicator

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

Ronald Wilson Reagan gave this speech in 1964 stumping for Barry Goldwater. He talks about the dangers of appeasement, largesse of government, Social Security, the stripping away of private property rights. Sixteen years later, he would be elected president.

I'd vote for him now if I could. Watch and listen to one of our greatest presidents here

The Trial of the Century

Whether you believe that there is no law that makes anyone liable to pay income taxes or not, it's fascinating listening to the audioblog entries regarding Irwin Schiff's criminal trial. The man is representing himself and is fighting for his life. He has both the judge and the prosecution as his adversaries. All of the entries are based on observations from the peanut gallery (an MSM blackout is in effect). But it seems as if Irwin is able to get his message out and the jury is listening.

Today's entries deal with among other things, the testimony of the IRS agent who signed off on taking one hundred percent of Irwin's social security check. The IRS agent based his authority for his action on a specific code section. That code section (which the agent read out loud in court) specifically limits the amount that can be levied to fifteen percent. The response to that fact by the judge and the IRS agent is telling. For more, listen here: http://triallogs.blogspot.com/

Irwin Schiff

Today, jury selection began in the criminal trial of Irwin Schiff. A patriot who has spent his entire life showing that there is no law that makes an individual liable for the payment of income tax or a tax protestor whose arguments have gotten him sent to jail? Well, both statements are true. The author of the book "The Federal Mafia: How the government illegally imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes" has detailed his experiences with over the past few years with the government and the justice system. His website www.paynoincometax.com has a timeline and every single motion that he has filed with the court. www.irwinschiff.blogspot.com is an audio blog that will give daily updates with regards to the trial.

Irwin, I wish you the best and I hope you kick the governments ass.

The largest freakin zit in the whole world

This is amazing, try to watch the entire video without throwing up

Joe Bannister

What happens when you swear an oath to uphold the law in the service of an organization who acts like it is above it? Ex-IRS agent Joe Bannister was a CPA who decided to try public service by working for the IRS. Research that he did on his own led him to believe that the income tax is enforced illegally. Going to his superiors with his research led to an invitation for his resignation a week later. The story isn't over, the government has gone after him for vocalizing the research that he has done. This week is the first week of his trial. Read the story here

I hope Joe kicks their ass.

Update 6/23/05: Joe Bannister acquitted. Read full story and links here

My Pick for Chief Justice

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent in Gonzales v Raich (03-1454)

Here's another quote from his dissent:

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Just for recognizing that the federal government is actually limited by the Constitution sold me. Now, if only there were a strict constructionist majority on the Supreme Court. . .

Another Step

William Wallace Lear has taken another small step forward in exposing the income tax in this country for the fraud that it is. Read his story here.

I think that the income tax here in the United States will come down like the Berlin Wall. I don't know if anyone will see it coming; but when it happens, it will be a watershed moment. Let's pray that it comes sooner rather than later.

Bob Schultz and his group We the People seem to be making some good progress in trying to get the government accountable to the Constitution.

For anyone out there who wants to see what other people think about all of these tax protestors, check out quatloos.com.

Everything I need to know I Iearned in 8th Grade

Look how much "progress" we've made in 100 hundred years. Click on this link to see the 8th grade FINAL EXAM from an elementary school in Kansas in 1895. No wonder it was so rare for people to go to college back then. I wonder how many people graduating from college over the next few months would fare in taking this exam.

Lets hear it for government schools.

Cameron Diaz

This site The Best Page in the Universe has a funny take on Cameron Diaz and her show on MTV called "Trippin". His criticism is right on about the show:

Of course, having a show in which the hosts prattle on and on about conservation and environmental causes, it makes you wonder how they're able to do it without sounding like giant hypocrites as they fly around on helicopters and jets, all while using enough electricity to power a small city. Simply put: they can't, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

The way they try to avoid this nagging ideological contradiction is by stating: "Trippin' has offset all the pollution created from energy use in making the show, to ensure that it would not contribute to global warming." They supposedly do this by buying "clean air credits." Great idea assholes, so instead of owning up to your shitty ideals and not polluting, you pay someone else not to pollute. Maybe we should all try to pay someone off every time we want to do something that might inconvenience us. I was going to go on a diet, but it's too hard, so I'm going to pay someone else to diet for me. I was going to do a show about community service, but doing the actual work was too inconvenient, so I'm going to pay someone to do it for me. Eat shit you elitist morons.

Classic.

The Nuclear Option

If everything holds to true to form, the filibuster in the Senate Judiciary committee that has been going on over certain judicial nominees is going to end this week. It's about time. What is the point of having a majority if you are not going to exercise the associated power that comes with it?

UporDownvote.com has been following the circus with the Judiciary Committee over the past four plus years.

Newsmax gives a breakdown of the procedure here

That Shooting on TV

In the City of Long Beach, police officers are on video shooting a man to death this week. You can get the story here. That the guy died is terrible, but I always wonder about the circumstances that put someone in a position to get shot by the police. Chris Rock put out an informative video a few years back that everyone should watch so situations like this are minimized.

I love the 90's

It's hard to believe that President Clinton was in office over 10 years ago and we still can't get him out of the spotlight.

Robert Novak published a column this week that talks about an Independent Counsel that was convened back in the mid-nineties to investigate then Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros. The still unreleased report from Independent Counsel David Barrett supposedly has evidence that Secretary Cisneros was able to get a tax fraud investigation transferred from a regional office to Washington DC, where it was squashed. To me that seems to be business as usual. The thing that piqued my interest about the report is what Mr. Barrett was able to find out since his investigation is the first of the IRS with subpoena power. You can read Novak's column here.

Thomas Sowell

One of my favorite writers, Dr. Thomas Sowell is coming out with a new book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals: And Other Cultural and Ethnic Issues" as such; he's on C-Span (he rarely is on TV). An expert on economics who studied under Milton Friedman, his books "Race and Culture" and "Inside American Education" introduced a whole different way of thinking compared to what I learned in high school and college.

Eternal Vigilance

If there is anything antithetical to the ideals that this country was founded on and to the Constitution itself, it is the way that the income tax is enforced in this country. This week, millions of Americans will send to the federal government their tax returns. These returns contain information that reveal to the government the most intimate details of its citizens. Everything that is put onto these returns can be used against you in the criminal and civil sense. Information gleaned from these tax returns can and have been used to intimidate, blackmail, and ruin people. Demonstrations have shown professional tax preparers given the same conditions in which to prepare a return, can come up with different tax liabilities. The tax system is a mess, and it gets worse.

What has this income tax created? A multimillion dollar industry for tax lawyers, tax accountants, and tax preparation services. A government bureacracy that continues to grow (when government spending grows less than the rate of inflation its considered a good thing). An intrusive, abusive, and out of control Internal Revenue Service that uses as its primary weapon not "due process" or the law, but intimidation, and the ignorance of its citizens to perform its function.

Now, America is a great country, the freedoms that we have in this country are unheard of in some parts of the world. I distinctly remember asking my mother, when I was a child (she lived under a dictatorial regime) "Why couldn't you vote the way you wanted to?" "Soldiers would stand there to ensure you voted properly"!!!??? And she came from a somewhat privileged background. Well, I didn't understand what she meant when I asked her at the time, the subtlety was lost on me. But now, I have a greater appreciation for what my parents went through to get to this country. I also understand that a stand must be taken to keep our country free. (Some would say all hope is gone)

But is this country as great as it once was? No, it is not, the United States at one time was the worlds greatest creditor nation, today it is the world's greatest debtor nation. We function and our economy is considered growing when we consume (which is ridiculous on its face, assets cannot be accumulated when you have liabilities that outpace them). Right now, our government spends money like a once prominent family trying to keep up its "airs". As sure as the sun will rise, there will be a day of reckoning. President Bush sees it and to his credit he has tried to bring the spotlight on it with attempting to reform Social Security and the income tax code. At the same time, the spending that has occurred under is Administration is out of control. Look at Medicare, the Department of Education, any other "social program" you can name.

Whatever reforms that do happen are probably going to do nothing more than kick the can down the road so to speak. It is going to take something major that really hits home for most of our citizens to realize the dire economic straits we are in. It could be that all of these countries that buy US Bonds stop buying them. Or, the government might default on its payment to the national debt. Or, we go into a depression that is even greater than the "Great Depression" or all of the above.

The IRS is here to help

Bob Schultz of We the People scored some points when the 2nd Circuit Appeals court ruled that IRS summonses amount to no more than "requests" for information. Their ruling is here. But wait, look at what the government wants to do. They filed a motion asking the court to amend their ruling. Read that here.
The Court wrote (regarding an IRS issued summons) :

...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order.

The governments position would be comical if the issue at hand weren't so serious. Here's a little gem from the government in their motion to amend:

By creating the false impression that taxpayers are free to simply ignore an IRS summons, the Court's opinion threatens seriously to impede the effective administration and enforcement of the nation's tax laws.

It's not a false impression, because the summons cannot be ignored if it's backed by a court order. But the kicker of this whole thing is that the US Attorney stated in a memo to the court that:

as indicated in oral argument, the IRS does not have the power to compel the taxpayer to obey an administrative summons without obtaining an order from the proper district court...the IRS must seek judicial enforcement of the summons by bringing what it refers to as "a summons enforcement action" in district court.

Has anyone at the DOJ thought that maybe the threat to the "effective administration and enforcement of the nation's tax laws" isn't what the focus should be on? The Constitution allows for the imposing of taxes but what Schultz and others believe is that whatever federal government does should follow from our "living document" (quoted for sarcasm).