from around the web
Woman Flees Marriage Proposal At NBA Game - Feb 23,
The Bottomless Cup and the Topless Waitress? - Feb
Rod's girl gave Jack Osbourne her boob implants as prezzie
- Feb 23, 2004
Nuns Strap On Skis, Hit Slopes - Feb 23, 2004
Police still looking for stolen $95,000 violin -
Feb 23, 2004
Random act of kindness repayed 70 years later - Feb
Lies and photography: how the camera can distort the truth
- Feb 23, 2004
Man denied tryout with WNBA’s Fever sues league
- Feb 23, 2004
SAPD helicopter makes crash landing - Feb 20, 2004
CG announces it's Top 5 Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2003
- Feb 20, 2004
Audit: Atlanta Hedged Crimes in '96 Olympic Bid -
Feb 20, 2004
Man charged with attacking neighbor with Prosthetic Leg
- Feb 20, 2004
Speed Dial Lands Man in Jail - Feb 20, 2004
Kerry's Past to Star in Bush's Ads - Feb 20, 2004
Police free German bondage 'penguin' - Feb 20, 2004
Man Pulls Cocaine from Pocket at Police Station -
Feb 20, 2004
Mars rovers explore hints of salty water - Feb 19,
Woman Seeking Help Accidently Reaches Ex-Con - Feb
Stash of old dynamite in shed is frozen, can't be moved
- Feb 19, 2004
Ike and the alien ambassadors - Feb 19, 2004
Kindergarteners trade in their fake guns for nonviolent toys
- Feb 19, 2004
Olsen twins spur restaurant scuffle - Feb 19, 2004
Simi Valley Man Dies After Tossing Rope At Train - Feb
Execution preceded by tirade - Feb 18, 2004
Rats on Menu as Bird Flu Leaves Fowl Aftertaste - Feb
Guns N' Roses May Sue to Block Greatest Hits Album - Feb
Birds and Bees Inspire UK Micro Spy-Plane Science - Feb.
Prosecutor in Terror Case Sues Ashcroft - Feb 18, 2004
Skateboarder vs. Bus - Feb 18, 2004
Beam Me Up, Scotty - Feb. 18, 2004
Courtney Love's Arrest Warrant Dismissed - Feb 18, 2004
NBC's Conan O'Brien Issues 'Apology' to Quebec - Feb.
Pee rule is No. 1 gripe at school - Feb. 18, 2004
Flying rock kills granny - Feb 18, 2004
Dental hygiene video includes naked woman - Feb. 17, 2004
Syrup Slick Leaves Drivers in a Jam - Feb 17, 2004
Cookbook features last meals of inmates - Feb. 17, 2004
NT considers hair-raising boozer - Feb. 17, 2004
Man nabbed after macabre Q&A
- Feb. 17, 2004
Hustling up Bush charges - Feb. 17, 2004
the surface this may sound archaic and less free. But appearances
are deceiving. For it was understood by the founders that a system
of checks and balances must also account for man's whimsical nature,
turbulent passions and the possible ambitions of unscrupulous rulers
who might attempt "to alter, for light or transient causes"
his forms of government. It was also known that tyranny could be
sold to the people with flowery phrases and shiny wrappers, and
that a directly elected President could go around the check of the
Congress by appealing directly to the people. Or that a directly
elected Senator was easier to buy than one who depended upon some
hundreds of State congressmen to appoint him, congressmen whose
domains were smaller, and closer to the citizenry, and in many cases
in conflict with one another.
To illustrate this last point, let's take the 2000 election of Hillary
Rodham Clinton to U.S. Senate for the State of New York. In days
gone by, she would have been sent packing like the carpetbagger
she is. She is, after all, originally a citizen of Arkansas with
no real ties to New York. There is no way that a state legislature,
in the past, would've appointed an outsider to U.S. Senate. They
would've feared the loss of their jobs because they knew that citizens
voted in that level of election regularly, had a stronger sense
of community, and that even many Democrats would have been offended
by Mrs. Clintons' blatant political opportunism in becoming a "New
today's system, altered to the point that the founders would not
recognize it, it was relatively easy for Mrs. Clinton to get elected,
using money from many donors, demagoguery in the large urban areas,
and the overall diversity of New York's huge voter pool.
But, the Founders knew that the populace must have some representation
at the Federal level proportionate to the size of (and directly
accountable to) the local populations and so the House of Representatives
was created. And, in order to see that it did act as a real check
and balance, the House, not the Senate, was given the power of the
And it is in that power that we find the real means to reverse the
seemingly unstoppable trend towards socialism, moral decay and finally
tyranny. For I submit to you that if we all ignored Presidential
elections and instead placed all of our attention on Congressional
races (including the Senate but primarily on the House) that we
would see a genuine shift to more freedom in America. This would
work because it is the one thing that hasn't been tried for some
time: What we were intended to do in the first place.
Unfortunately, the prevailing sentiment among average citizens today
is that there is nothing that one person can do. You can vote but
how do you make a politician uphold the Constitution after he or
she is elected? Why should a powerful politician listen to me, instead
of wealthy special interests?
New American Senior Editor William Norman Grigg observes, "Too
many Americans believe that they should be subjects, that they can
somehow be passive and yet free. (John Birch Society founder) Robert
Welch knew better. He knew that people who are passive consumers
of the mass media can't be sufficiently disciplined and motivated
to defend their freedom; Americans are to be citizens who are governed,
not subjects who are ruled."
bulletins & letter writing:
Active, engaged citizenship
Gratifying as step in the right direction would be, it would mean
nothing, were it not backed up with concerted effort between elections,
by paying close attention to what people do after they get elected.
In the past, word spread more slowly and media, like everything
else, was smaller and more tied to localities. Countering the deception
is daunting. But it can be done.
Of all the programs and ad hoc committees I have encountered, TRIM
(Tax Relief Immediately, an ad hoc committee of the John Birch Society)
has been by far the most successful. It is hated and feared by many
big spenders, whom it has removed or restrained. It is equally feared
by powerful insiders, who know that it can shake up their hold on
government. It is loved by maverick conservative Representatives
whom it has indirectly benefited by exposing the liberal, big spending,
big government proclivities of the previous inhabitant of their
seat. Remember, Congressional pay is around $3000.00 a week, not
But what is TRIM? Three times a year, TRIM bulletins are published
for every congressional district in the United States. Each U.S.
Representative is "graded" on eight key spending bills
(the same eight bills, regardless of how the representative voted)
that had some key significance to the integrity of constitutional
government or the freedom and prosperity of Americans. The bulletins
are then distributed in the district of the Representative. In order
to spark the interest of taxpayers, the often staggeringly huge
cost in dollars of the bills is broken down to the much more measurable
(and revealing) average cost per household. This has a more powerful
effect on the mind of the average voter than an endorsement for
or an attack against a particular candidate because it filters out
partisan arguments and demonstrates in more personal terms the effects
of big government. As someone who has handed out TRIM bulletins
outside of a post office on April the 15th, I can tell you that
many people will appreciate it when you hand them a bulletin and
say, "Happy Tax Day! Here's where your money went!" When
they see that the federal government gave money to the Rock 'N Roll
Hal of Fame, or the Orangutan Foundation, or the cost per household
of foreign aid bills, they stop laughing and start seeing.
TRIM's effect on elections is not so funny to many pro-establishment
big spenders. And the only bias of TRIM is smaller, constitutionally
authorized government, not partisan politics. The many Republicans
who pose as conservative receive no soft treatment; and the few
Democrats who vote the Constitution instead of the party line are
so noted. There was even a man who ran and won as a Socialist in
California whose grade was better than many phony conservatives!
Another way to regain control of Congress is to stay in touch with
your representative. Write regularly about how you feel he or she
is performing. Don't like what the president did yesterday? Send
a letter to your Rep, and encourage others you know to do the same.
They are your means to pressure the president. Don't like foreign
aid? Your Rep is the one who actually voted to spend your money
on it. Let 'em know how you feel! Feel like powerful corporations
own your Rep? Call and threaten to FIRE the son of a bitch! That's
what your lost vote is to these people, the choice to give someone
else the job.
When efforts that oppose attacks on property rights (the Fourth
Amendment), rights of gun owners (the Second Amendment), campaign
finance reform (the First Amendment), excessive taxation (Federal
violation of the Tenth Amendment) they amount to thousands "hacking
at the branches of evil" as opposed to "striking at the
root", to borrow the words of Henry David Thoreau.
Constitutionally limited government is a goal attainable only when
Americans "strike at the root" of the problem. Wake up
to the demands of true citizenship! That means behaving responsibly
and acting most vigorously where we were always intended to: At
the level of the United States Congressional district. Only you,
as an active, engaged citizen, can give new life to this fading
republic. Let us devote ourselves to the tough business of citizenship,
and let our fellow citizens know that resistance is not futile.
"Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton
It is the inherent tendency of governments to try to expand their
power. Long ago corrupt politicians had learned the appeal of demagoguery
to mob instincts. Since ancient times, evil men have used collectivist
rhetoric to convince citizens to give up their freedoms, and with
them much of the advancement of their societies. Collectivist policies
put into place for ostensibly good causes often came with legal
guardrails to insure their stated purposes. But successive rulers
would breach those guardrails until programs to help the needy became
handouts to the lazy. Bureaucracies to control abuses of private
finance & industry turned into cartels enforced by government
decree. Corrupt rulers bent upon acquiring more power would always
heap new bales of bureaucracy and regulation upon the fire, all
the while claiming massive new powers in the name of fighting the
fire. Eventually, even the honest, law abiding and productive citizen,
rife with dissatisfaction, begins to skirt the law. Lying to revenue
authorities becomes justification to increase enforcement powers.
Onerous government regulations create financial incentive to break
the law. Responding to increased crime becomes the impetus for even
more police powers. War or the threat posed by internal dissidents
or enemy agents is used to frighten a populace into allowing even
more government intervention into their lives. Does any of this
American Political Geography:
The Liberal/Conservative Lie
Twain once wryly observed that: "A lie will go halfway round
the world while the truth is still putting on it's shoes."
In this day of lightning Internet and satellite news wire, this
is more reality than ever. America's growth and relative technical
sophistication have given us a nation of up to the minute news.
On any given day, you can tune in any given cable news channel and
witness "conservatives" and "liberals" argue
and blame one another for the immanent demise of America. But what
do these titles really mean? A high school teacher of mine gave
the most concise, impersonal and accurate definition I've ever heard.
She said that "liberal" means liberal interpretation of
law and use of lawmaking ability, while "conservative"
means conservative use and interpretation of the law. The teacher
taught a one semester elective course in law.
definition sounds rather blunt and may offend some, but from the
standpoint of specific court rulings & legislative initiatives,
it is the truth. But is it the standard applied by the media? More
often than not the answer is no. When Senator Robert Byrd (D) opposed
the war in Iraq, he was not being the liberal that the media portrays
him as. His opposition to the war was on conservative grounds: The
usurpation of Congressional war making authority by the Executive
branch. When Congressman Newt Gingrich (R) supported NAFTA, he was
essentially acting as a liberal: The treaty created a framework
for more rules and regulations, not the "Free Trade" its
name implies. But the major media portrayed NAFTA as an agreement
that removed restrictions on trade.
the case of the war in Iraq as another example. More of our soldiers
are dying as a result of the blatantly liberal policy of "regulating"
the Iraqis' personal arms (pistols, rifles, etc.) than were killed
when our soldiers were openly fighting the Iraqi army. And yet the
ongoing "rebuilding" effort is generally portrayed as
merely an extension of the sound military strategy that made the
war look so easy. The differences between the two could not be clearer.
When our soldiers were acting like soldiers and generally allowing
the people to go about their business, they were fairly well regarded
and seen by many Iraqis as liberators. Now that our troops have
been thrust into a police role, they are seen more and more as meddlesome
outsiders, and they are being killed for it.
On the surface, this sounds like a mere flip flop, but it goes deeper
than that. If you examine the so-called liberal/conservative rhetoric
in America today, you will find that it's "center" is
actually about 20 degrees to the left of center. In historical terms,
that puts us just short of Fascist Italy. Many readers will have
a problem with what I just said, but the problem is that they have
been misinformed. The major media outlets generally sustain the
myth that Fascism & Nazism are right wing philosophies. But
the facts don't support that conclusion. Italy and Germany were
basically socialist: State run economies with some massively regulated
private ownership, huge welfare programs to insure health and full
employment, compulsory service in the military, and in general a
cooperative relationship between government and industry, rather
than the check and balance relationship of a regulated free market
economy. Mussolini coined a term for the partnership, "corporatives."
Hitler's Nazi Germany was a socialized state to rival only the Soviet
Union in terms of state "parentage" over its citizens
through a powerful central government. In fact, Nazism is merely
a contraction of the term national socialism.
The truth is that socialism, fascism and communism are all variants
of left wing politics. Extreme right wing politics consists of anarchy;
no restriction on merchants, no law beyond that of petty warlords,
the biggest bully stays on top until someone bigger knocks him off.
A less extreme version of right wing thinking would be embodied
in the fiefdoms and kingdoms of bygone eras. Law and Order yes,
but an arbitrary law based on the whim of the ruler. Free enterprise
yes, but few real protections from fraud or extortion or outright
theft. The king was always exempt from the law. And expediency always
ruled the hearts of even the best kings.
Constitutional Republic: The real center of the political spectrum.
Founding Fathers understood the power of free markets and a free
humanity to improve materially. But they also recognized that man's
rise from barbarism to civilization was based on fundamental principles
that placed the individual over the state. As the tides of history
rolled, an observable pattern had emerged. With each evolution in
principles of government, from the Greek democracies, to the Roman
Republic, to the establishments of Parliamentary systems in Europe
and the Magna Carta, increasing emphasis was placed on frameworks
of government made binding on rulers as well as those ruled. Diffusion
of powers between various branches of government with representatives
accountable to the people went hand in hand with increased standards
of living, and it was during these periods that the most significant
developments in science, commerce, hygiene and healthcare were realized.
The less government interfered in the day-to-day doings of its citizens,
the more dynamic, intelligent, independent, inventive and humane
they became. These experiments in liberty culminated in the establishment
of The United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Under
this system of checks and balances man has attained the highest
standard of living in history. There was the benefit of a central
government, but it was never intended to be powerful enough to pose
the threat to liberty embodied in kings and bureaucrats. It is still
the best structure of government ever devised by man.
you gonna vote for?
None of the above!!!
so many in our beleaguered land do not know that voting is only
one small part in the role truly free citizens are meant to play
in government. In fact, the founders intended the Federal government
to be so insignificant to the daily lives of citizens that people
did not even vote for President, or even their Senators. An electorate
selected the President; the elected state representatives appointed
U.S. Senators. Only U.S. Congressmen were elected directly.