http://www.eff.org/…

It’s not often that you get former presidential candidates from the Green Party and the Libertarian Party to agree on legislation, but Bob Barr and Ralph Nader have done just that — jointly supporting the Right-To-Repair Act of 2009 (H.R. 2057):

This aptly named bill would allow independent repair shops to compete for the business now guaranteed only to dealer-controlled establishments. This is important because car manufacturers now severely limit the number of repair shops that are allowed to have the tools, diagnostic codes and updated repair information essential to being able to repair late-model cars (which are heavily dependent on computers for performance and repair).

By thus unfairly limiting the universe of repair shops able to diagnose and repair late-model cars to only those repair shops that are connected with their dealers, the manufacturers dramatically limit consumer choice and significantly increase the costs to those car owners (by some 34 percent, according to a study preformed for the Automotive After Market Industry Association by Lang Research).

We’re all for promoting competition and consumer choice. But this bill points to a much bigger consumer issue. The problem that this law attempts to fix is the direct result of the use of computers in cars, accompanied by proprietary diagnostic tools and “lock-out codes.” Sound familiar? It should, as it’s the very sort of thing that can also make it difficult to repair computer systems, sell replacement garage door openers, and refill printer toner cartridges. One underlying legal problem here is the DMCA, which prohibits bypassing or circumventing “technological protection measures.”

So while the Right-to-Repair Act of 2009 is legislation that deserves our support, it doesn’t help those who repair things other than cars. For example, it won’t help Joe Montero, who treks to the Copyright Office every three years to argue for a DMCA exemption to permit the repair and replacement of obsolete and malfunctioning software “dongles,” those little hardware devices purportedly intended to prevent software piracy, but which often end up frustrating perfectly legitimate customers.

Sorry EFF… it doesn’t deserve your support. The problem here is intelectual property law and it’s increased support by such things as the DMCA. Car companies have the right to keep the software, diagnostic codes and repair information secret if they so choose. The customers however also have the right to reverse engineer anything and everything in the product and shouldn’t be threatened by the State for doing so. Using the guns of government to solve a problem created by the use of the guns of government is no solution.

http://www.infowars.com/…

Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.

The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

I’ve got both a Gadsden flag and civil sovereign flag on my book bag. And I’ve watched America: Freedom to Fascism.

Today was the MLP convention for 2009. Things went well. Election results are as followed.

• Isaiah Matos => Chair
• Mark Axinn => Secretary and Treasurer
• Gina Miller => Media Relations Director
• Ron Moore => Director of Fund Raising
• Antonio SJ Musumeci => Director of Membership

Congratulations to all of them. I was approached to run for chair but declined and recommended Isaiah. He’s got strong connections with the Queens LP and the NYC Campaign for Liberty movement.

The speakers were pretty good. Economist Cameron Weber speech on the past 70 years of Keynesian economic policy was a little rough but obviously topical. Alan Gura from the Heller DC gun case gave a good rundown of the gains made through the winning of that case. I was told that at some point down the road New Jersey will likely be challenged on its registration laws and given the outcome of the Heller case they will probably be shot down. Eric Sundwall, NYS Libertarian Party Chair and producer of Capital Outsider, lost his notes and so opened up the floor to questions about the LP and the NYSLP. About Bob Barr and the direction of the party. After the convention we all went to a near by bar and while talking with Eric I mentioned the Liberty Activism Repository. He invited me to potentially be a guest on Capitol Outsider to discuss the site, what I’m trying to do with it and whatever else I may be doing. It’d require a trip to Schenectady, NY which is about 2.5 hours north of me so I’m no so sure but it’s likely worth it to help get the word out. The last speaker was Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Speaking with him afterwards in the bar after mentioning left libertarianism he brought up that he was in the ALL Facebook group but didn’t realize they were an actual physical group which went out and did things. Perhaps they would be interested in working with Adam to some degree. He’s currently a fairly well known face in the anti-war movement which most know and Adam mentioned is full of those on the left and he’s a libertarian working within their ranks attempting to show them the truely peaceful path. Adam will also be attending the Free State Project’s Liberty Forum in March.

I took video of just about everything. I’m currently uploading some of the more easily edited stuff and will post something later with all footage. I’ll also be sending my video to Gary Popkins who puts together Hardfire and there may be an episode using it.

Overall things went well. The turnout was pretty good for the speakers but I would have liked twice as many for the business part.

http://townhall.com/…

Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government’s efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9-11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed. They don’t dare say this publicly since the law has evolved over time to provide those accused of crimes certain privileges, labeling them “rights.” While some of these “rights” make sense in order to prevent the government from falsely imprisoning innocent people, at some point there is a line where these specified additional “rights” for suspected terrorists begin to infringe upon the rights of innocent Americans.

So even though we all know the Guantanamo detainees have been aiding and abetting terrorists whose sole goal in life is to kill U.S. citizens, we pretend that the U.S. Constitution includes all these additional “rights” for terrorists and their aiders and abettors, ultimately enabling them to continue their attacks upon U.S. citizens.

Many of the anti-terrorism methods being attacked by civil libertarians involve new methods and areas of communication never addressed nor contemplated by the Constitution or Congress. Claims that our freedoms are gradually being eroded by the government’s attempts to deal with terrorism are inaccurate since these new areas had never been established as constitutional rights for those accused of terrorist activity.

The Constitution doesn’t establish rights. It is a negative rights document. The Bill of Rights merely explicitly points out particular things Congress can not do. Madison and others thought the original 12 amendments were pointless due to the nature of the Constitution. Negatives rights and enumerated powers.

Congress has passed laws attempting to reconcile changing technologies with the Fourth Amendment’s vague general protection against “unreasonable” searches and seizures – emphasis on unreasonable.

Changes in technology are of little or no matter. “Unreasonable”… without reason. If you want to search and/or seize the 4th Amendment explains how to legally do so. It clearly includes “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If these “terrorists” are found to have done harm or clearly intended harm on another then by all means. However, you can’t go and justify the search or seizure after the fact. And note how she calls these people terrorists outright rather then accused terrorists. I don’t even think accused terrorist is appropriate as there has been no evidence they actually performed any act of terrorism. Likely they are wannabe terrorists at best. Which in and of itself is no crime. Not a real crime but one of thought.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/…

Do you love the smell of libertarianism in the morning? If so, today is a good day for you.

Ron Paul

Last week we solicited your questions for Congressman Ron Paul.

There was such a big response (more than 400 comments) that we have split Paul’s answers into two batches, the first of which is posted below.

Thanks to Paul for his answers and all of you for your good questions.

Q: What was your first thought when you found out McCain chose Palin as his running mate?

A: At first, I thought it was a pretty savvy choice from a political perspective. I also knew that she had said some nice things about me in the past. At the same time, I knew that to be on the ticket, she would have to toe the line on foreign policy and the war, so that tempered a lot of my enthusiasm.

Q: Who in Congress would you consider to be your closest peer(s)?

A: There are a lot of members who I work with on a variety of different issues. Walter Jones is a good friend and works with me on foreign policy. Often on spending, if there is a 432-3 vote, the other two congressmen voting with me are Jeff Flake and Paul Broun. A lot of times, I work with Democrats on civil liberties issues.

I guess my point is that people from all over the political spectrum can side with liberty and the Constitution. The goal is to get a majority to vote that way most of the time.

Read More…

http://www.cnn.com/…

With 97% of precincts reporting at time of posting.