After we had the great opportunity to sit down with Ron Paul in Lake Jackson, TX office we hit the road, driving north on 288 toward Houston, where we had a meetup later that evening. Off the west side of the highway we saw a collection of busts of former presidents. Obviously someone thought these guys were such good people that they deserved to be showcased.

We didn’t.

For more on this check out The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Tom Woods and The Cult of the Presidency by Gene Healy.

Related posts:

1. Obama’s cult of personality
2. Alex Jones cashing in on Obama presidency
3. Some not happy with Paul’s negative vote on aid package

Police officer Robert Powell, who detained Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats instead of allowing him inside a hospital where his mother-in-law was dying resigned Wednesday.

Officer Robert Powell had been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the March 18 incident.

“I made this decision in the hope that my resignation will allow the Dallas Police Department, my fellow officers and the citizens of Dallas to better reflect on this experience, learn from the mistakes made, and move forward,” Powell said in a statement issued through his attorneys.

He had stopped Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats’ SUV outside Baylor Regional Medical Center in suburban Plano after the vehicle rolled through a red light.

The officer pulled out his gun and threatened Moats with jail as the player and his family pleaded to be allowed to go inside the hospital. Powell continued writing Moats a ticket and lecturing him even after a fellow officer confirmed that Moats’ mother-in-law was dying.

Jonetta Collinsworth, 45, died of breast cancer before Powell allowed Moats to go inside the hospital.

Powell’s resignation was first reported by Dallas-Fort Worth television station KTVT. He later issued an apology, and Moats said he would accept it.

“I still hope to speak with the Moats family to personally express my deep regret, sympathy, and to apologize for my poor judgment and unprofessional conduct,” he said in the Wednesday statement.

He also said he wanted to apologize to his fellow officers.

A call to Dallas police was not immediately returned Wednesday.

Good. The camera, media and the internet are our most powerful tools. The more these events get recorded and distributed the easier liberty activists lives will be.

Related posts:

1. OTN covers Ryan Moats being kept by Dallas and Plano police
2. BART Officer Johannes Mehserle resigns while being investigated in the shooting of unarmed Oscar Grant III
3. Incident at Dave Ridley’s arraignment recalled by Patrick Shields of FreeKeene.com

Here’s a glimpse at the future of aviation security: Airline passenger Natalie Miller steps into a glass booth at a checkpoint. She raises her arms. Within moments, a screener asks what is in her back pocket.

Miller is puzzled because she dumped all of her possessions into a plastic bin before entering the booth. Or so she thought. When she reaches into her back pocket, she finds a credit card she left there.

“That’s pretty cool,” Miller says of the incident Thursday at Tulsa International Airport, shortly after the screener waved her through. “I thought the machines just detected metal.”

Not anymore. The 35-year reign of airport metal detectors began its slow descent this week in Tulsa, where for the first time some passengers are skipping metal detectors. People are instead being screened in a 9-foot-high portal with glass shields that rotate to produce vivid pictures of what is underneath passengers’ clothing.

As the TSA expands its test for airports in San Francisco, Miami, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque in coming weeks, it will be listening to passengers’ reactions.

Miller, 34, a sales representative from St. Louis, had no concerns. “It makes me feel a little safer,” she said, taking “maybe a few seconds longer – not a big deal.”

Tulsa Airport Director Jeff Mulder watched Wednesday when the body scanner was first used and saw little passenger objection or slowdown. “It looked like a relatively normal flow,” Mulder said.

But passenger Jim Lesterhold said the body scanner took twice as long as a metal detector takes. “If you were in a crowded airport, it would really slow things up,” said Lesterhold, 50, a Houston engineer.

[speaking of the images] “They are not pornographic at all,” Tulsa screener Debbie Shacklett said. “I don’t look at them as people. I look at them as a thing that could have something on it.”

Well… there you have it. The screening is “cool”, makes people feel safer, and is “not a big deal.” Not that it matters. The TSA agents don’t see the passengers as people anyway and therefore do as they please. “Steigen Sie in das Eisenbahnauto ein! In den Ofen!”

OK… I’m being hyperbolic but that statement is a bit startling. Treating people like things is exactly why we are in these situations.

Related posts:

1. TSA launches PR campaign
2. Holocaust survivor arrested at Florida airport for refusing to empty pocket, pushing offical
3. Most fake bombs missed by screeners

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, November 21, 1979

Although I was not in Congress when either the Lockheed or the New York City bailouts were enacted, I would have opposed both of those actions, as well as the proposed action regarding Chrysler, for many of the same reasons. Let me explain those reasons.

In a nation that is sinking in a sea of debt, it is irresponsible for this Congress to be considering a measure that would add billions to that debt. The expansion of credit is one of the primary forms of inflation. It is not merely inflationary in its effects; it is inflation itself. If this $1.5 billion is created by the federal government, it will ripple and percolate through our banking system, and because of our fractional reserve system, the ultimate growth in the money supply will be far more than $1.5 billion. The standard multiplier is six; that means an infusion of $1.5 billion will eventually result in a $9 billion increase in the money supply. In his testimony before the House Banking Committee, the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Greenspan, stated that

Loan guarantees, insofar as the issue of inflation is concerned, are virtually indistinguishable from on-budget financing, and that the major cause of inflation into this country has been an excessive amount of credit preemption, largely in the area of guarantees, which . . . has created excessive monetary growth and is the base of inflation in the system.

A vote for the Chrysler bailout is, simply put, a vote for further inflation.

Some may argue that the inflation is necessary in order to avoid unemployment, echoing the now repudiated idea of A.W. Phillips, that less inflation means more unemployment and vice versa. The past few years of our experience with inflation and unemployment should convince everyone that high inflation and high unemployment can exist side-by-side. I believe the connection is even closer: Inflation causes unemployment – perhaps not immediately, but in the longer run – and we are now in the longer run of our past inflationary policies. It follows that a vote for aid to Chrysler, because it is a vote for inflation, is also a vote for more unemployment.

Such unemployment may not be obvious, but it will nonetheless be real. One of the things that bothers me most about this entire discussion is that it centers around only what is obvious. Saving 100,000 jobs at Chrysler is obvious; losing 100,000 jobs, one by one around the country is not obvious, but they will nonetheless be lost, should aid to Chrysler pass.

Let me explain why I believe this to be so. If this aid takes the form of loan guarantees rather than direct loans (and, I add parenthetically, that over $1 billion of the New York City loan guarantees has been converted into direct federal loans by the Federal Financing Bank) it will be tantamount to an allocation of credit to Chrysler. That means that Chrysler will get capital that would have gone to other more efficient and more profitable businesses. Because this capital will be diverted by these loan guarantees to a less efficient business, it is highly probable that more jobs will be lost through invisible unemployment than would be were Chrysler to fail. I hasten to point out that this will result in all the increased costs to the government that the proponents of the bailout so loudly declare they wish to avoid. Of course, the costs will not all be centered in Michigan; unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamp benefits will increase nationwide, in big and small towns, urban centers and rural America. Rather than a few localities suffering noticeably; many will suffer almost invisibly. Workers who have nothing to do with Chrysler will lose their jobs or pay the taxes and higher prices caused by this bailout. The average industrial worker earns half of what the average Chrysler workers earns, and under the UAW contract, the Chrysler workers will be receiving a $500 million pay and benefits rise over the next three years. I have always thought that businesses in trouble cut costs; the Chrysler workers will receive far more in wage increases alone over the next ten years than this bailout amounts to. That (and other facts) would indicate to me that the Chrysler workers have not made any sacrifices and that they hope, through federal aid, to maintain their relatively high wages at the expense of the lower-paid workers in this country. We are being asked to shift the burden from the relatively well-off workers at Chrysler to the relatively worse-off workers throughout America. A Chrysler bailout will be a shifting of burdens that should be borne by those involved.

Do we in Congress have the authority, either moral or constitutional, to cause this suffering? I can find no provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make loans or loan guarantees to anyone, let alone to major corporations. Nor have I yet seen a valid moral argument concluding that we, as representatives of all the people, have the right to tax the American people – most of whom receive less in wages and benefits than Chrysler workers – to support a multibillion-dollar corporation. What right have we – and I pose a serious question that deserves an answer – what right have we to force the American taxpayers to risk their money in a business venture which private investors dealing in their own funds have judged to be too risky? Chrysler paper is now classified; that means that any private investor who is handling funds for his depositors, shareholders, or clients may be judged as violating his fiduciary responsibilities should he invest in Chrysler. Don’t we have a trust equally important from the American people? Are we not betraying their trust by voting for a Chrysler bailout? I believe so.

Rather than supporting this patchwork and temporary “solution,” we should be addressing those factors, over which we have control and for which we are responsible, that have brought Chrysler to the brink of bankruptcy. In his testimony before the House Banking Committee, President Iacocca listed three factors that caused the troubles at Chrysler: (1) government regulations; (2) inflation; and (3) the gasoline allocation system that caused last spring’s gasoline shortages. Please note that all three factors are the responsibility of the Congress. We wrote the regulations or gave some bureaucrats a blank check to write the regulations. We are responsible for inflation through our mismanagement of the monetary system. And we empowered the Department of Energy to create a gasoline allocation system that brilliantly achieved what I had heretofore thought impossible: gasoline shortages in Houston, the oil capital of the United States.

It is our responsibility to diagnose the Chrysler disease accurately. Instead, we are acting like political quacks, prescribing potions to treat symptoms, while the cause of those symptoms rages on unabated. Chrysler is not unique; it is merely the prototype, the harbinger, of crises to come. Dr. Greenspan testified that the most likely sequence of events, in his view, would be federal loan guarantees followed by a Chrysler failure anyway. Unless the disease is correctly diagnosed, the potions we prescribe will kill the patient.

I would urge this Committee and the whole Senate to act with more deliberation than the House has acted. This form of welfare for corporations must end. Just because it was extended to Lockheed does not mean that it should be extended to Chrysler. Bad precedents should not be followed, and these precedents are particularly bad. Because Lockheed, a large corporation, New York City, the largest city, and now Chrysler, the tenth largest corporation in the country, are the three institutions to which aid has been or will be extended, one can conclude that there is an obvious pattern of discrimination in the action of this Congress.

Last year there were 200,000 bankruptcies in this country, according to U.S. News & World Report. Yet we have selected only the largest for our aid. This is discrimination of the crassest sort. We ignore the smaller victims of this government’s policies simply because they are small. Only the largest, those with the most clout, the most pull, get our attention. This aristocracy of pull is morally indefensible. What answer can be given to the small businessman driven into bankruptcy by government regulations when he asks: “You bailed out Chrysler, why not me?” No justification can be given for this discrimination between the powerful and the powerless, the big and the small.

It is an axiom of our legal system that all citizens are to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. That axiom is violated daily by our tax laws, and now by this proposed corporate welfare plan for Chrysler. Apparently some citizens are more equal than others. That is a notion I reject, and I hope you do, too. I urge you to reject this proposal for all the reasons I have stated.

Related posts:

1. While everyone else is occupied by Wall Street bailout Congress authorizes $25b loan to auto industry
2. New Year’s Congressional Resolution: Obey the Constitution
3. Not content with leaving the burning corpse that is the economy alone, Pelosi calls for new “economic stimulus plan”

Longtime Ars readers know that I’ve had my own problems in the “Constitution-free zone” that exists in US airports, but an aggressive new ACLU campaign highlights a fact of which I was previously unaware: the Constitution-free zone that exists a US borders and airports actually extends 100 air miles inland and encompasses two-thirds of the country’s population. The US Border Patrol can set up checkpoints anywhere in this region and question citizens.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution contains a border-related exception to unreasonable search and seizure laws, permitting searches at border checkpoints that wouldn’t be permitted elsewhere. But federal statute 8 CFR 287.1 (a)(1-3) defines the border zone for enforcement purposes as encompassing an area within 100 miles of the actual border, with the possibility of extending it further under certain circumstances. This means that the US Border Patrol could conceivably set up random checkpoints asking travelers for a passport in places like Columbus, Ohio; Houston; or anywhere in the state of Florida. And, in fact, it appears that it has been doing exactly this.

In 2003, the Seattle Times reported on random “spot checks” of cars and luggage that border patrol agents were performing on US citizens who were taking the ferry between Washington State and the San Juan islands. Because most of the passengers on these ferries had not actually crossed an international border, the ACLU advised them at the time not to answer any questions asked of them by federal agents.

In the intervening years, the ACLU has been collecting other reports of such inland “border” checkpoints, and has built its new “Constitution-Free Zone” campaign around them. Unfortunately for the ACLU, few of the folks who have been subject to search at such checkpoints have actually come forward with complaints, but the ones who did speak up have compelling and troubling stories.

Take the story of Vince Peppard from San Diego, who crossed the border to buy tiles at a discount store in Mexico. Upon crossing back into the US, he was subject to the usual check at the border, but on driving further inland he was stopped a second checkpoint, where agents asked to search his car.

Peppard, a member of the ACLU, refused the search, at which point he was questioned repeatedly, and eventually escorted from his car while the agents searched it. Segments of Peppard’s account of the incident, which the ACLU has posted in video form on their site, would almost be funny if the issue weren’t so serious.

“He starts looking at the passport and the driver’s license,” says Peppard, “and he goes to my wife, ‘Where were you born?’ because she has an accent, but she’s a US citizen. And so she says, ‘I was born in Syria,’ and he goes, ‘Ah! A Syrian!’ like he’d hit the jackpot or something.”

Peppard then goes a little overboard in expressing worry that he may be stopped and asked for his passport at Home Depot or in other random locations, but he finishes off the clip with a concern that may not be so far-fetched. Specifically, Peppard worries that, because he has talked to the ACLU and has filed a complaint with the Border Patrol, he may be singled out for further harassment at border checkpoints.

Ultimately, one wonders just how far the Feds will push this internal checkpoint idea in a non-emergency situation; given the likely reaction to citizens being asked to show papers on a mass scale, it seems unlikely that the government will truly install checkpoints north of Columbus and begin screening in large numbers. But vigilance, as the saying goes, is the price of freedom, which is why the ACLU and its allies intend to challenge the practice before we have a chance to find out.

I’m glad they are finally picking up on this. The libertarian movement has been reporting on this stuff for years and there are some excellent activists out there attempting to raise greater awareness of this problem.

Related posts:

1. Suspicionless DHS Drug Checkpoints Inside America
2. ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck driver whose money was seized
3. Agent provocateur found to be at Democratic convention in Denver by ACLU

Some Galveston officials aren’t too pleased with their congressional representative, Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, for voting against the $22.8 billion disaster recovery aid package on Wednesday.

“That’s sad. That’s bad,” City Manager Steve LeBlanc said.

“I find it very distressing,” said Councilwoman Karen Mahoney, who represents the West End of the island, where damage was extreme. “He’s voting against aid for the region that he represents? I don’t find that very representative.”

Texas won’t get all that money, since some is dedicated to Iowa flood victims, Gustav victims and other disaster areas, but it could get more than half.

The legislation passed the House on Wednesday, 370-58. It also included other federal spending and the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific.

Eight of the Houston area’s nine lawmakers voted for the bill, with the exception of Paul. His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills, said Thursday that the congressman did not vote for the bill because it contained other “unconstitutional” provisions, which she did not specify.

Paul is famous for his consistent positions on limited government and low taxes. His views have drawn a vocal grass-roots following across the country.

Reactions among Galvestonians were mixed.

“That’s not too good,” said Mareia Schreiber while shaking out water-soaked artwork. “It feels kind of bad for the citizens of Galveston.”

But other residents said Paul’s vote didn’t bother them. “We’ve worked hard all our lives,” said Gene Lossow. “We take care of ourselves. I don’t need FEMA or anything else. We got insurance.”

Lossow, 65, works as a clerk at the Port of Galveston. The floodwaters soaked through his one-story ranch house, rising to 4 feet. Lossow and his wife had just spent $90,000 renovating the home a few months ago.

Lossow, who said he doesn’t vote, shrugged at news of the aid package. “There are too many people who expect the government to take care of them. But I’m not one of them.”

Tina Rios, who was helping her elderly parents clean out their flooded home on Ibis Street, said it was too early for her to think about “political stuff.”

“The only thing going on in our house is trying to save whatever we can,” she said. “We had flood insurance, but not contents insurance.”

Mills said Paul voted for a separate bill that passed Wednesday, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008. The measure offers individuals and businesses in disasters to claim tax deductions for losses and to write-off expenses related to cleanup.

Who knows what the sampling was like but it’s encouraging to see some people out there who are truly self sufficient. He’s been doing this for years and they keep electing him so these kinds of votes must not really concern the people much.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul is no compassionate conservative when it comes to Burma?
2. New Jersey legislature passes National Popular Vote Plan
3. Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He’s for smaller government, much smaller. He’s for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America. He’d also get rid of the Education Department and the Federal Reserve.

His followers, who reverently call him Dr. Paul, like the way he would strictly adhere to the Constitution as he sees it and return more freedoms to the little guy in the face of big government.

Paul fans — regularly called Paulites, Paultards or Paulunteers — also see a gentle humility in the weathered but wise hands of the 72-year-old ob-gyn, who reputedly has delivered some 4,000 infants into life in this wondrous world.

But there seems to be another side to Paul. A mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side. A side that sees millions of humans — albeit Burmese who are not registered to vote in Texas — afflicted with an historic cyclone, countless thousands of lives lost, devastation everywhere.

And the doting grandfather could care less.

This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering “condolences and sympathy” to the people of Burma affected by the recent deadly cyclone, Ron Paul, the millionaire, was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote “No.”

The Myanmar resolution, like all those goofy pieces of symbolic legislation, would have done absolutely nothing for the stricken millions. Not even provided one paper towel. It’s a cheap publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

Such worthless resolutions don”t even get much publicity anymore. And, to put it in blunt political terms, exactly how strong is the Burmese vote around here anyway?

So Paul’s symbolic stand against symbolic silliness looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radaronline.com, specifically Nick Curran, who finds out that Paul’s stand against symbolic silliness when it comes to Asians whose huts and hovels were erased by cyclone, is not quite so principled and a whole lot more enthused about dumb statements of sentiment when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman near Houston wouldn’t want to get on the official Congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait til the Houston Texans find out about that one. Or, worse for Paul, some Dallas fans.

–Andrew Malcolm

As I posted to Andrew’s blog… Less then 30 seconds on Google News search would have rewarded you with: ‘Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma’s ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country,” Mills said. “It’s just none of our business.”‘The pointlessness of the resolution itself was not the reason for the vote. It was the fact it tried to instruct the Burmese government on what it should do. As minor as it may appear it’s only a matter of degrees from other interventionist language we place in other resolutions which represent the actual interventionist actions we take. If you want to stop being to bully you ought to stop talking like one too.

As for the other votes on pointless resolutions… there is nothing you can do. Anyone in Congress can bring up any damn resolution they want or talk about whatever they want. If Paul is already in attendance he can vote NA, YAY or not vote. Nothing changes any which way and there is nothing unconstitutional about pointless resolutions. Voting no or not voting sends no message in those cases. In this case however it can. Only reason to vote against the pointless resolutions would be to save the ink given NA is shorter then the other options or to hold an absolute stance against wasting time. The congressmen get paid yearly anyway so I’d much rather them take up their time with pointless congrats resolutions than messing with things that actually effect the real world.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul comes in 3rd in the Texas GOP straw poll
2. Libertarian National Committee Passes Pro Ron Paul Resolution
3. Ron Paul wins blind nationwide Zogby poll

AUSTIN, Texas – A $5-per-customer fee on strip club patrons dubbed the “pole tax” has been declared unconstitutional.

A state district judge ruled that clubs can’t collect the fee. The charge went into effect in January and was expected to raise about $44 million for sexual assault prevention programs and health care for the uninsured.

Judge Scott Jenkins wrote in the March 28 decision that the fee, “while furthering laudable goals, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid.”

I originally intended to post this as a follow-up, but discovered the original, related stories never made it to the blog. I’ve listed them below for reference:

http://origin.foxnews.com/

…the Lone Star State will require its 150 or so strip clubs to collect a $5-per-customer levy, with most of the proceeds going to help rape victims.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/

“This is an industry that largely employs women, and this gives them an opportunity to raise funds for a crime that affects women,” said state Rep. Ellen Cohen, a Houston Democrat who sponsored the legislation. “I’ve been told the fees to get into these places can be $10, $15. I don’t think another $5 is going to prevent someone from going.”

Um, maybe that’s your problem, Ms. Cohen, you don’t think.

Related posts:

1. Oregon: Lap dances protected conduct
2. National Security Letter component of The USA PATRIOT Act found to be unconstitutional
3. Texas Supreme Court rules that CPS must return the FLDS children

Fox 26 in Houston gets some footage of the opening of Barack Obama’s Houston offices. And look at what’s up there on the wall:

Yes, that’s a Cuban flag, emblazoned with an image of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro’s old comrade in Communist terror. (Two good books on the real Che, not the sanitized Hollywood myth, are Alvaro Vargas Llosa’s The Che Guevara Myth and Humberto Fontova’s Exposing the Real Che Guevara.)

Che is a popular symbol on many college campuses, as well as among lefty Democratic presidential candidates, and when many young people think of “revolution,” they think of Che. Ron Paul, however, has made huge strides in showing young people that revolution shouldn’t mean romanticizing a hirsute Communist, it should mean returning to the principles of the American revolution — life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Obama’s movement, on the other hand, stands for something very different. The stakes could not be higher in the battle between Ron Paul and Barack Obama for the hearts and minds of America’s young people, as this picture shows.

I wonder if the MSM will report this? They surely enjoyed tying Ron Paul to the white supremacists. I somehow doubt it given they haven’t talked about his church much.

Related posts:

1. Barack Obama’s Supporters Emulate Ron Paul’s
2. Paul continues to lead in military donations
3. Obama’s cult of personality

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the congressman from the Houston area who opposes the Iraq war, has gotten more contributions than any other White House contender from donors identified as affiliated with the military.

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.

Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.

This is good news. While some reporters bring up this fact occasionally I rarely see it really analyzed. I think this is a very important bit of information. I’ve not looked up the total donations so as to figure the percentage of donations Dr. Paul received but he’s got the largest and the second is Obama who half heartedly wants the troops home. Any way you slice it it appears the majority of the troops want to come home. A majority of them support the guy who wants them home ASAP. I think if you are going to listen to any one or group as to what to do… I’d think those dealing with it directly would be the best start.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul gets most military contributions, again
2. Ron Paul, the Choice of the Military
3. Obama keeping the military industrial complex well fed