http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

1. Saturday is supposed to be a day of rest, but the New York Times is hard on the job of promoting the total state. First, there is a front-page article on the plight of refugees from Zimbabwe, and it is well-written and interesting, and very, very sad. However, we should not forget that the Times was an early supporter of the man who is the source of this misery, Robert Mugabe. Furthermore, Mugabe’s policies pretty much square with the state economic control that the Times endorses every day in both its news and editorial sections.That the tragedy in Zimbabwe is an extreme example of what happens when the state confiscates private property, sets price controls, and prints money without end does not negate the fact that the Times for years has endorsed state seizure of private property, price controls, and fiat money. Indeed, one would think that the editors there would recognize the folly of those things endorsed by the Times, but we are speaking of the Newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, and Duff Wilson (of Duke lacrosse fame).
2. The top editorial excoriates Gov. David Paterson for choosing Kirsten Gillibrand as Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate replacement. Why? In the Times‘ own words:
   

   What is the most disappointing about Ms. Gillibrand’s record is her extreme opposition to reasonable gun control laws. Her opposition to new efforts to trace illegal guns and support for rolling back gun control laws in the District of Columbia go well beyond her declared support for hunters’ rights. She earned a top rating and vigorous campaign support from the National Rifle Association. Her jarring views on guns could cost her a bitter Democratic primary fight next year for re-election if gun-control advocates like Representative Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island challenge her on this issue.

   I’m not sure what “unreasonable” gun control might be. However, the editors do hope that her views will “evolve” to fit those of the anti-private gun Senator Charles Schumer:

   On Friday, Ms. Gillibrand seemed ready to hear arguments against her views on guns. She vowed to help push Ms. McCarthy’s latest bill to speed background checks on those who buy guns at gun shows. She should also agree to Senator Charles Schumer’s offer to escort her on a listening tour of New York’s urban neighborhoods where guns are not used for hunting the Thanksgiving turkey. Senator Schumer said he was confident that once she saw the problem, her views on this grave issue would “evolve.”

   Read that, “Unless you are lockstep with Schumer, we will kneecap you in the upcoming election.” No doubt, she will be horrified. Who knows? Maybe they can have a REAL DRIVE-BY SHOOTING DURING HER VISIT!
   Read More…

http://www.breitbart.com/…

The US Senate Saturday approved 25 billion dollars in loan guarantees for the financially strapped US auto industry, intended to spark a wave of automotive innovation.

The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President George W. Bush has indicated that he intends to sign the bill.

“We’re very pleased Congress has chosen to act at this critical time,” said Greg Martin, director of communications for General Motors Corp’s Washington office.

GM had been subject of much speculation that it could be forced into bankruptcy.

The bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, are the first loan guarantees for US carmakers since Congress approved a similar 675 million dollar measure for Chrysler Corp. in 1980.

Chrysler Chairman Robert Nardelli, however, said this week the loan guarantees should not be considered a rescue package for struggling carmakers. “This is not a bailout,” he said.

Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old — Nissan and Honda’s US operations qualify.

Not a bailout?

Bailout in economics and finance is a term used to describe a situation where a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, is given a fresh injection of liquidity, in order to meet its short term obligations. Often bailouts are by governments, or by consortia of investors who demand control over the entity as the price for injecting funds.

Obviously Mr. Robert Nardelli and I have different definitions of ‘bailout.’

How about we let them burn just like the banks? The unions want to complain about it? Let’em! They have brought this on themselves by using the guns of government to minipulate and regulate the auto industry out of competitiveness. Though luck.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On June 30, the chair of the Maine Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in state court, to remove the only independent candidate for U.S. Senate from the November ballot. The case is Knutson v Department of the Secretary of State, Kennebec County. The Secretary of State had determined that the candidate, Herb Hoffman, has 4,000 valid signatures. The lawsuit argues that the Secretary of State is mistaken. The specific dispute includes whether a signature is valid if the signer gives a Post Office Box address, and whether certain signatures were properly witnessed.

Hoffman is a former Democrat who supported Dennis Kucinich for president. Hoffman became disillusioned with the Democratic Party, partly because of how Kucinich was treated, and partly he disagrees with the stances of the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate on foreign policy. If Hoffman is removed from the ballot, there will only be two choices remaining on the Maine ballot in November for U.S. Senate.

Can’t give people a choice. They may not choose correctly. Maine residents, it’s for your own good, really.

I don’t know how this slipped through the libertarian blogosphere but this is pretty hardcore. Looks like it was on 3/13/2008 and the blog is from 6/15/2008.

http://politicalinquirer.com/…

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt
http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

And as other sovereignty issues arise like with Real ID hopefully the states can exert enough pressure to cripple the federal government. At least slow its march toward total national control.

My recommendations for those Republican and independent voters of New Jersey.

For Member of the United States Senate: Murray Sabrin

For Delegaes-At-Large To The National Convention: Constitutional Republicans Protecting the Liberty Platform

The delegates which make up that group are: Donna Ward, Fernando Powers, Jammes J. Valencia, Ron Brittin, Stacey Sperbeck, Girard Falzon, Charles G. Ward, Marc Mingle, George Ajjan, and David Wallace

All other positions have only one person running under the Republicans for Responsible Government banner. Most if not all of which are big government Republicans, RINOs.

You can learn more about Dr. Sabrin at MurraySabrin.com and the Constitutional Republicans Protecting the Liberty Platform here.

For those who may not be aware Murray was endorsed by Ron Paul earlier in the campaign.

Sabrin may not be a good libertarian (securing the borders with fences?), he’s not as good as Dr. Paul, but he’s definately better than Dick Zimmer, Joseph Pennacchio and Frank Lautenberg.

http://www.reason.com/…

Lately, Barack Obama has been quoting John F. Kennedy: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do.” For a few hours the other day, I was starting to think he really meant it.

On Thursday, The Washington Times reported that in 2004, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama came out for decriminalizing marijuana use. That usually means eliminating jail sentences and arrest records for anyone caught with a small amount for personal use, treating it more like a traffic offense than a violent crime. But in a show of hands at a debate last fall, he indicated that he opposed the idea.

When confronted on the issue by the Times, however, the senator defended his original ground. His campaign said he has “always” supported decriminalization.

It’s a brave position, and therefore exceedingly rare among practicing politicians. Which may be why it didn’t last. Before the day was over, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying he thinks “we are sending far too many first-time non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time” but “does not believe that we should treat offenses involving marijuana with a simple fine or just by confiscating the drug.” Recently, he had told a New Hampshire newspaper, “I’m not in favor of decriminalization.”

This episode reveals that as a candidate, Obama is more fond of bold rhetoric than bold policies. But it also proves the impossibility of talking sense on the subject of illicit drugs during a political campaign. That course of action would mean admitting the inadmissible: that the prohibition of cannabis has been cruel, wasteful and fraudulent.

It would also mean he has a backbone and is for real change and not tinkering with the status quo. A friend tried to get me to support Obama. Said he had a real chance of getting elected and was second best to Ron Paul. I very sternly let him down by telling him not a chance in hell. Obama’s looking to in the least continue the same old Washington bullshit while giving lip service to “change” at at worst will grow our federal government to even more. I don’t care about youth, speaking ability or race. I surely don’t care about a new Camelot or a weak policy on the drug war.