http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Barack Obama and Joe Biden both get a perfect 100 from the big-government liberal Americans for Democratic Action, which probably tells you all you need to know. But I remember a dramatic moment back in 1991 when Biden made his commitment to unlimited government clear and dramatic. Clarence Thomas had been nominated for the Supreme Court, and Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was questioning him. Biden bore in on the possibility that Thomas might believe in “natural law,” the idea, as Tony Mauro of USA Today summarized it, that ”everyone is born with God-given rights - referred to in the Declaration of Independence as ‘inalienable rights’ to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ - apart from what any law or the Constitution grants.” Biden singled out Cato adjunct scholar Richard Epstein and Cato author Stephen Macedo and demanded to know if Thomas agreed with them that the Constitution protects property rights. Waving Epstein’s book Takings in the air like Joe McCarthy with a list of communists, Biden demanded to know, as we very loosely paraphrased it in Cato’s 25-year Annual Report (pdf; page 14), “Are you now or have you ever been a libertarian?” As most judicial nominees do when pursued by a senator roused to defend his power like a mama bear, Thomas assured Senator Biden that he wouldn’t take the Constitution too seriously. Here’s Biden on the warpath:

Was Biden right to worry? Well, as we said in the Annual Report, four years later Thomas joined the Court in declaring, “We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of limited powers.” But ten years later the Court finally considered whether the Constitution protects property rights and said, “Ehh, not so much.” Thomas protested, “Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.” Biden was right to worry that Thomas’s understanding of individual rights and the Constitution just might put some limits on the power of government.

I doubt it’s changed.

I still believe that globalistic liberal fascism will destroy us slower than the Bush/McCain globalistic neocon fascism but these types of things certainly make it no easier in the lesser of two evils descussion. Perhaps it just makes it easier to present 3rd party candidates.

It pays so well.

http://www.usatoday.com/…

State and local government workers are enjoying major gains in compensation, pushing the value of their average wages and benefits far ahead of private workers, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data shows.

The gap is widening every year, rising by an average $1.02 an hour last year and $2.45 an hour over the past three years. The better pay and benefits for public employees come as private-sector workers face stagnant wages and rising unemployment.

State and local government workers now earn an average of $39.50 per hour in total compensation, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Private workers earn an average of $26.09 an hour.

How do you compete with that? They can practically pay whatever they want because tax payers are forced to handle the bill and most competition is removed through statute. The makeshift jobs many of these government employees have simply wouldn’t exist in a free market so their salaries are inflated because they exist period. Unfortunely government employee salaries are hardly a major component of the budget otherwise we would hit a breaking point where those in the private sector could no longer afford to subsidize the rest of the population.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Lawrence Lepard, who put a full-page ad in support of Ron Paul in USA Today at his own expense, is at it again. Here is the ad (pdf) that he plans to place in the New York Times. (I couldn’t determine when this ad will be published, or whether it has already been. If anyone knows please e-mail me and I’ll update this post).

UPDATE: “It will be in the News section. I do not know the date. In order to keep the cost affordable they have the option on the date. The range is Dec. 24th to Dec. 29th.

It is also going to run in all of the major New Hampshire papers on Friday, Dec. 28th.” See here. Mr. LEPARD (sorry for the mistake on his last name in my original post) also points out there that this ad is “a cleaned up version of the piece I wrote for Lew Rockwell explaining why I spent $85 K on the USA Today advertisement”.

You can find the original ad from USA Today here. It is really great to see these kinds of things. I’m not sure how anyone could look at all the grass roots decentralized stuff going on with the Ron Paul campaign and not be impressed and at least a little bit interested in why he’s gotten all this attention and devotion.

http://www.usatoday.com/…

Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality, Justice Department statistics show. The heightened prosecutions come as the nation’s largest police union fears that agencies are dropping standards to fill thousands of vacancies and “scrimping” on training.

Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims’ civil rights have increased 25% (281 vs. 224) from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, the department says.

During the same period, the department says it won 53% more convictions (391 vs. 256). Some cases result in multiple convictions.

Federal records show the vast majority of police brutality cases referred by investigators are not prosecuted.

I’m glad this information is coming out in a paper like USA Today. Those of us who pay attention to police brutality have seen the stories increase. We’ve known that the number of cops have increased as federal funds have poured into local governments since 9/11. Now we have government statistics proving what we all felt was obviously true. Besides the expectation that an increase in personnel and events will result in an increase in faults we have admission that because their is a shortage of supply they are having to lower the requirements and/or the training. Just as our military has been doing. With less qualified and trained individuals you would also expect a greater incident rate. Anthony Gregory last year wrote a great summary of why our socialist law-enforcement system fails. As these statistics and more stories of police corruption and brutality come about I hope that people will come to realize the danger in giving the state a monopoly on justice and legal violence.

http://www.usatoday.com/…

Security screeners at two of the nation’s busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.

Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.

At Chicago O’Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.

Funny… they only talk about the private firm once. 20% failure is still not great but it’s a hell of a lot better than 60% and 75%. As I ranted about here… the government can keep you no safer than private, voluntary means. The reason for ‘needing’ this security was the government. The government restricted the airlines ability to protect their property and customers. They continue to force these security measures that are not only immoral in a free society but impractical and inefficient.