Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Truth in Advertising

You wouldn't buy our shitty cars.
So we'll be taking your money anyway.
The Bailout. Coming this January.

You probably thought it was smart to buy a foreign import of superior quality, with better mileage and resale value. Maybe you even thought that years of market share loss might prod us into rethinking our process and redesigning our products with better quality in mind. But you forgot one thing: We spend a shitload of money on lobbyists. So now you're out $25 billion, plus the cost of your Subaru. Maybe next time you'll buy American like a real man. Either way, we're cool.

We're The Big Three. We Don't Need to Compete.™

(If anyone knows where this came from originally, I'd love to be able to link to it...)

EDIT 1/30/2009
Bill McGonigle reports in the Comments that this is a likely source.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Constitutional Peasants

The official Monty Python channel is here!

But surely such "hereditary monarchies" are far from our concern, no...?

Sunday, November 16, 2008


Being a fairly contemplative and conversational conference, this was about as close to a YouTube (ok, blip.tv) soundbite as the Middlebury Institute's Third North American Secession Convention provided. Herewith, the opening address -- including the "Sarah Palin Story" -- of Dexter Clark, Vice Chair of the Alaska Independence Party. Manchester, NH, 11/15/2008. Dude. Clark is one major hot shit...

EDIT: Convention write-up at Free State Observer
AND: The Manchester Declaration, Adopted at the Third North American Secessionist Convention, November 15, 2008, Manchester, NH

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Monday, October 20, 2008

Two Must-See John Stossel Efforts

Compiled by 2 (I flatter myself) fellow bloggers, on whom you might wish to keep an eye...

John Stossel for President please. Daily Wise Man
(Also available on ABC's 20/20 site, under "John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics," or here in one video)

John Stossel Goes to Washington

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Curfew Protest #2 & Outlaw Puppet Theater #5

Dave Ridley & pals again ratchet up their civil disobedience in Manchester, NH, violating (at least) 5 laws ostensibly in place "for their own good." In turn, the local constabulary, helpfully forewarned in writing of the late-night noncompliance by the aforementioned Mr. Ridley, once again ignore their duty, and empirically refuse to "protect" them. Chaos, once again, ensues. Why is this stuff the law if it doesn't need to be enforced? 9/23/2008

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Mad as... A Hatter?

The GOP partisans extolling Sarah Palin as the future of the Republican Party conveniently forget that that party has been, for the past 18 months, actively demonizing the philosophy they now maintain she represents. If she represented a future toward which the GOP actually wanted to move, it could have had Ron Paul now.

But it clearly, passionately doesn't want him. Hell, it wouldn't even let him speak at their convention. And it equally doesn't want the Sarah Palin of legend in any position of real power. Her advertised politics will not be allowed to survive intact beyond an impotent (Cheney notwithstanding) VP slot. If she is to become a leader of the party, she must be transformed. She will be assimilated. Right now, at best, she's just an ephemeral bone, a tantalizing but false mirage, a siren's song. And that's hardly anything to get excited about. I've no doubt the GOP as currently constituted -- the GOP of Bush and Cheney and McCain and the rest of the big-government neocon powerbrokers -- is determined to prevail. They've spent the last year-and-a-half proving that.

The Constitution will lose, regardless of which of the 2 parties that we're "allowed" wins in November. There's not a dime's worth of difference among the Demoblicans, who have no interest in endowed individual liberty, Constitutionally limited government and the rule of law; who pick and choose the Constitutional restrictions by which they'll abide, a number that is rapidly approaching zero. We need a better way. Soon. We need our guaranteed Republic back. And the 2 major parties will never, ever "grant" that. Indeed, there exists a negative incentive.

But we're stuck with the government we have only as long as we accept it telling us that we have no other choice. "Lesser of demonstrable evils" is still evil, and I will no longer (haven't for a while) willingly facilitate their continuous and escalating degradation of my freedom. And if everybody who believed the same way actually did the same, the problem would be solved. That's why I'm (still) writing in Ron Paul in November.

My point, though, is really more precisely to take heed of George Washington's Farewell Address and eschew, at least, the self-serving 2-party system. Don't fall for the "wasted vote" canard. Sure, I'd love to convince everyone to write in Ron, too, but it's more important that we all just fundamentally reject The Powers That Be. Stop taking their nakedly worthless word. Vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or George Phillies or even NOTA or... Anyone not anointed by our corporate government.

Tell them you're mad as hell and you're not gonna take it anymore. If you don't, it will definitely never matter to them. And it's true, isn't it?

What if a plurality actually voted for "Not a Demoblican?" Hmmm...?

Friday, September 5, 2008

Curfew Protest & Outlaw Puppet Theater #4

Rogue Puppeteer Dave Ridley prefaces his 4th illegal performance by leading an early-morning park beautification project to protest recently heightened enforcement of Manchester, NH's overnight parks curfew, 9/5/2008. No squirrels were harmed...

Read the back story here and here.

And here's the Union Leader article & video on the protest.

Follow updates on the forum at NHFree.com.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

On "voting" for Supreme Court Justices

The Declaration of Independence is our "mission statement." The Constitution was subsequently written -- and thus our government created -- within that context. "This is what we believe. This is what's currently wrong. Now, here's the limited servant government we create to address all that for ourselves." They are inextricably linked. The latter is wholly justified within the former, written specifically to address the beliefs and issues enumerated, and -- one might hope, umm, self-evidently -- not to contradict them.

"ALL men" — not just "citizens," which didn't exist when that was written — are endowed with "certain unalienable rights." Says so right there. "That to secure these rights, Governments [plural and generic, and again, written prior to the creation -- or really any realistic hope thereof -- of ours] are instituted among Men [not just residents of the Colonies], deriving their just powers from the consent of the [respective] governed," with the explicit purpose of protecting those pre-existing rights.

Whether these consenting "Men's" respective governments recognize them or not (or whether our government has the authority to impose them by force on other jurisdictions through the fascistic military-industrial complex with forcibly stolen and inflated taxpayer dollars) is an entirely different matter, but ours is required to recognize them within its jurisdiction as an expressed condition of its creation: "That whenever any [not just ours] Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." "Ends" being securing these rights for all consensually governed men. To repeat, when within the jurisdiction of our government — which was established with the clear understanding that it would HONOR those rights — "all men" RETAIN those rights.

When the Founders meant "citizen," they said "citizen." They believed -- rightly, I trust we agree -- that rights exist whether the revolution succeeded and their preferred government was formed – whether they were “citizens” -- or not. Rights pre-exist, and are independent of any government. "All men are created equal," endowed with rights, and therefore "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted." The word “citizen” occurs only once in the Declaration (and notably, referring to a different government), with the very first mention in the Constitution (which created our current government) being right up top in Article 1, Section 2, where it stipulates that one simply may not participate in the government (not merely enjoy the people’s inherent liberty – not to be confused with "entitlements," of course – that it's intended to protect) unless one is a citizen. They were perfectly aware of the word, and used it where they meant to. They didn't use "citizen" in, say, the 4th Amendment. If you want it to say "citizen," you must amend the Constitution.

If our government does not declare war (and Dr. Paul gave them a clear opportunity, which they notably declined to take), then there can be no (endless) PRISONERS of (an endless) war. Can't have it both ways. That rules out military processes for dealing with these detainees, leaving us with civil, and habeas corpus must apply, just as it must to the subset of "all men" known as "citizens." To "all men" within our government's jurisdiction. What's so threatening about them having their day in court, anyway? What is it we don’t want to hear? Or perhaps more concerning, what is it our GOVERNMENT doesn't want us to hear?

If one prefers the military process, there is a solution, but it's not to pretend that the "ALL men" precondition to the creation of our government doesn't exist. Because there's always a persecuted whimsical subset of "all men," even of "all citizens" — perhaps even intentionally artificially created — to which any one of us can belong, and that 5 in robes can rule. Or just one in a Texas jester cap, for that matter. If King George unilaterally decides to declare you an "enemy combatant" in a perpetual war, with no access to courts or counsel -- ever -- how will you prove otherwise (as if the burden of proof should actually be on you)? Buh-bye, now...

Personally, I'd prefer not having to cope with figuring out what all those subsets could be at any given time. Best just to adhere to the rule of law. "All men." Either we abide by the Constitution -- and the "mission statement" that underlies it -- or we don't. But then, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..."

Anyway, I see and hear admonitions increasing (again) that voting for one or the other major-party candidate (somehow there's never any other "valid" option) is the only way to save this or that right through their anticipated Supreme Court appointments. This is missing the forest for (equivalently important) selective trees.

The sad truth is that the very same justices who got habeas corpus right, got Heller wrong. And the exact same 4 who got Heller right, got habeas wrong. Only Justice Kennedy managed to apply first principles consistently on the two landmark decisions, both of which thus barely upheld clear Constitutional principles by the absolute slimmest of margins. (My thoughts on Heller are here.)

Habeas Corpus Decision
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

Heller Decision
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter

Until our "leaders" stop learning their reading comprehension skills in government schools -- or until we take George Washington's advice, and eschew political parties and vote only for principle, in which case the "Demoblicans" (I do like that one: it's got "mob" right in it) would be gone right quick -- "We the People" are screwed either way.

The upshot, ironically enough, is that ya might as well vote for principle. And if everyone would...

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Mr. Marvin goes to town

Ryan Marvin, et al, take a meeting with Manchester, NH, Mayor Frank Guinta on the topic of the Manchester police department's repeated overreaction to the peaceful exercise of Constitutional rights, 7/16/2008.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

To Heller in a handbasket

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The ill-considered, Constitutionally inconsistent, downright nonsensical rantings of the lunatic statists, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's Heller decision on the D.C. gun ban, prompted me to collect some of my thoughts on their various hysteri-- er... historical arguments:

** There was no such contemporary thing as firearm registration or licensure at the time of the Revolution. Such infringements on inherent rights would have been considered "unreasonable" restrictions had they even occured to the Founders. Indeed, they would likely have precipitated a revolution.

** The Bill of Rights' exclusive intent was to protect individual rights (considered to be necessary because the States expected the concepts addressed in the 9th and 10th [arguably the one expanded exception, but we'll get to that in a moment] Amendments to be ignored even then), by enumerating merely a few unalienable examples.

** Everywhere else it's used in the BoR (1st, 4th, 9th, 10th), "the people" refers to individuals, not to "the collective." Indeed, the 10th Amendment draws a very clear distinction between government (explicitly broken down even further into federal and state) and "the people." "The people" is most decidedly not "the state."

** "The militia" referred to all able-bodied men & boys, not to government military, the reiteration of whose authority was not the subject of the BoR, anyway (being instead the province of the Constitution proper).

** The subordinate clause concedes that since a free society needs occasional defending to remain so -- perhaps even against its own government, the government now claimed to somehow have a "right" to superior arms -- it's indeed in that society's best interest of securing said freedom that its citizens are not forcibly disarmed for the eventuality that their participation is needed. It's offered, yet unnecessary justification for the expressed right, even for the nominal statist.

** What part of the declarative "shall not be infringed" is unclear to even the public school-trained rational mind?

** A total ban has not improved, e.g., D.C.'s violent crime rate. To attempt to argue that to revert to relatively Constitutional pre-prohibition access would somehow result in worse statistics than ever -- without evidence, no less -- is, to be kind, ineffective.

** Perhaps most significantly, the notion that the 2nd Amendment intends that government's right to arms "shall not be infringed" is simply beyond ludicrous. The BoR addresses limitations on government, not authorizations. Additionally, government is expressly granted only "authority" (again, in the Constitution proper, not the BoR). It does not enjoy "rights," let alone of a "protected" variety. Specific, enumerated (oh, if only...) powers are granted to government by "the people," and any of them may be rescinded through the conveniently provided Amendment process (assuming they are, in fact, legitimately granted in the first place, of course, and not simply commandeered, in which case...). So "shall not be infringed" does not -- CANNOT -- refer to government. Any strained alternate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment turns this intended concept on its head, and leaves its advocate wide open to charges of inconsistent reading comprehension. Or a profound preference for unlimited, unopposable government. Just be honest. That's all I'm asking. Well, it's all I can hope for...

** The 2nd Amendment limits the "allowed" relevant tools to those available contemporary with the Constitution as much as does the 1st Amendment. I.e., no cable news free speech, no internet free speech, no religious freedom for Jehovah's Witness, no on-line assembly, no electronic or on-demand publishing. In fact, no electricity.

Better get your Gutenberg press revved up if you wanna keep pontificatin' there, Keith. And somehow I bet you'd be singing a different tune were King George to declare martial law. I can hope, anyway... (btw, between his Heller tirade and his flip-flop on FISA just because Obama did, late June, 2008 is when Olbermann officially jumped the shark as a self-proclaimed defender of the Constitution)

NH State Constitution: Part First, Article 2-a
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Really. How much clearer can it get?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

FIJA Demonstration, and non-arrest

Contrary to portended, a thankfully uneventful midday FIJA
demonstration at the Court House in Concord, NH, 6/18/2008.

Hit these relevant links for further intel on the demonstration and the anticipated arrest of Kat Kanning.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Friday afternoon at PorcFest '08

Sights & sounds from a lazy Friday afternoon at PorcFest '08, Gunstock Ski Area, Gilford, NH, 6/13/2008

Idle wanderin'


Monday, June 9, 2008

In Memoriam...

...of the Republic, dead with the 2008 elections. Sure, there likely won't be much of anything particularly earth-shakingly new following it (assuming King George doesn't declare martial law, of course). Simply more "fetid business as usual." It's not like this isn't the direction we've been headed for a while already.

But with the Presidential field now effectively whittled down to 2 not-an-inflated-dime's-worth-of-difference, more-of-the-same authoritarian collectivist choices, it's clear that the electorate is good with the trend, despite Ron Paul's best "Paul Revere" impersonation...

So, planted today, my memorial to the Republic: "Salix alba 'Tristis'," "Salix Niobe." Appropriately, the Golden Weeping Willow.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Bush/McCain=McSame, Huck/Clegg=Cluck?

"The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism..."
Mike Huckabee, 5/2008

Either he's ignorant, or he thinks the voters are. There's no third choice.

"Now the Democrats are beginning to come back to [the] center, and the Republicans are becoming libertarians. We're losing elections in a grand way."
Mike Huckabee, 5/2008

Not 'cause you're "turning libertarian," Huck. Sorry. Oh, if only...

In a May interview in Seattle (original post here, more commentary here), authoritarian theocrat VP hopeful Mike Huckabee saw fit to pontificate on the "cause" of the deeply troubling direction of the Republican Party in recent years. Incomprehensibly, he blamed the electorate's increasing rejection of the neocon-controlled GOP (whatever has taken it so long?) on...

...an unchecked incursion of libertarianism!

As if libertarians were running the joint. As if libertarian philosophy were finding any significant success in the Republican Party of any recent vintage. As if libertarians were actually the ones who've been earnestly and purposefully guiding the GOP into the toilet (how far they've fallen since '94, let alone '70s Reagan, eh?). As if he actually understood libertarian philosophy (or is he really just outright lying?). (BTW, go watch the "Change your life in 8 minutes" video just up there over to the right. That's it. Go ahead. I'll wait...)

Sadly, we're invariably "allowed" only 2 candidates, and the other one, conveniently enough, is always a 'D' (so no one ever has to worry about the distressingly severe handicap of battling a principled opponent). And so they're both completely -- and dishonorably -- free to misrepresent the thereby missing libertarian philosophy with impunity, of course. When they bother to mention it at all, that is. Hillary, say, would sound no less absurd than ol' Huck by asserting the same thing about that other (to be charitable) ethically challenged (theft is wrong, kids, even if you assign someone else to do it -- deal with it), philosophically bankrupt party.

With props to Dale Everett, it's the misdirective "libertarian bogeyman." With props to Joss Whedon, "These libertarians read minds and spin falsehoods! They're witches, and we must purge the devil from them. WITH FIRE!" (Yes, that's a 'Firefly' reference...)

It's instructive -- and heartening, I think -- that Huck apparently considers the libertarian movement so dangerous to the neocons, et al, despite such limited ongoing success. I mean, why say anything? Except to take the heat off oneself, of course (think the harmonized and choreographed "shoot-the-messenger, ignore-the-message" tactics employed, just most recently, against Scott McClellan). A convenient if nonsensical scapegoat. "It's not our fault. It's that guy's!"

Misrepresentation is to be expected from the politically dishonest. But it also requires a deeply cynical assumption that no one will notice the lies getting bigger and more bizarre. Consider the Bush administration. Or a McCain extension thereof. The GOP blaming libertarians for the state of their party is like old white Christians blaming Rastafarians for the abysmal state of our government and our liberty. It just doesn't fly.

So now authoritarian theocrat VP hopeful, The Huckster finds himself back in NH, June 8 and 9, 2008, providing the quid pro quo for retiring State Senator Bob Clegg (he of the vociferous REAL ID support, and free market-overriding, voluntary contract-eradicating "mandatory insurance coverage") in the latter's run for the GOP's 2nd District Congressional nod.

Got any questions...?

Monday, May 26, 2008

Outlaw Puppeteer: 3rd Time's a Charm?

Dave Ridley again attempts the downfall of western civilization, now including enlisting the help of the vulnerable homeless in his dastardly crimes. Wanna guess...? 5/25/2008

Tuesday, May 20, 2008