Scenes from the 2008 LPNH Convention in Manchester, NH, 10/25/2008.
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
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...?
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.
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
NH Live Free or Die Celebration
Scenes from the 3rd annual "Live Free or Die Celebration," Jaffrey, NH, 8/23/2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 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.)
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...
"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
Pro-liberty
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy
Anti-liberty
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito
Heller Decision
Pro-liberty
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy
Anti-liberty
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)