I've created a new section in the side bar to list the blogs of the States' Rights Bloggers Alliance. It is open to bloggers of all political persuasions who have read and signed the Declaration of States' Rights. The Declaration is "intentionally vanilla;" as the "About" page says, it "was written as a tent under which virtually all groups in America seeking autonomy, self-determination or greater States' Rights can comfortably stand."

They include not only brief explanations of the Revolutionary and Constititutional status of the states, but includes these interesting and fair points:
8. Hawai’i, an independent and sovereign kingdom prior to annexation by the Federal Government never legally or with consent conceded her sovereignty.

9. Hawai’i must be allowed to vote on the issue of statehood or independence; this vote should include only native-born citizens of Hawai’i, not military troops and other temporary residents who were included in the last ratification vote.

10. Alaska also must be allowed a free and open plebiscite on the issue of statehood or independence, this vote should include only native-born Alaskan citizens, not military troops and other temporary residents as who were included in the last ratification vote.

11. Puerto Rico must be allowed a free and open vote on the issue of commonwealth, statehood or independence. This vote should consist only of native-born citizens who are current residents of Puerto Rico.

Twelve points in all. You can read the whole thing here.

My weekly news and commentary is now posted at the DownsizeDC.org blog.

This is my latest piece at LewRockwell.com, and the first in many months. Its topics are the same as my two most recent Partial Observer articles (here and here). Excerpt:
Proportionality is an interesting question. Three men are at your door. They ask for $10 from each member of your household. What for? They say it’s for the security of a country the size of Massachusetts half the world away. You ask, "Why?"

The first man responds, "What are you, a bigot?"

The second says, "What are you, an ISOLATIONIST? Don’t you believe in DEMOCRACY? Do you support the TERRORISTS?"

And the third chimes in, "Don’t you want Jesus to come back?"

You politely decline. They say they’ll come back, this time with guns.

What’s "proportionality" in that case? Is it okay to shoot them right then over the $10, or only when the robbery actually takes place? Tough questions.

"The Ohio Supreme Court decided that Norwood cannot take private property by eminent domain for a $125 million development project next to Rookwood Commons. Do you agree or disagree?" Vote here.

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Brief excerpt:
The greatest strength of our enemies is not their numbers, or their weapons, or their tactics (such as terrorism). Their greatest strength is their legitimate grievances against us. For it is those grievances that create the Iraqi insurgent and the Islamic terrorist. It is those grievances that sway world opinion against the USA.

I'm troubled by the Andrea Yates verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity." I'm not going to venture into Thomas Szasz territory and the question of whether mental illness is a myth; if anything, I tend to agree with this statement from a NAMI press release: "The criminal justice system usually is ill-suited to address issues involving mental illness as it tries to impose legal logic on biological irrationality."

My angle is this: if Yates in fact committed the murders, she should have been found "guilty." This would establish that the state, as the official protector of our lives and liberties, has the right to incarcerate her. And then, if the jury rules "but insane," that would help determine the terms and location of her incarceration.

How is this different from "not guilty by reason of insanity?" Because if someone is "not guilty" of a crime, the state has no right to take her away. Period. No matter how insane she seems to be. The state is essentially ruling that the state can take a person away not because of the guilt, but because of the insanity. The evil is in the involuntary commitment of individuals to mental hospitals. If the state is to judge someone's mental competence, that should be considered only if that person is accused of a crime and should be able to act only if the person is found guilty of the crime. Otherwise, the state should leave people alone.

I mentioned the existence of concentration camps previously, in the wake of Katrina. Now it seems that Katrina victims living in FEMA trailer parks are not allowed to talk to the media. Socialize anything, even something reasonable-sounding like disaster relief, the result will still be police-state execution. Kids aren't free in government schools, and adults aren't free in government shelters. But that's not the half of it. As Jeff Wells reports,
FEMA's trailers are toxic sumps, exposing their human chattle to extreme levels of formaldehyde. "Pediatrician saw unusual illnesses," says MSNBC, and Becky Gillette of the Sierra Club states "It’s simply wrong that the government would spend billions of dollars to poison people in these toxic tin cans." Wrong, but they're doing it. And like most every other wrong thing they're doing, no one is making them stop.

This op-ed by Terry Michael in the Washington Times manages to get all the good points for drug legalization into one short piece. Terry Michael is a libertarian Democrat, and I think he points to a direction that Democrats ought to go.

No matter what Democrats do, they will be described and/or smeared for believing in "personal freedom." It's become old - and has always been inaccurate - but it is said that Democrats/liberals/the Left believe in personal freedom but not economic freedom. And the Republicans/conservatives/the Right believe in economic freedom but not personal freedom. No matter what is actually said and done, these descriptions always seems to stick; no matter what they do, Republicans "favor the rich" (the Left's view of economic freedom) and the Democrats favor moral decadence (the Right's view of personal freedom).

In 2000, I would have voted for President Bush if he did one thing - promise to try to repeal all tax hikes since the 1986 Tax Reform. Instead, he would only cut Clinton's; apparently he had neither the guts nor the principles to undo his father's tax hikes (too bad he didn't follow his father's policy of not invading Iraq). Bush promised a top marginal rate of 33% instead of 26%, and the final compromise arrived at 37%. This 2% was too small to impact the economy, while at the same time it stifled revenues causing record deficits.

But what have we heard since then? "Tax cuts for the rich," over and over again, even though taxes were cut for everyone. No matter how small the cuts for the rich actually were, Bush would get blamed for catering to the rich. And that is why he should have supported much steeper cuts; after all, he was going to be blamed anyway. Because of his timidity on the tax question, I decided Bush wouldn't be a strong or principled leader or good President, and I voted for the Libertarian Party's Harry Browne.

It is pointless for a politician to be timid. 40% of the population won't like you no matter what you do. The best one can do is earn the trust of the people in the middle who are undecided. They may disagree with you on an issue, but will respect your for taking and holding a stand.

So Democratic candidates should embrace social liberalism and personal freedom, instead of saying "me, too" on the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and censorship. No matter what they'll do, they'll be accused of being appeasers and soft and crime. So let it rip! Call for significant drug reform, and ideally outright legalization. Deep down, most people on both sides of the aisle know the War on Drugs is failing, the Democrats could get a good number of people who currently don't vote, and besides, it's the right thing to do.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R - PA) is drafting legislation allowing Congress to sue the President, making way for judicial reviw of President Bush's signing statements. Bush's signing statements are the President's way of signing a bill into law without actually following it. According to the AP, "Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds."

Specter is right to be angry about the signing statements. But the remedy for a renegade President who won't follow laws he himself signed is impeachment and removal from office, not intervention by the courts in a political squabble.

Comedian Doug Stanhope is running for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination. His own website requires one to be 18 to enter, but he also has a myspace blog. He would withhold federal highway funds for states that don't have 18 as the legal drinking age. He would make Election Day a holiday, and would pardon all non-violent drug offenders. More of his platform is forthcoming.

I don't know if he's the right choice for the LP, nor do I know if the LP will make a "safe" choice instead. Stanhope may be too politically incorrect even for people who pride themselves on being politically incorrect.

That's why I think it would have been cooler if Stanhope ran as either a Democrat or a Republican. As a Democrat, this drug user could provoke a intra-party war between the Eat Your Peas Yankees who dominate the party, and regular people who just want to be free. Or, as a Republican, this single atheist could declare war on the fire and brimstone evangelicals on behalf the normal folks who just want lower taxes and less government. The LP may have its place, but I'm looking forward to the day when candidates will appeal to freedom-loving voters of the two major parties.

In any case, I wish Stanhope well. I hope he gets the message of freedom out to people who haven't heard it before.

This is the kind of literature that makes me identify with the "Libertarian Left." From Sheldon Richman:
It is essential that principled opponents of the minimum wage not appear insensitive to the plight of low-income workers. Some people of course are responsible for their economic plight, but many others are put at a disadvantage by the mercantilist, mixed economy we live in. (Let's not forget, it's not laissez faire out there.) In opposing the minimum wage we should champion the disadvantaged by emphasizing that:
Any regulation, tax, and trade restriction that stifles the formation of new businesses, and thus competition, reduces the bargaining power and self-employment options of workers -- low-income workers most of all. Less bargaining power equals lower wages.

Every intervention that raises the price of housing, clothing, food, and medicine harms low-income people most of all.

Every land-use rule and all government landholding keeps the price of real estate and rents artificially high, harming low-income people most of all.

The actions of the central bank devalue people's money, harming low-income (and fixed-income) people most of all.

A rotten education system harms the children of low-income people most of all. Simply put, every interference with free people in the free market is first and foremost an attack on the poorest, most vulnerable in society. But notice that each intervention has its beneficiaries; together they constitute the privileged class. The chief enemy of the vulnerable is the corporate state, the system of mercantilist privilege for the politically connected that constrains the creation and diffusion of wealth. In this light the welfare state (the minimum wage and such) is revealed as a way to keep the vulnerable from catching on and rocking the boat. The Manchester liberals Richard Cobden and John Bright put these considerations at the heart of their nineteenth-century peace-and-free-trade movement.

People of good will never stop voting for the minimum wage until they realize, first, that economic laws are implacable; second, that pretending the laws don't exist hurts those they wish to help; and third, that the best way to help is to sweep away all government privilege. Genuine liberals must rededicate themselves to making their movement a people's movement.

Is it the Stonecutters? Maybe, as David Friedman indicates it's still just too damn hard to build a practical one:
Tesla Motors, a Bay Area startup, has announced that they will be bringing a fully electric vehicle to market in about a year. The relevant facts:

1. Range: 250 miles per charge.
2. Recharge time: 3 1/2 hours with a 240 volt/70 ampere source, longer with ordinary house current.
3. Configuration: Sports car.
4. Price: $85,000-$100,000.
5. Operating cost: 2.6 cents/mile if electricity is 13 cents/kwh. Still, I hope that rich people buy it. The more the rich encourage this, the more practical and less expensive those cars will be.

From DownsizeDC.org:
The Senate will soon vote on a bill that permits the Administration to spy on Americans without court approval. This violates the Bill of Rights and leaves us all unprotected from snooping government agents. Click here to tell the Senate to oppose the Specter-Cheney Deal and to preserve the role of the courts to approve searches of Americans.

While Congress is in session, I will be posting this feature at the DownsizeDC.org blog. The focus will be on the number of pages of legislation was passed, as part of our Read the Bills Act campaign, but there are additional tidbits and commentary as well. If you want to "stay informed," this is and will be a great place to go. Future posts should appear earlier in the week. Of course I will tell you when they appear.

"I see local political rule not as any sort of libertarian good, but simply as a vastly lesser evil than centralized political rule." - Anthony Gregory

"Having deliberately bombed two Lebanese military bases and possibly a third, repeatedly bombed Lebanese airports including the country's only international airport, bombed bridges and major roads all over the country... how exactly does Olmert expect the already relatively weak Lebanese military to get to the southern border in the first place???

"This is all very reminiscent of how past Israeli governments have systematically bombed Palestinian Authority facilities, including police stations, and then turned around and demanded that the very infrastructure which they'd just systematically dismantled with heavy explosives somehow exert itself to control the heavily armed terrorist groups operating from within Palestinian territory." - Kevin, at Indie Castle

"Just because much of the media is biased does not mean that the Bush administration is trustworthy." - James Bovard

"While it’s been said that for the neocons it’s always Munich 1938, for the left it’s always Birmingham 1963." - Thomas Woods

"America's real interests in the Middle East are in securing two primary goals: (1) Making sure that war and political factors don't obstruct the free flow of commerce – and oil – to American markets, and (2) neutralizing the Osama bin Ladens of the Middle East ideologically, not necessarily in that order." - Justin Raimondo

"Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?

"Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

"How much must America pay for the education of this man?" Patrick J. Buchanan

"Unfortunately, Israel is to America what Serbia was to Russia in 1914." - William Lind

"We'd never seen anything like 9/11. Except we had, and didn't recognize it. We needn't go back to Gladio or the other false flags of suppressed history. Just two summers before, nearly identical mechanisms of terror and control were deployed upon the Russian people to consolidate the transfer of power to Vladimir Putin, who was facing his first election, and to provide the pretext to invade Chechnya.

"After four apartment complexes had been demolished and 300 killed, residents of a fifth in the city of Ryazan discovered a huge bomb in their basement and called the local police. Initially, federal authorities claimed terrorists had been thwarted, but when the perpetrators were apprehended shortly thereafter by Ryazan police, and found to be agents of Russia's security service FSB, the story changed: it was now claimed to have been an "exercise," and the sack of explosive hexogen was said to have contained nothing but "sugar." (Disbelief, a documentary regarding the bombings and the revelation of state guilt, may be viewed here. The story of Ryazan begins at approximately the 36 minute mark.) In 2002, an incurious Duma voted against a parliamentary inquiry into the bombing campaign." - Jeff Wells

This is my latest at the Partial Observer, on federal funding of stem cell research.

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't suggest it is something freedom-loving patriots would ever want to repeat. It's for those who believe that "government schools with pledges and flags were needed to brainwash children to embrace nationalism, militarism, and socialism."

It is therefore ironic that the Pledge is now used as a political lightening rod. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in the 1950's; four years a go a federal court ruled that such utterance in a public school was a violation of the First Amendment's separation of Church and State.

That is nonsense, of course. The First Amendment restricts Congress, not the states or local communities, from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion." It is, indeed, the offical state churches that existed at the time which this clause addresses; Congress could neither interfere in a state's religious establishment, nor could it create a national church.

Mainstream opinion holds that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment restrictions (and selected other portions of the Bill of Rights) applicable to the states. But the Supreme Court didn't make this interpretation until over 50 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, in Gitlow v. New York, and there isn't any historical evidence for the validity of this interpretation. Indeed, if the 14th Amendment meant that, it could have said so. (You can see my interpretation of the 14th Amendment here.)

I oppose the Pledge, "under God" or not, but I also know that the Constitution has nothing to say, one way or another, about this issue. It is left for the states and the people to decide. While I think it's a silly issue to make a big deal out of, what with the War on Iraq, booming deficits, and everything, still I think it's good when a branch of government corrects the unconstitutional abuses of another branch. The judiciary has abused its power, and the Constitution provides Congress the remedy. Under article I, section 8, Congress is empowered to create federal courts, and thereby can make rules for them, including the cases they can hear. And in Article III, section 2, it empowers Congress to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiciton. With this power, Congress can prevent the federal courts from interfering with state laws and local practices.

And the House has done so, passing a bill to keep the federal courts out of Pledge of Allegiance controversies. One notable passage in the AP story is:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., said the effort to strip courts of authority could come back to haunt his fellow conservatives if liberals gain control of Congress in the future. As an example, he said Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a state's decision to ban guns.Well, that's right - because the Second Amendment no more applies to the states than does the First.

Am I thus an apologist for government power at the State and local level, or "tyranny of the majority?" Not at all. Am I a worshipper of the Constitution? Of course not. But the Constitution is the law we have. When we pretend it says something it does not, if we just make up its meaning as we go along, we may score victories in the direction of individual freedom sometimes, but at the price of greater federal power. When the Court tells us when we are and are not free, we end up with less freedom. The feds "free" schoolchildren from having to say "under God," while they allow asset forfeiture and regulation of political speech. I'd rather have stupid and tyrannical laws persist at the local level, than have the entire country become a Police State.

It's long past time that Congress employed one of its "checks and balances" against the federal judiciary.

Yes, most Presidents learn to veto within 1-2 years of their Presidency, and it took George WMD Bush five and a half. Still, it's a good first step.

Although I have problems with the reasoning behind the veto, WMD is right that Americans shouldn't pay for the destruction of human embryoes. I will elaborate tomorrow in my Partial Observer column, which will be called The Separation of Science and State.

This may be a political "win-win" for both WMD and the unprincipled, slimeball Congressional Republicans who support this stem cell research. If WMD signed this, he would have lost any respect that still exists for him among his Religious Right base, which meant he would have lost everyone. Yet, many Congressional Republicans can distance themselves from the Religious Right; this "move to the center" may help them politically in November.

And to all of you who want to take money from the American people at gunpoint to pay for your science projects of choice, grow up. It's not your money. Pay for the research yourself!

This is from today's Downsizer Dispatch:

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

Forward this to friends who care . . .

Quick. You need help. Desperately. Get out the yellow pages, or do a web search. Look under "people to tell you what to think."

Don't find it? Maybe it's in the government pages?

Oops. Sorry for the bother. You've already hired someone to tell you what to think. He's called the Drug Czar. His job, paid for with your tax dollars, is to tell you what to think about national drug policy.

That's it. That's all. That's what the Drug Czar does. He tells you what to think.

Aren't you relieved?

As you go about your labors today put a smile on your face. You're working, in part, to pay for that guy you hired to tell you what to think about our nation's narcotics laws. Isn't it comforting? Just think how confused you'd be without that Drug Czar guy to do the heavy mental lifting for you.

What's that you say? You didn't know you hired someone to do that? You don't need it? You don't like the name "Czar?" You won't have a smile on your face as you labor to pay his salary?

Well, perhaps you just need more information. Don't you know that this guy lobbies state legislatures to keep them from passing drug laws the federal government doesn't like? And don't you know that this guy works hard to defeat medical marijuana initiatives, and keep voters from voting the wrong way? Isn't that worth something to you?

No?

Well, then perhaps you'll want to know that there are some in Congress who want to fire the guy and close his office. In fact, his job is up for renewal right now, and there's legislation that would send the Czar packing. You might want to let your representatives know that you don't need no stinking Drug Czar. If you feel so moved, you can send your message here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

I admire the Minutemen for, if nothing else, throwing a political wrench into the plans for a consolidated North American Union. I have no praise for those who demand greater entitlements and citizenship for immigrants.

But, of course, any group of people has the right to peacefully assemble, and the Minutemen disgrace themselves if they cheer cops who bash the skulls of anti-Minutemen demonstrators (ht: Fawkes):
Having already surrounded the opposition protestors, members of the LAPD aggressively approached. This despite the fact that the opposition activists were non-violent even when approached by Minutemen provocateurs that frequently drifted across the street.

A young woman in her 20’s was dragged from the crowd, violently thrown down in the street and was hit several times with the policeman’s baton. This was the beginning of the cop riot.

For the next several minutes aggressive members of the LAPD hit several people with batons.

An innocent bystander, a middle-aged Latina, more than likely a grandmother, was on the other side of the street and had apparently just happened upon the intersection after exiting a city bus. She was thrown to the ground by the LAPD. She was pushed and hit with the cop’s baton and thrown backwards down the sidewalk, landing hard on the ground.

She had nothing to do with the protest. She was an innocent passerby on the other side of the street. She can be seen in the photograph below sitting in tears on a bus bench. Above the law, police were allowed to act in a manner contrary to the civil society they are supposedly sworn to protect and serve.

All the action took place to the soundtrack of Minutemen cheers and calls. I don't know when or if I will ever go to a political demonstration. Because if I do, I'll be armed, and if provoked, I would shoot. And then the stormtroopers will have their excuse for a bloodbath. Ain't worth it.