who's your nanny?

The State Screws the Poor Too

It's that time of year again. Time to make room for new Christmas toys by hauling all of my son's "old" toys to the dump instead of to local thrift stores that used to be able to sell cheap toys to poor families.

Due to a federal law that took effect in February this year, most resale shops -- whether non-profit or for-profit -- have since refused to accept donated children's toys unless they are still in their original packaging.

Congress enacted the law last year in response to recalls of imported toys laced with lead.

The law requires all items marketed to children 12 or under to be certified lead-free.

Thrift shops that rely on charitable contributions aren't in business to test toys for lead; they're in business to provide affordable goods to people who usually can't afford to shop at Macy's. And, of course, the reason these goods can be sold very cheaply is because they're generally obtained by the stores free of charge.

However, because it's extremely cost-prohibitive for these businesses to comply with this new regulation -- notwithstanding the sanctions they'd likely face should they fail to comply -- they simply can't afford to accept used toys anymore.

So take that, kiddies! Who needs Santa when you've got Uncle Sam?

'Locker' Gets a Reprieve

Watching the Sabres-Capitals game tonight (hockey, for the majority of you Americans). As a Sabres fan living in Maryland, I can't get the Buffalo feed and have to put up with Caps announcers Joe Beninati and Craig Laughlin, both of whom I've generally regarded as, uh, mildly irritating as far as hockey commentators go.

With Beninati's borderline-retarded referral to power plays as "manpower advantages" and 5-on-5 play as "even and full strength," and Locker's nasally description of goal-scoring as "putting the biscuit in the basket," I'm always tempted to turn down the sound on the tv in favor of listening to Rick Jeanneret's radio telecast as he calls Sabres-Caps games.

But, I suppose you can't hold it against other teams that Buffalo has the best play-by-play man in all of sports. And I suppose that as a Buffalo native, I'm probably guilty at times of a little nasal pronunciation myself. Or maybe I'm just getting old and way too forgiving.

Whatever the case, I have to say I gave Laughlin the ol' thumbs up during the first period as he and Beninati were congratulating Caps forward Matt Bradley, who's absent tonight due to the birth of his son. The guys were talking about Bradley buying cigars for the team when Laughlin warned him not to "chince" on them, saying that "Cubans will be fine."

Good for you, Locker. Way to stick it to the man from the nation's capital. Well, from Buffalo, but as I said, I'm stuck watching the Washington telecast.

Maybe there's a chance for us yet, Craig!

Fascist F*cks

The federal gubmint wants to impose universal "health care" because it cares about you. It cares so much that it will rob you at the point of a gun -- i.e., it will violently relieve you of your property (your money, and perhaps even your life) -- if you politely refuse its "services."

Yes, folks, the state wants to force health insurance on everyone because it simply wants to help. Not because its cronies in the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies stand to make many more billions because of it. Or because politicians will then have a good excuse to micromanage every single thing you attempt to put into your body. Or because this new plan masquerading as universal "care" is really a plan for universal control over anyone not associated with the power elite.

If Americans insist on being imps instead of living independently, we might as well get used to one of the best movie quotes of all-time:

Now, you will go to sleep! Or I will PUT you to sleep. Check out the name tag. You're in MY world now, Grandma!

-- Hal L., Happy Gilmore

More Heller Redux

Thanks to Manuel Lora for alerting us to the abominable Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ and champion of a program encouraging neighborhood snitches to turn in gun owners for $1,000.

To everyone who naively believes the Heller decision was a victory for gun rights, I ask you to explain why every gun-controlling public serpent (thanks, Kent) references it when justifying his or her latest "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership. Specifically, Booker states (.pdf):

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms, effectively striking down the ban on hand gun ownership enacted by the District of Columbia. In its decision, the Court clearly recognized and affirmed a government’s right to take reasonable measures to limit gun ownership in order to ensure community safety. It is within this space that we must now act.

I conclude by quoting Mr. Lora:

There’s that word again, “reasonable,” coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. “Sure,” they say–there are gun rights, “as long as there are reasonable restrictions.” Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.

Tennessee's New Gun Law Is a Non-Issue for Restaurant Owners

"In Tennessee, we apparently are going to have 225,000 vigilantes shooting in bars."

That's a quote from Randy Rayburn, a restaurateur in Nashville who's complaining about a new state law that will allow gun owners to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.

Rayburn's hyperventilation over this law is absurd at best, considering he's implying that all of Tennessee's handgun permit holders will turn local bars and restaurants into modern day versions of the O.K. Corral just as soon as they're allowed entrance with their sidearms.

But there are at least a few problems with this argument. For starters, gun owners are among the most responsible people around. Thirty-seven other states have similar laws on their books and they haven't yet devolved into the fabled "Wild West" (a myth in its own right). Furthermore, the Tennessee law prevents bar and restaurant patrons from drinking alcohol when in possession of a firearm. And unlike an Oklahoma law that trampled property rights by requiring employers to allow workers to keep firearms in their cars in company parking lots, restaurant owners in Tennessee still have the right to ban weapons from their establishments.

Admittedly, I don't have my finger on the pulse of Tennessee politics, but this new gun law appears to not only increase liberty for gun owners but also preserve the property rights of business owners. The only problem I could foresee is if the law, say, allowed guns in restaurants but not in bars, and the status of an establishment could actually change in the eyes of the state relative to the amount of food it served in proportion to liquor.

For instance, if a restaurant owner could be fined or closed down because his liquor sales outweighed his food sales at any given point -- in essence, he's a "restaurant" one day and a "bar" the next -- this would obviously be an undue burden. In such a case, it would be virtually impossible to monitor a business in a dynamic environment where transactions are occurring minute to minute, and the owner would never really know whether to admit customers with guns or not. However, this doesn't appear to be a potential issue given that the law seems to apply equally to bars and restaurants.

No public servant should have the right to determine policy for any bar or restaurant owner, whether the issue be carrying a firearm, smoking, or eating fatty foods on the premises. All that matters is that consumers are engaging in consensual transactions with the property owners. Bars, like any other business, should be allowed to determine their own policies and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their stand in the marketplace.

Unless I'm mistaken in assessing this new law, people like Randy Rayburn simply have to post a sign reading "No guns allowed" if they don't want patrons carrying firearms -- the same thing they'd do in the absence of state laws in the first place. If this isn't good enough, then the only conclusion one can reliably draw is that Rayburn is a no-good busybody who wishes to use the state in order to impose his will on everyone else.

I Miss NY

Buffalo's Jim Ostrowski makes me feel a bit envious of NY residents today, as he revels in the fact that the state senate has remained deadlocked at 31-31 for three weeks now. This has already resulted in more than a billion dollars in saving for NY residents, as the government has been unable to pass new liberty-trampling taxes and laws.

I actually underestimated the amount of the gridlock tax cut. It’s way over a billion. NYC residents alone will be taxed $700 million more when the dirty deal is made for a 32nd vote.

Of course, given that I now live in Maryland, the least free state in this unholy union, it's really like I never even left the Empire State.

We're Quickly Becoming a Nation of Criminals

Yesterday I used the example of a drunk-driving incident to briefly illustrate how unjust the American legal structure is. From your county commissioners right on up to the federal government, the state constantly seeks to prosecute us for the mere potential to commit crimes, not simply in response to harm done intentionally to someone else or his property.

The problem with this system of governance is that it is extremely tyrannical. From a moral standpoint, you can't have a criminal without a victim, yet the state increasingly criminalizes nonviolent habits or behaviors that do no harm to anyone, save perhaps the individual who chooses to engage them. And even when the state does prosecute someone who's actually violated the property rights of others, the state doesn't merely force the individual to pay for his own crimes; it compels innocent taxpayers to pay for them as well when it robs us at the point of a gun in order to feed, clothe, and incarcerate the miscreant.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans not only condones but actually encourages this so-called system of "justice," even though granting the state such enormous power means there literally is no limit to the abuses that can be wielded on nonviolent citizens. To illustrate this further, I will reprint some comments I received yesterday at the Examiner in response to my post.

Read the entire article.

Our Unjust Legal System

Prosecutors in New Jersey are seeking the maximum penalty of nearly three years in prison for a man who initiated a head-on collision with a truck carrying a man and his daughter while he was intoxicated.

Shaun Campbell of East Rutherford told a judge Tuesday that he had been drinking "quite a bit" of beer when he crashed his SUV head-on into a pickup in April. The truck's occupants, a man and his 4-year-old daughter, were not seriously hurt.

The 40-year-old Campbell's blood-alcohol level was .288 percent, more than triple the state's legal limit.

Authorities say Campbell's license has been suspended 78 times in 22 years. He still faces drunken-driving charges in two other New Jersey cities.

First of all, it doesn't matter how many times Campbell's license has been suspended in the past. None of those incidents is relevant to the issue at hand. And if Campbell didn't hurt anyone or cause property damage while he was driving under the influence in any of the previous cases, he never should have been charged for civil or criminal offenses, much less had his license suspended. You can't have an offender without a victim.

Moreover, forget the fact that current drunk-driving laws have apparently put no dent in Campbell's recidivistic behavior. What's most imperative is that the accident that occurred as a result of his intoxication is between him and people in the vehicle he struck, not between him and "society" in general. However, instead of being compelled to compensate his victims in the form of monetary damages, thereby bearing sole responsibility for his offense, Campbell will most likely be sent to a government cage where tax-surrenderers will be forced to house and feed him for the duration of his sentence.

If you're wondering how a system of "punish the innocent in order to punish the guilty" can be even remotely just, congratulations, you're beginning to think like a libertarian.

Another Form of Concealed Carry

My wife took this picture a couple weeks ago while we were up in Baltimore. We were on our way to Hooters in the Inner Harbor when I decided I'd exercise a little civil disobedience and conceal my bourbon and diet in a Starbucks cup I found in my hotel room.

 

I know. I'm a badass. Especially with my son's diaper bag over my shoulder.

'Are you wanting to shoot a politician over your asphalt-less driveway?'

This is a question sent by Gretchen in response to my cross-post yesterday at the Examiner about Toledo politicians who have passed a law preventing homeowners from parking in their own driveway if it isn't paved.

Here is my response:

Gretchen-

I don't condone the initiation of violence, even if it's directed at criminals who legalize state violence. If nothing else, this would merely empower the state to increase the scope of its own force in retaliation.

Of course, it could easily be argued that it is the politicians who are initiating this violence - indeed they are - and one would merely be acting in self-defense by using force to prevent property theft. However, I believe lethal force should primarily be used to prevent immediate mortal harm. For example, when the state's goons invade private homes with guns drawn looking for marijuana plants, one has every moral right to use lethal force in self-defense. (Of course, this would either get one shot or thrown in jail because the state is unjust.)

However, I have a question for you: Do you believe it was immoral for American revolutionaries to finally say 'enough's enough' and forcibly remove the tyrants of their day from power?

Abolish All Vehicle Licensing (But Start with the Front Plate)

A friend just sent me a link to a petition circulating around Maryland urging the state to revoke the current law requiring display of a front license plate on all passenger vehicles. It reads in part:

We support the current and future licensing fee structure, but ask that the law reflect that a front license plate is no longer required. We believe that there are significant benefits in not requiring front license plates and our reasons for these belief are briefly summarized in the paragraphs below.

The petitioners outline several good reasons for getting rid of this requirement, though interestingly none concerns the requisite uptick in civil liberties abuses inherent to allowing the state one more method of tracking or detaining us.

I can't sign this petition because I oppose the current and future licensing fee structures on the face of it. However, while we should abolish all vehicle licensing requirements, revoking the law requiring the oppressive front tag would be a good place to start.

Learn to Build Your Own Car

Last September I bought a 1970 Chevelle after spending the past five years waffling on the idea of whether or not buying a third vehicle would be a wise investment. On the one hand, classic cars generally retain their value; on the other, I hate clutter so allocating virtually all of my garage space to an unnecessary purchase wasn't exactly high on my list of priorities.

I've always wanted to learn more about car maintenance, but mostly I just love old muscle cars and have always wanted one. So when I found a good deal on a 350 small block Malibu -- the guy sold it for a couple thousand less than he probably could've because he was getting married and needed money -- I decided to jump at the opportunity. Did I "need" it, especially as the economy was tanking and my wife and I were focusing even more than usual on saving money? No, of course not. But sometimes when the state insists on making your life a living hell, those are the perfect times to live a little.

My car is by no means a trailer queen. It's a driver that is very solid but it's technically still a project car. It could use a couple new quarter panels and a real paint job, but for now I enjoy cruising around town in a car free of computers, plastic fenders, and airbags. And I just love the fact that this baby's got two steel bumpers when you can't even find them on SUVs anymore. Sheet metal and chrome -- what else do you need?

Indeed, aside from nostalgia and classic American beauty, one of the biggest reasons I purchased a nearly four-decade-old car was because federal regulations have increasingly forced auto manufacturers to turn out rickety, lightweight deathtraps in order to comply with tyrannical emissions standards. And if Herr Obama has his way, it's only going to get much worse: his plan is to require everyone to pay higher prices for crappier products.

The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

To be sure, cars and trucks will become smaller, lighter, and more efficient. But more efficient at what is the real question. Traveling slower? Costing us valuable time and money? Killing motorists?

No central planner has the ability to weigh important tradeoffs specific to millions of individuals, much as I did when contemplating the purchase of my Chevelle. He can only issue dictatorial decrees that benefit himself and his cronies at the expense of everyone else. As I mentioned recently, commandeering the auto industry is the first step of Obama's totalitarian "green" agenda.

So what to do? Don't expect the auto industry to protest these regulations; they're too busy lining up at the federal trough for their welfare checks. Just as it's up to the individual -- not government -- to protect himself and his family from intruders and other criminals, it's up to us to keep ourselves safe on the roads when the state actively puts us in danger. 

Therefore, one great way to reject the "Obamobile" is to learn to build your own car from materials of your choosing, or to at least purchase one like I did that was crafted prior to the installation of safety-destroying federal "standards." Perhaps the best thing of all about classic American cars is that replacement parts are readily available -- interior, exterior, engine, exhaust, body, suspension, you name it. So whether you buy a car that's already been restored or you pick up a frame for a couple thousand bucks from eBay and do it yourself, shops like YearOne and Goodmark have whatever you need to see your project through from beginning to end.

Of course, if enough people began participating in this type of legal civil disobedience, the state would undoubtedly swoop in and at least attempt to put an end to this as well. But at that point the ideological revolution would probably already be in full swing. Until then, however, if you love freedom, you may want to do everything you can to reject this president's asphalt fascism.

I'll Take My Totalitarianism in Green, Please

Don't look now, but Barack Obama's horrific "green agenda" is beginning to hit its stride, and the table has been set with the nationalization of the American auto industry. After installing a task force to micromanage the daily operations at General Motors and forcing out Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, the U.S. government is now poised to assume majority ownership of GM.

As LewRockwell.com columnist Karen De Coster remarked yesterday, "controlling this company will allow the feds to ram their socialist-totalitarian, green agenda down all of our throats," and she is absolutely right. After all, if your goal is to regulate the behavior of virtually everyone in the country in one fell swoop, there's no better way to do so than to exert authoritarian control over something we all do every day: drive.

In his quest to alienate global trading partners from South America and the Middle East, Obama will start small by increasing fuel economy standards. If you think your little plastic cars are ugly and unsafe now, just give Our Holy Savior some time. As he states in black and white in his energy and environment agenda, the president will offer tax credits to encourage Americans to purchase the one million "plug-in hybrid cars" he wants to get on the road by 2015. (Personally, I think this number is incredibly low. Once the totalitarian state assumes outright control over the production of who knows how many American-made automobiles, gas tanks might be as hard to find as steel bumpers in another five years.)

Incidentally, I noticed just last night one of the less conspicuous ways the state is exerting its bias against "gas-guzzlers." I was up in Arlington, Virginia at the Hard Times Cafe for a DC101 Chili Cookoff meeting and was told to park in a free lot under the Department of Human Services building. The parking spaces were definitely big enough to accommodate anyone driving a Barbiemobile, but things got a little dicey as I tried to wedge my Toyota Tundra between a support beam and the car next to me. The joy (and by joy I mean evil) of public property is that the government can literally crowd out anyone who doesn't conform to its demands.

But automobile mandates may not be the worst of Obama's plans. He also wants to implement a putrid cap-and-trade program that would ostensibly reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a move that the Environmental Protection Agency has forecast would cost the economy $2.9 trillion and ultimately reduce GDP by 6.9 percent -- a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930. But heck, maybe that's not such a bad price to pay for directives that are predicted to reduce the average global temperature by a whopping 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius.

Worse still is Obama's promise to "create millions of new green jobs." As if it isn't bad enough to rob taxpayers blind in order to implement even more make-work programs so the government can hire millions more employees who can't be fired, we don't even know what these job might entail. However, given that the president has already begun pushing his "national civilian security force," which he promises will be as strong as the U.S. army, does it require an overactive imagination to believe that these new "green jobs" will be accompanied by a "Green Stasi" comprising individuals whose sole purpose will be to regulate our every move and enforce tyrannical environmental mandates?

There's a name for Obama's plans for state-controlled capitalism. It's called fascism. And it's all beginning with the government's assumption of control over what has been one of the world's largest and most influential manufacturers.

Only you and I can control how it ends.

Cell Phone Nannies on the Move in New York

The Buffalon News reports that support is growing around Western New York for state-issued bans on text messaging while driving.

Brandie J. Conklin, 22, died April 12, when her car collided with an oncoming milk truck on Route 75. Eden police determined that Conklin had been exchanging text messages with a boyfriend traveling some distance behind her in another vehicle.

“We checked her text messages,” Chief Michael Felschow said Friday. “She was basically texting up to the time of the accident.”

[...]

“It’s worse than cell [phones],” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s becoming more prevalent.”

Ah, yes, it makes sense that the police would lecture us about the dangers of texting or engaging in other potential distractions while driving. These are the same people who drive around in their cruisers behind their laptops as they run our license plates looking for reasons to pull us over.

Then there's Stephen Acquario, executive director of the New York State Association of Counties, who says, "Many have expected the state to act and are puzzled why the state has not acted.”

Someone might want to remind Mr. Acquario that counties retain the authority to enact their own legislation without being bossed around by the state. And honestly, you'd think a bureaucrat would realize that states don't respond to the concerns of individual taxpayers; they respond to lobbyists. Get the big insurance lobbies to start kvetching about the "need" for "safer" roads, and I'm sure the pols will whip right into shape. Silly man.

Roads will never be safe until travelers demand that the government get out of the business of managing roadways in the first place. Surely if roads were privatized there would be those that allowed cell phone use while driving and those that didn't. Consumers would not only have greater choice and freedom in travel, but the market response to a variety of travel options would also result in safer and more efficient driving conditions for everyone -- roadway owners wouldn't stay in business very long if their services resulted in customer deaths.

The state can meddle in our driving habits all it likes, but if the penalty of death isn't enough to convince people to hold off on text messaging until they park the car, I highly doubt a nominal fine will be, either.

Keep Your Cell Phone Off When Driving in VA (or MD or DC)

At least, that's what I think you should do to avoid being pulled over by the police. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signed into a bill banning texting while driving. Maryland and Washington, DC, already have such bans (no surprise in either case, really). The Examiner reports that

Under Virginia’s ban, which goes into effect July 1, police can’t pull a driver over just for text messaging but instead need a more serious primary offense to justify the stop.

If you believe this, immediately send me your name, address, and social security number. I have some relatives in Nigeria who need someone to hold a large sum of money in their bank accounts so that the Nigerian government will not confiscate their wealth. I'll pay you a generous fee for your services.

This law simply gives our "protectors" more probable cause to keep "protecting" us. If a police officer sees you checking your phone for any reason, including just checking the time, be assured that you will be pulled over and cited for texting while driving. I would predict that the likelihood of being pulled over would increase at night since a police officer can see the cell phone light and assume that you must be doing something with your cell phone. That's good enough to pull you over.

If you disagree with the ticket, to whom can you turn for justice? To a judge who is paid by the same government as the police officer. And what will the judge rule? Of course, you were texting while driving. Police officers are upstanding individuals who would never lie, unlike you serfs whom we must protect. Furthermore, the judge would say, the government would never pass legislation simply to collect more revenue from the public. Clearly these laws are only for your protection.

The 21st Century Version of the Fugitive Slave Law

Briggs Armstrong has a good article on the Mises blog about the expatriation tax. An excerpt:

The American Jobs Creation act of 2004, passed by the Republican-controlled government, amended section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under the new law, any individual who has a net worth of $2 million or an average income-tax liability of $127,000 who renounces his or her citizenship and leaves the country is automatically assumed to have done so for tax avoidance reasons and is subject to some rather unbelievable tax laws.

Any individual who is declared to have expatriated for tax reasons is forced to pay US income taxes on all US based income for 10 years following expatriation, regardless of the country in which the individual resides. Additionally, in the 10 years following expatriation, if a qualifying individual spends 30 days in the United States during any year, he or she is taxed as a US citizen on all income derived from any place in the world. To make matters worse, if an individual happens to die in a year in which he or she spent at least 30 days in the United States, the entire estate is subject to US income tax law.

The idea behind the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1850 was that slaves were property. Slave masters do not lose their right to their property just because said property has run away to another territory, although said territory may prohibit the private owning of humans.

Similar reasoning undergirds expatriation tax law. The US Federal Government believes that it owns the labor and property of all people. Certain rich people who wish to flee and take their labor and property with them really have no right to their labor or property. Their emigration is actually theft; they are taking their labor and property which belong to the US government to other territories in which the laws of the US government "do not apply." However, the US government believes it does not lose the right to the property and labor of its subjects who flee its boarders, and has created this law that reflects such thinking.

Lysander Spooner exposed the true nature slavery during the War against Southern Independence:

And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

It's unfortunate that so many Americans define slavery as chattel slavery of Africans. The idea that a minority of people may use the property and persons of the majority as that minority wishes does not offend most Americans. In fact, most Americans will encourage and support such violations of natural rights when politicians appeal to patriotism or envy. This is why people can be outraged over AIG executives receiving a pittance of the loot which Congress, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank have stolen from the public but express little or no anger at the robbery itself. The fact that the expatriation tax applies to people with net worth of $2 million appeals to the envy of the public. The original income tax was supposedly only to be levied on the rich as well. We see how long that lasted. The net worth criterion will continually be defined down until the US government decides no one can leave. But as long as Americans continue to their idolatrous worship of the State, these attacks on our lives, liberty, and property will not end.

 

Candy Cigs the Next 'Gateway Drug?'

A group of teenage fascists-in-training in Minnesota are pushing the St. Paul City Council to ban candy cigarettes.

"I was like, 'Are you serious?' " That was Shanicee Billon's reaction when a 2-year-old girl she was with grabbed a pack of candy cigarettes at a convenience store and showed them to her.

"They were bright and colorful, so I guess they caught her eye. I thought to myself: That's just not fair. We should be teaching little kids how to be healthy and eat vegetables. Candy cigarettes? Really."

Apparently parents are so incapable of determining what their own children should and should not be exposed to that they now have to take their marching orders from other people's brats.

I used to love buying chocolate and bubble gum "cigarettes" when I was a kid, and I thought it was especially cool that the ones rolled in powdered sugar would actually let you blow "smoke." Though neither of my parents smoked (my father quit before I was born), Minnesota's trendy-tween nanny-statists might be interested in knowing that although my mother bought these candies for me, she also would never let me leave the dinner table until I ate all my vegetables.

I dabbled in cigarettes off and on while I was in college, but I can testify that my decision to do so was hardly the result of my "irresponsible" parents' decision to treat me to candy cigarettes every now and then when I was just a tyke. Back before taxes on cigarettes cost just as much as a pack of cigarettes themselves, smoking was a fairly affordable way to maintain a buzz in the bar without having to spend a ton of money on beer.

But something tells me these amateur activists don't have much objection to using the state to prevent kids from drinking either.

Maryland Needs New Acronyms for All Its Prohibitions

I know it must seem like I write frequently about Maryland's politics because that's where I live -- to an extent that's undoubtedly true -- but it would be a lot harder to do if the Nanny State on the Chesapeake didn't roll out new bans on personal behavior on an almost daily basis.

The latest legislation to breeze through the senate would prohibit phone texting while driving.

The bill would make violations a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum fine of $500. It would be a primary offense, meaning police would be able to pull over drivers solely on suspicion of texting.

We hear a lot about "gateway drugs." Funny, though, how politicians never talk about "gateway laws" -- seemingly benign legislation that allows police to forcibly detain nonviolent people against their will on the suspicion of breaking one law, only to use said detentions to "legitimize" further snooping and harassment in the attempt to write additional citations or make arrests.

Makes you wonder why the governor doesn't just cut to the chase and issue an executive order requiring daily "humanity checkpoints" whenever we set upon Maryland's overrun and overregulated roadways.

It's bad enough that we have acronyms like DWI and DUI as a result of absurd drunk-driving laws. But considering we can now be rounded up by the state for Driving and Texting Under the Influence While Smoking In Front Of Young Children, it's really time for Maryland to start consolidating its tyranny so we can keep it all straight.

Where Do Smoking Bans End?

Last week I mentioned a report ranking Maryland dead last among all states in terms of personal freedom; and as Brutus recently pointed out, lawmakers apparently are content to remain at the bottom of the pack considering some of them now want to ban smoking in vehicles carring young children.

State senator Mike Lenett, a Democrat from Montgomery County -- the first county in Maryland to ban smoking in bars and restaurants prior to the enactment of the fascist statewide ban -- is leading an effort to impose $50 fines on anyone caught smoking in a car occupied by children under eight.

"Children are especially vulnerable to developing respiratory disorders, bronchitis, asthma, even permanent reduced lung capacity by being exposed to smoke in a car," Lenett said Tuesday. "If you're in a car and you light up a cigarette you're as good as sharing that cigarette with a three-year-old strapped into the car seat."

Like many people, I shake my head in disbelief when I see adults smoking with kids in the car, especially when they barely crack the windows. But there's a big difference between thinking people are idiots and thinking they should be rounded up by the state and forced to submit to the will of perfect strangers.

One of my biggest beefs with nanny-state legislation is that it almost always attempts to moderate the behavior of adults who are perfectly capable of determining how to live their lives as long as their actions harm no one else in the process. Seatbelt and helmet laws and gun and drug bans leap quickly to mind.

However, while adults have the right to choose whether they want to pollute their own bodies, children often don't. Most kids can't force their parents not to light up when they get behind the wheel, so from a libertarian standpoint, I believe there is a debate to be had when it comes to whether or not the imposition of secondhand smoke on helpless individuals constitutes the initiation of aggression.

The potential severity of secondhand smoke is debatable -- you'll get different answers depending on who you ask -- and it's often difficult to distinguish between the myths and the facts. Personally, I don't think the gloom-and-doom scenarios painted by the anti-smoking zealots are nearly as bad as they claim, but neither do I believe that secondhand smoke is entirely harmless. In short, I accept the argument that cigarette smoke can at least contribute to respiratory ailments in both adults and children. Feel free to do your own research; for purposes of this discussion, I'm simply going on common sense.

The real question in this debate isn't whether secondhand smoke is dangerous or not; it's whether the state should have the right to prevent individuals from engaging in activities that do no immediate and definitive tangible harm to innocent people. Allowing the government such unilateral authority is unwise and almost certainly more dangerous than engaging in activities that have the mere potential to cause harm.

Sen. Lenett wants to ban smoking in cars when children are present, but what of driving itself? Certainly more children are injured or killed in car accidents alone than they are by inhaling cigarette smoke. Why not ban parents from even putting their kids in a car in the first place? Should the state also prevent parents from building houses too close to highways, fast food restaurants, and railroad tracks? Everything we do -- whether it's crossing the street or sucking down a milkshake or jumping on a skateboard -- involves risk, and laws (ostensibly) aimed at limiting risk have an inverse relationship with the preservation of liberty.

From bicycle helmet laws to trans fat bans to the current attempt to ban smoking in cars, parents increasingly find themselves the target of the nanny state when it comes to how they choose to raise their children. The pivotal question, though, is: where does all this regulation end? After all, if the true intent is to keep parents from smoking in front of their kids, why is it any worse to do so in a car than it is in a kitchen? Put another way, how long until the state bans smoking in our living rooms?

If you don't think that's the next step, you probably didn't think you'd ever read about states banning smoking in bars. But as positive as I am that laws don't have nearly as much to do with "safety" as they do with creating revenue and maintaining control, I can likewise guarantee that if we allow the state and its thugs to increasingly snoop in our vehicles, it won't be very long before they're in our homes too.

If you think you live in a police state when you read stories of narcotics officers invading homes, terrorizing and even killing innocent people as they attempt to "protect us from ourselves," just wait until SWAT teams start barrelling through our front doors because dad's enjoying a cigar on the deck after dinner.

Maryland's Enviro-Fascists on the Move Again

On February 20, a bill (HB 1368) was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates that would further restrict waterfront property owners from protecting their land from erosion and even prohibit them from building piers extending into the state's glorious waterways.

A choice snippet:

(2) A PERSON EXERCISING A RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE WATER IN FRONT OF THE LAND TO PRESERVE THAT PERSON’S ACCESS TO THE NAVIGABLE WATER UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT EXTEND THE IMPROVEMENTS OVER VEGETATED STATE WETLANDS.

If you read this bill closely, you'll notice a footer that reads, "CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW."

The Maryland House already banned "hard" shorelines (rock rip rap, wooden or steel bulkheads, etc.) last year, so it's important to recognize that, should this bill pass, the term "improvements" would necessarily prohibit property owners from even maintaining hard shorelines that were legal prior to the bill's passage.

In other words, waterfront owners are facing the prospect of tearing out shoreline protection that works and replacing it with "natural" shorelines (marsh grasses), which aren't nearly as effective at preventing erosion and also smell like sewage when the tide goes out.

Moreover, it's already difficult enough to get a pier permit in Maryland; now the state is trying to ban landowners from even replacing rotten decking or pilings on existing piers -- after all, how hard will it be for the state to claim that vegetation exists beneath all state wetlands?

States that aren't completely fascist usually include grandfather clauses in bills, which allow property owners to continue to operate under the conditions they agreed to when they initially purchased their property. Not Maryland. We here in the "Free State" (!) are continually bombarded by the state's fascists and their silly mandates. And now they're trying to run waterfront construction workers out of business and rob waterfront residents from enjoying the fruits of their own labor -- to say nothing of destroying property values.

Up with seaweed and snakes! To hell with the humans -- well, at least those of us who don't share familial or political connections with Maryland's green bigots.

If I've misunderstood the intent of this bill, someone please let me know. I've never wanted to be wrong so much in my life. And I know I've used the term "property owner" a few times herein, but it was mostly for ease of comprehension. As we should all know by now, there is no such thing as property rights, especially here in the People's Republik of Maryland. When the government retains the right to confiscate your property -- from your paycheck to your pier to your very person -- we are merely all wards of the state, whether we realize it or not.

NRA: Two 'Pro-Gun' Bills to Be Heard in Maryland

A friend just forwarded an NRA-ILA "alert" to me to let me know that two allegedly pro-gun bills will be heard tomorrow in the Maryland House Judiciary Committee.

One of the bills is HB 470, which would repeal the requirement of Maryland's secretary of state police to find a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun before issuing a permit.

The other is HB 682, which would require the secretary of police to issue "within a reasonable time" a handgun permit to anyone who has completed the TSA's Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, which allows select commercial airline crew members to carry firearms.

If there's one thing I've realized the past few years, it's that when the NRA tells you to vote in favor of a particular bill, it's a good bet you should do the opposite if you actually care about liberty and gun freedom. So let's examine both of these bills.

From what I can tell, HB 470 appears to be reliably pro-gun, given the fact that it is state-centric and concerns only Maryland's internal policies regarding the issuance of handgun permits.

One could argue that because the state has no moral right to regulate firearm use amongst free peoples, a gun bill that leaves the government with any authority whatsoever is unjust and should be voted against. On the other hand, one could also argue that relieving the state of its authority in any capacity, no matter how small, is a victory for freedom and is therefore a just act.

I can tell you from personal experience that it's almost impossible to get a carry permit in Maryland. Unless you're an agent of the state, you need to prove that you're in a unique situation that justifies the use of a handgun for self-defense. For instance, if you own a business and transport large sums of money or you're the victim of death threats, the state is more likely to grant you a carry permit than if you simply want to do something completely and utterly irrational, inflammatory, and ridiculous -- say, like carrying a gun at all times to protect yourself and your family from random and unpredictable violence.

Considering that Maryland is one of the most anti-gun states in the country, I'm not at all optimistic that HB 470 will pass, but it would be a win for freedom if it does. The state should not have the power to prevent individuals from defending themselves, but we in Maryland are apt to see outright gun confiscation before we see gun freedom. The state will tell you it issues concealed carry permits, but unless you're part of the privileged class the secretary of state police will shove your application in a drawer and that's where it will remain. So everything considered, overturning this monopolistic, fascistic tactic is undeniably a good thing.

HB 682 appears to be a much different animal, however, and I don't believe its passage would result in any meaningful increase in gun freedom. Indeed, it may account for just the opposite, as its provisions for issuance of a carry permit are tied to federal permissions. On the surface the bill may appear to give commercial pilots greater gun freedom, but it would nevertheless require the state of Maryland to be subservient to the federal government.

In short, it's bad enough that we're bound to the diktats of our state representatives; but you can't possibly relieve the government of its autonomy by further eroding a vertical separation of powers and conceding even more authority to the federal government. Moreover, this bill appears to be unconstitutional -- the state of Maryland recognizes the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government is (cough) prohibited (cough) by the Second Amendment from violating the right to bear arms.

One thing I noticed in my cursory examination of these two bills is that while both enjoy bipartisan sponsorship, HB 470 is sponsored primarily by Republicans whereas HB 682 is sponsored primarily by Democrats. I generally hold all politicians in equal contempt, but when it comes to Maryland politics, Republicans are so entrenched in the minority that they actually have a fairly decent track record of sticking to principles of limited government, low taxes, and gun rights. This just may be all you need to know to realize HB 682 is a crap bill.

So in sum, I'd say freedom will win the day tomorrow if HB 470 passes and HB 682 fails. But remember, this is Maryland. Be prepared for the exact opposite.

Here's Your Big 'Stimulus,' America

While Americans of an earlier age would have already grabbed for their muskets, today's sheeple wait obediently for the impending doom as they watch criminal politicians stuff the biggest welfare bill in history down our throats while laughably claiming it will stimulate the economy.

If this bill passes, workers are expected to receive a whopping 13 bucks more per week in their paychecks. According to a recent report:

The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Couples would receive $800 instead of $1,000. Over two years, that move would pump about $25 billion less into the economy than had been previously planned.

Officials estimated it would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Critics say that's unlikely to do much to boost consumption.

That's right, folks. Congress is getting ready to guarantee the bankruptcy of current and future generations so you and I can get a lousy check for 400 bucks.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that Americans would have no use for a "tax credit" if the government didn't steal from our paychecks, projected tips, and estimated earnings in the first place.

Tax credits are nothing but sops to gullible taxpayers, and apparently they work quite well. The state confiscates a third of our income off the top -- not counting additional taxes on property, consumer goods, dividends, inheritance, estates, etc. -- and we think we're getting some sort of deal because they return a miniscule percentage to us.

On their face, tax credits and tax cuts are a good thing. It is always proper to take your money back from the state. But just like tax cuts are worthless in the long run if they aren't accompanied by cuts in spending, the tax credits Obama is proposing will ultimately cause catastrophic harm to the economy because they're accompanied by hundreds of billions in additional spending. Not to mention the perversity of "paying" for these tax credits by absorbing them as debt -- the government will simply fire up the printing presses to cover the costs.

Any college student will tell you that it is impossible to get out of debt by swiping a credit card at every available opportunity. Eventually, in order to avoid falling deeper and deeper into the red, you've got to start saving money.

And we say college kids are irresponsible.

'Green' Bigots Kill

While the "experts" blame the Australian wildfires on "climate change," Warwick Spooner, who lost his mother and brother in the blazes, knows where the finger really needs to be pointed: at lawmakers who implement "green" policies preventing property owners from clearing trees and bushland posing fire hazards.

"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," said Spooner.

Don't Run A-Fowl of Maryland's Hunting Laws

I sure hope there aren't any Marylanders out there who need to take advantage of hunting natural wildlife so they can more affordably feed their families. You know, bustling economy and all.

Effective for the 2008-09 game bird hunting seasons, anyone hunting migratory game birds in Maryland must obtain a Maryland Migratory Game Bird Stamp -- even if he's hunting on his own property (!).

Moreover, it is illegal to hunt waterfowl with bait -- corn, wheat, or other feed -- and an area is considered baited for 10 days even if all bait has been removed.

But it gets better:

... waterfowl may not be hunted in areas where seed-producing plants (natural or agricultural) have been manipulated (e.g., mowed, knocked-down, etc.). It is also unlawful to hunt waterfowl in areas where small grains have been top sown or broadcast on top of the soil, leaving the grain available to feeding birds.

If I'm interpreting these laws correctly, they are as much an attack on farmers and homeowners as an attack on hunters. What this essentially means is that if you're trying to grow grass in your lawn or plants in your field, you're not allowed to kill flying pests that swoop in and eat all your seed, thus destroying your property.

You may, however, hunt waterfowl on land where any seeds have germinated and plant growth has occurred -- in other words, where birds are unlikely to be in the first place unless you bait them (which, as we all know, is illegal).

I've saved the very best for last:

Maryland’s baiting regulation is more restrictive than federal regulations. In Maryland’s migratory bird baiting regulation it is not necessary for a hunter to know that an area is baited to be in violation.

But of course. How's the ol' saying go? Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. "Ignorance of the law excuses no one." Very convenient for our friends running the state!

So remember, friends, countrymen, fellow unfortunate schmucks like me who live in the People's Republik of Maryland: The statist hacks in Annapolis and their environmentalist enablers care much more about plant and animal life than they do about you. And they've got the guns to prove it. 

Say, what kind of bait works best for politicians? (Oh, just kidding, Big Brother... ya know I love ya!)

More Change We Can Believe In

Just kidding, of course. Here the Obama regime's prospective surgeon general speaks out against marijuana legalization.

How very "liberal" and "progressive" of the newbies. And different from current policy, I might add.

What a joke. 

Obama's New Cash Cow

Could very well be...well...cows.

Under the guise of regulating greenhouse gases, the federal government -- you know, that entity that's constantly reminding us how much it "protects" us -- wants to increase the prices we'll pay for food and dairy products.

The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.

“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”

Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times’ “Green Inc.” blog that such a “proposal is far from being enacted” and that the “hysteria may be premature.”

But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it’s certainly feasible – especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt.

Such a tax would be a further act of violence against small farms in general and consumers in particular.

Defy the State

Drivers in Washington State are ignoring a new cell phone ban.

No worries, though. This only means the state will enact even more draconian policy.

Keep in mind, however, that none of this is possible without all the pukes among us who aren't content unless they can use government as a proxy to dictate the behavior of everyone else.

NY Gov to Lard State Coffers with 'Fat Tax'

New York Gov. David Paterson proposes an 18 percent tax on sugary drinks putatively to help save taxpayers money in socialized health care costs, according to state health commissioner Richard Daines.

Yes, this makes much more sense than getting rid of welfare programs like Medicaid in the first place.

In defending this nanny-state regulation of people's dietary preferences, Daines says, "The message here is moderation, not abstinence ... I've seen lives ruined and controlled by things like obesity and tobacco and other addictions."

No word yet on what New Yorkers plan to do about their fearless leaders' addiction to power.

"No constitutional right is absolute..."

So says District of Criminals councilwoman Mary Cheh as DC passes more regulations tightening gun laws after the atrocious Heller decision.

You show 'em, Mary! Only the diktats of tyrannical politicians are absolute!

<yawn>

If only someone could have predicted this!!

(Thanks to Dan)

No Blood for Ethanol!

Steven Chu, Our Holy Savior's pick to head the unconstitutional and worthless Department of Energy, wants the federal government to "boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- ostensibly to coerce nonviolent people into buying more fuel efficient cars, traveling less, abandoning jobs or homes in order to move closer to work, and resorting to inefficient and costly public transportation.

Oh, and don't forget the benefit to his scientist pals in the alternative energies field that would benefit financially from all the corporate welfare subsidies, research grants, and mandates aimed at artificially increasing demand for fuels that couldn't otherwise compete with coal, oil, and nuclear energy on the open market.

Considering gas at the station closest to my house is going for $1.59 right now, it might be a good idea to round up as many 55-gallon drums as I can find and start hoarding for use over the next couple years. At less than $88 a drum at current prices, I'd be able to fill my tank almost three times for what it would cost everyone else for a mere half a tank once gas hits $8 a gallon!

Of course, the state would put an end to this rather quickly. Surely they would rush to pass anti-"hoarding" legislation to prevent gas stations from raising their prices once they caught on to this little scheme and responded to the spike in demand. After all, only the government's allowed to gouge us!

Anthony Kiedis Could Afford a Couple Kidneys

Reports surfaced this week suggesting that Red Hot Chili Peppers singer Anthony Kiedis is suffering from kidney disease. From to the NY Daily News:

According to several sources, the former cocaine and heroin addict was a frequent patient at L.A.’s Cedars-Sinai hospital last summer as he battled kidney disease.

“Anthony’s health was pretty bleak,” a close friend tells us of the rocker, whose partying ways of the past contributed to his condition.

“Organ failure was a possibility. There was talk of how to get him on a transplant list, to cover all the bases, but that opened up a whole new can of worms because people with histories of drug and alcohol abuse are less likely to receive the organs they need.”

No doubt decades of drug and alcohol abuse can cost you a couple kidneys. But why should that be any reason for the state to deny people replacement organs?

It's illegal to sell human organs for profit in the U.S., which means that all patients, regardless of means, are relegated to organ donor lists while they wait in line for others to die -- usually young people killed in untimely accidents -- so they can have a chance to live. In fact, if you attempted to sell or purchase an organ for transplant, you'd be accused of "trafficking" in human organs and likely receive a visit from a SWAT team.

According to Virginia Postrel, as of January 2007 there were almost 100,000 people on transplant lists, over two-thirds of whom were in need of kidneys. Postrel notes, "[N]obody has to die to supply a kidney. They can come from living donors, who can live perfectly normal lives with a single kidney and who now account for nearly 40 percent of all kidney transplants."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the lead singer of one of the most popular rock backs of all time could probably afford a couple kidneys if he was willing to pay for them. But the point is moot so far as the state is concerned.

If reports are true and Anthony Kiedis is in need of a kidney transplant, he will not only be forced to take his place naturally in line behind the last guy who signed up, but he'll also be discriminated against due to drug and alcohol use. Indeed, it's likely the government would even allow others behind him to take his place as long as they've lived "cleaner" lifestyles.

This is absurd. In a free country, purchasing human organs would be no more illegal than buying replacement blue jeans, bourbon, or automobiles.

Faced with no options other than organ donation, most people probably wouldn't find it very cost effective to give up a kidney to a perfect stranger. But what if they could be paid $100,000 for their trouble? Or a million? 

It's practically impossible at this point to say how a private organ market would operate, but this much is certain: Life and death shouldn't have to come down to dumb luck, and our fate most certainly should not be ultimately dictated by the state.

'Milkers' and 'Juicers'

Known colloquially as politicians, says Tom DiLorenzo.

Criminal-Industrial Complex?

Is that how we should refer to private interest groups that work with the state to increase crime? Because that's exactly what will happen if companies like Ammunition Accountability convince the government to completely regulate away our right to self-defense.

I'm not a fan of the NRA, but it has released a press release containing a good description of how mandatory ammo serialization would increase crime.

... Criminals already steal guns and would certainly steal ammunition.  Burglaries would be encouraged.  Criminals could also use shotguns, which fire pellets too small to encode, and which use shell casings made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.  Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers.

Thanks to Kramer for the link.

Just Hand over Our Money Already

Are we really supposed to believe that this charade in the Senate over the $14 billion "loan" to U.S. automakers means there's actually a chance the government will tell them to take a hike for good?

Of course not. When the only thing stopping a monstrous welfare package from passing is the particulars of all the corporatist wefare stipulations contained within it, we might as well just bend over and grab our ankles already.

Remember what happened after the original bailout proposal failed?

Abolish the state.

Puff, Puff ... Poof?

Boston's public health commission will vote on a measure to ban smoking at cigar bars, a fascist step that would literally put private property owners out of business with the stroke of a pen.

Time to End the War on Humans and Legalize All Drugs

Police in the U.K. raided an elderly couple's house because a plant in their garden apparently smelled like cannabis.

Ivor and Margaret Wiltshire bought the 'moss phlox' four years ago for £2 and it quickly spread through their front and back garden.

But the common garden plant, Latin name Phlox subulata, which grows vivid pink flowers in the spring, gives off a pungent aroma similar to the drug.

The smell was so strong the couple's next-door neighbour was even threatened by a local drug gang who broke into their home and demanded: "Give us the weed man".

Weeks later Ivor, 77, and Margaret, 79, returned home to find the drugs squad had battered down their front door and searched their property.

The difference between being confronted by a private drug gang and those on the public dole is that you can usually hold private gang-bangers to account in a court of law.

And what if Mr. and Mrs. Wiltshire were home at the time of this immoral government invasion and actually had the audacity to defend their property with lethal force, as is their natural right? To ask this question is to answer it.

On the 75th anniversary of the 21st amendment (which repealed Prohibition as outlined in the 18th), there's no better time to finish the job and end the evil war on humans in the name of plants by legalizing all drugs.

The Constitution Is Meaningless

As regular readers of this blog may very well know, I'm no fan of the Constitution. Sure, we'd have more freedom today than we actually do if representatives of our federal government at least pretended to respect the limitations on power that the founders outlined, but any legal document that allows the state to collect taxes lays the foundation for a society that ultimately will be overrun by tyranny.

Simply put, for all its good intentions, the Constitution itself allows for the very abuses of authority that have contributed to its own irrelevance.

As if this weren't bad enough, decades of judicial misinterpretation also have ensured that there's very little chance of regaining liberty lost through both the intentional and unwitting mischaracterization of original precedent. And what's the point of having a constitution if its tenets can be widely misconstrued in courts of law and such misrepresentations then go on to become the new laws of the land?

Nothing better illustrates this tendency than some of the reaction to the Plaxico Burress gun incident. For example, libertarian Dave Kopel writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that while Burress's conduct may have been careless, his prosecution over merely possessing a firearm without a license is "unjust and perhaps unconstitutional."

To be sure, the treatment of Plaxico Burress is entirely unjust, as he is being raked over the coals despite doing no harm to anyone other than himself. However, I struggle to see how New York's gun laws can run afoul of the U.S. Constitution when our founding document prevents the federal government, not the states, from abridging our right to bear arms.

Writes Kopel:

The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

Although I oppose any and all federal and state restrictions on gun ownership, New York, being a sovereign state, has the right to enact its own gun laws. That's democracy for you. As I argued at the time of the Heller decision, the Supreme Court exercised extrajudicial authority by even ruling on the case, given that the District of Columbia almost certainly retains "pseudo-state" status and therefore should not be constrained by limitations set forth by the Constitution. So it goes for New York, as well, as it quite clearly enjoys statehood.

The biggest culprit in modern federal abuses of power vis a vis the states is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been so extensively misinterpreted that it has resulted in handing the federal government sweeping authority to regulate every state in the union. Instead of respecting the vertical separation of powers, it has created subordinate governments. However, to believe that the founders, who drafted the Bill of Rights explicitly to guard against an omnipotent central state, would believe a federal judge has the right and the authority to strike down valid state laws is to border on the absurd.

But that's where we are today, as even reliable defenders of liberty like Dave Kopel have essentially been conditioned to accept improper judicial rulings. Instead of adhering to the origins of the Constitution despite any number of unconstitutional rulings, we instead allow these opinions to override original precedent simply because they have been offered.

Weigh in with your own opinions in comments.

Coward

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, that is, whose shrill, infantile demands that prosecutors make an example of New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress expose him as nothing more than a narcissistic charlatan.

According to Bloomberg, Burress -- who no more committed a "crime" by accidentally shooting himself in the leg than he would have had he given himself a paper cut or cut himself with a broken beer bottle -- essentially deserves to be incarcerated because he's a celebrity. Apparently, only corrupt New York City mayors deserve special treatment.

As yet, no actual crime has been committed in the fiasco; you'll know one has when frauds in suits and robes condemn to prison a man who's done harm to no one.

Plaxico Burress is not being prosecuted. He's being persecuted. And you wonder why he was afraid to call the cops?

The Fraud of Democracy, Example 2,329

This time in Virginia which is looking to assemble a bipartisan panel to address redistricting in the State. 

Critics say the current system of allowing the majority party in each house to redraw their own lines has created plentiful safe seats for incumbents and few truly contested districts.

Well, of course. This is Legitimate Corruption 101 in a democracy; if all of your supporters don't live in the same area, just redraw the districts so that they do. This is easier than lying and allows a majority party to stay in power.

“The problem with the process now is the people are not the first consideration,” [Senator Craig Deeds D-Bath] said Monday. “The first consideration is the protection of incumbents and the protection of partisanship. We can do better.”

Perhaps I have become too cynical (although I don't think that one can be too cynical regarding the State) but comments such as these fuel my disgust toward politicians. If he really believes that the political class has the interest of the masses as their primary objective then he's a naif who should not be allowed anywhere near such power. On the other hand, if he does not believe this nonsense and is only saying it to deceive the masses, he's evil and should not be allowed anywhere near such power.

What's worse is that it appears from the article that the people really believe that if the panel is bipartisan it will benefit the mass of people and elections will be more fair. If one group of criminals decides to put aside their differences and work with together with another set of criminals, do you think the people at large will benefit from this cooperation?

You May Want to Move Your Retirement Money

Michael Rozeff and Karen de Coster both link to an article in which House Democrats are contemplating the confiscation of private 401(k)s and IRAs. Apparently the financial crisis has opened the door as many people have lost money in their accounts and House Democrats believe that such things should never happen. Thus, the State will step in to save us by robbing us of our investments to protect them. Since Obama is a Marxist, this plan may come to fruition in his presidency. True, the people may protest, but as I pointed out during last week, the State is powerful enough to do whatever it wants because the people consent to democracy.

You may want to consider moving your retirement money before it's too late. I'm thinking about putting mine toward the principal in my condo.

Dictator-Elect Won't Waste Time Signing Executive Orders

According to John Podesta, one of Barack Obama's transition coordinators, the next American prez is eager to exercise his executive authority "without waiting for congressional action."

The issuance of executive orders is not without precedent, of course; for years, U.S. presidents have used them as a way to get around the Constitution. President Bush, lacking no apparent appreciation for irony, disobeyed hundreds of laws during his tenure that conflicted with his own interpretation of the Constitution. He essentially signed every bill that came across his desk, then proceeded to file "signing statements" absolving himself from compliance with laws limiting his authority.

Most middle-schoolers will be able to tell you that the legislature is the government body tasked with making laws. Not so in the age of the ubiquitous executive order, however. Because all of these statements are recorded in the federal register, the president necessarily serves as the ultimate legislator. Some republic.

Shortly President Bush will bequeath the most powerful presidency in the nation's history to Obama, who will use his own presumed dictatorial authority to craft the laws as he sees fit.

Regardless of who sits on the throne, federal power will continue to grow as individual liberty takes a back seat to concentrated state authority.

Will America's First Black President Bring Back Slavery?

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's new White House chief of staff, wants Americans age 18-25 to become slaves to the state.

Note in the passage J.D. Tuccille cites how Emanuel (and his co-authors) write that these youngsters "will be asked to serve their country." There's that word again: ask (!).

Never in the history of mankind has the government "asked" its subjects to cooperate. There's only one choice, and that's to do what the state says, or else.

It looks like Bill Anderson's fearful predictions may already be coming true.

(Via LRC blog)

Slots Pass in Maryland, Freedom Takes Another Hit

It should come as little surprise that Question 2, a Maryland constitutional amendment to legalize slot machines at select locations throughout the state, passed overwhelmingly on Tuesday. It seems that whenever folks here in the People's Republik of Maryland have a chance to vote away their freedom, they rarely hesitate to do so.

Former Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich, who preceded current Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, tried repeatedly to legalize slots while he was governor, but he was constantly rebuffed by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. Ehrlich's intent was to relieve the burden on taxpayers by generating revenue at the expense of gamblers who would willingly part with their own money, knowing full well the state was grabbing its cut. Fittingly, Democrats in the legislature jumped right on board with a gambling initiative once one of their own was at the helm.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the state GOP -- along with former Gov. Ehrlich -- was opposed to the initiative this time around. While in office, Ehrlich rightly opposed a full-blown constitutional amendment to legalize slots and now fears that this new plan will encourage unrestrained government spending. Of course, one would be foolish not to assume many Republican legislators and voters are also in opposition today due simply to petty partisanship, or perhaps a personal or religious opposition to gambling itself.

At this point you're probably thinking that I oppose gambling. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It's none of my business what anyone does with the money he earns. As I explained in an article earlier this week, I oppose government control over gambling (as with anything else). People should be free to use their property however they please, and, unfortunately, that's exactly what many Marylanders mistakenly believe this new law will allow. To wit:

“Anything might save me a dollar on my taxes, I’m in favor of,” said William Marshall, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle salesman from Russett. “We already have vices in the community. I’m not concerned about slot machines bringing any in.”

I obviously appreciate Mr. Marshall's aversion to government theft. Sadly, however, he has been hoodwinked by the state, along with everyone else in his shoes who voted for these slots. To believe Gov. O'Malley will alleviate taxation in the least is wishful thinking, to put it charitably. As soon as O'Malley took office he pushed through tremendous tax hikes in the attempt to close an enormous budget gap created by his own deficit spending. Slot machines are nothing more than an attempt to generate revenue to cover the governor's profligacy. After all, it's not like he hasn't already proven he's perfectly willing to spend money he doesn't have. What makes anyone think he'll restrain himself when he's actually accumulating billions in gambling revenue?

The state is disingenuously giving the impression that it's giving citizens the freedom to gamble, when all it's actually doing is asserting its dominance over all of us by arrogating unto itself a right it does not morally have. Anyone should be able to open a gambling parlor or run slot machines out of his basement if he likes, but he'd soon feel the full wrath of the state's stormtroopers if he ever even attempted such a thing.

By dictating the course of human action, the state is merely determining, according to its own standards, how we may live our lives. This latest legislative atrocity is nothing but a fascist step toward totalitarianism that will lay the foundation for even more government growth and autonomy over the rest of us.

All We Are Saying, Is Give Police a Chance

It's starkly ironic that Barack Obama, the man who rose to prominence as the "peace" candidate by talking of his opposition to the Iraq war while doing nothing in the Senate to defund it, will now set about to "change the world" by pointing his guns at as many people as he can.

I see little evidence suggesting that B.O. won't stink up the Oval Office just as badly as George Bush has, but his legacy will begin here at home as he goes to war with liberty.

Captain America will seize upon his Democratic monopoly and embark on a global mission to impose suffocating "carbon taxes" and even tighter environmental regulations on private corporations and homeowners under the guise of saving the planet; wars -- on "terror" and "drugs," among other likely inventions -- will continue, if not expand, at the hands of imperialistic military policy overseas and a growing domestic police state; central banking will play an even greater role in the economy as President Obama and the Fed prolong inflationary policies, issuing unfunded bailouts and "stimulus payments" and perpetuating the myth that free markets and "deregulation" have been the cause of our economic crisis; medical care will deteriorate as increasingly nationalized health programs result in diminished quality of service and lower profits; and small businesses (and, subsequently, their employees) will suffer under increased federal mandates as fascist policies like minimum wage hikes, forced unionization, and price controls gain even more prominence as the value of the dollar continues to fall.

Our Holy Savior dangerously believes that coercive government, replete with paternatlistic regulation and control, is the source of all good in the world and that we merely need the "right person" in charge of the evil, corrupt regime -- him. I fear what lies ahead, but given the direction we're clearly headed, the quicker the empire collapses, the better.

Win for Liberty in Washington State

According to the Seattle Times, voters in Washington made a significant statement with regard to personal liberty by approving the state's assisted suicide initiative, which would allow terminally ill patients to self-administer prescribed lethal medication.

Opponents, including the Catholic church, said assisted suicide is a dangerous step that devalues human life. Critics also said the assisted suicide measure could exploit depressed or vulnerable people who worry they've become a burden on their families.

No church -- no individual, no one -- has any right whatsoever to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own bodies as long as it harms no one else. The right to own one's body is the most precious right any of us has, and that means we have the right to put any chemical we like into it regardless of whatever immoral busybodies think about it.

I can't think of anything that devalues human life more than laws that force people to suffer needlessly in excrutiating pain during the final days of their lives.

Bloomberg to Sign Repeal of NYC Term Limits Law

Funny how politicians never want to repeal laws that restrain their subjects, but when it comes to limiting their own rights, well, they just can't have that.

Hitler's Halloween

Child sex offenders in Maryland are being forced to stay home tonight, turn off outside lights, and display signs on their front doors that read, "No candy at this residence."

Funny, I've always thought that's what lights off meant.

We shouldn't be too quick to forget that people who find themselves on these sex offender registries are hardly all guilty of violent crimes toward children. Indeed, often they are themselves children -- teenagers who may have been prosecuted for having consensual sex with younger teens; convicted on charges of child pornography for taking naked pictures of each other; or for innocently, if inappropriately, slapping the butts of fellow classmates. And let's not forget that there are varying grades and degrees of abuse even where adults have violated existing laws.

In short, while bona fide sexual predators make me sick, it's not at all apparent to me that the state should be tasked with protecting our children. But even where it has assumed this responsibility, it's one thing to look out for the welfare of kids; it's another thing entirely to act like a frigging Nazi about it.

Aside from the draconian nature of this policy, it carries with it one important side effect that the state has apparently failed to consider: While these "no candy" signs might keep children off the porches of known sexual deviants, they simultaneously encourage kids to let their guard down around people who have no obligation to post them. I'd say we want our kids to be cautious around all strangers, no?

If you want your children to be safe as they trick-or-treat tonight, be a parent and accompany them around the neighborhood. And if anyone tries to take criminal liberties with your kids, pull out your .357 and blow his ass away.

What? Only criminals are allowed to carry firearms in Maryland? Pity that. Guess we'll all have to take our chances and rely on protection from the same people who came up with this ridiculous Halloween policy in the first place.

Maryland's Gambling Fascism

As a resident of Maryland I've been inundated the past couple weeks with snail mail spam urging me to vote next week for Question 2, a proposed amendment to the state's constitution that, according to the language on the ballot, would "authoriz[e] video lottery terminals (slot machines) to fund education."

Here we go again: whoring out the kids so the state can rake in more money.

To wit, the amendment ostensibly "Authorizes the State to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions."

Given that I generally lead anything but a charmed life, I personally don't make a habit of gambling. However, this doesn't mean I have a right to prevent anyone else from entering into voluntary contract with others around a gaming table. And if I don't have this right, neither does the state.

If Maryland wants to profit from gambling -- notwithstanding the existing government-operated state lottery -- it could simply lift its gambling ban and collect tax revenue from anyone looking to get into this business. Instead, however, the state seeks to establish a quasi-fascist monopoly over this proposed new gambling industry, co-opting a select few private corporations and shutting out anyone else interested in making a few extra bucks off slot machines.

Not a bad gig for those lining up at the trough to take advantage of their political clout, eh?

Apparently, Maryland will allow no more than 15,000 video lottery terminals throughout the state. However, considering the state's only issuing up to five licenses, this means that each location could have, on average, 3,000 gaming machines. In other words, the state's getting into the casino industry at the expense of common citizens who are prohibited from doing so.

It's more than a little ironic that Question 2 is being raised as a constitutional amendment when Maryland's constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law. But there's nothing about equality that justifies the use of force to compel taxpayers to subsidize initiatives with which they disagree. Whether one is morally opposed to gambling itself or morally opposed to state-sanctioned coercion, Maryland has no moral right to victimize citizens by forcing them to foot the bills for activities they oppose.

But back to the education angle. The state's pitch is to claim that it will be able to keep taxes low if only we credulous folk sign off on this scam. Pardon? One would think taxes would actually have to be low in the first place in order to "keep" them that way. However, one of Gov. Martin O'Malley's first actions upon taking office last year was to usher in $1.3 billion worth of tax hikes.

"It was hard to ask people to do more," the smug thief alleged, "but it would have been irresponsible to not ask the people of our state to choose to make progress.''

Ask people? It's hard to imagine a more audacious, condescending statement. I've never once been "asked" to "do more" for my state. I have, however, been repeatedly forced to surrender my own hard-earned money at the point of a gun.

If Maryland gets the go-ahead to establish a gambling cartel, whether or not the state will spend most of its prospective slots revenue on new schools and education programs remains to be seen, but it's entirely irrelevant in any case. Is there any doubt at all that the state will continue to tax income, property, and consumer products as it simultaneously shovels into its coffers millions -- billions? -- in gambling-related revenue? If anything, the more money the state gobbles up the more it will spend on new government programs, which will demand continuous funding and only lead to more oppressive regulations as the state continues to grow and expand its reach over the rest of us.

The state of Maryland should not be in the business of gambling, or even education for that matter. Yet this debate has been framed from the outset as a tug of war between those who want to see gambling brought into the state in even greater scope (currently slot machines are allowed at select horse racing tracks) and those who don't -- with state oversight and regulation as the common denominator regardless.

Those who favor slots or other gaming have no right to use state violence to impose their will upon others, any more than those who happen to oppose gambling for personal or religious reasons have the right to use the state to prevent it.

Gambling, like any other commercial good or service, should be privately available to any consumer interested in contracting peacefully and consensually with any producer. The state simply has no business initiating violence against anyone to either ban or endorse it.

Bend Your Knee to the State!

Tragically, an 8-year-old Massachusetts boy died last Sunday when he accidentally shot himself in the head while shooting an Uzi under adult supervision at a firing range.

Of course, that isn't stopping the local DA from trying to find someone to pin criminal charges on (my emphasis).

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - Authorities in Massachusetts are considering whether criminal charges should be filed in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with an Uzi submachine gun at a gun show.

Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett said Tuesday he hasn't been able to find any law that would authorize a child to possess or fire a machine gun.

The reason Bennett hasn't been able to find a law that would permit a child to fire such a gun is because laws are generally written to prohibit people from doing things.

It's bad enough that we're legally required to understand the incomprehensible litany of laws that are shoved down our throats by federal, state, and local governments; now, apparently, we're supposed to tiptoe around wondering if the state's deigned to allow us to partake in particular activities that haven't yet been legally outlawed.

(Thanks to Kramer)

Trust the Market, Not Government, To Keep You Safe

Contrary to popular belief, laws and regulations aimed at keeping criminals at bay are largely worthless, or at the very least inferior to measures individuals can (and should) take to protect themselves.

Violating someone's rights to life and property is immoral regardless of whether or not some legislative body passes laws making it illegal, and far too often these laws are used to round up the innocent in addition to the guilty. See sobriety checkpoints for a case in point.

Given the freedom to innovate, private companies will provide products that will keep us safer than the State ever could. For example, there's a new product on the market called TrueCall, a gadget that filters telemarketers' phone calls -- those "cold calls" we often receive at the most inopportune times -- and those attempting to get us to divulge personal information to identity thieves and other criminals.

... TrueCall, created by former telemarketers Steve Smith and John Price, intercepts all your calls and classifies them as either good or bad. Numbers on your 'star' list go through without hesitation every time, while unknown numbers and those on the 'zap' list are put on hold. The system asks those calling from an unknown number for their name, forwards the call to the user's phone, and gives them the option to either take it or reject it.

Much like the innovative detachable faceplate for car stereos did more to prevent car break-ins during the Eighties than anti-theft laws ever did, TrueCall is a market solution that would render government-sponsored "do not call" lists irrelevant.