Here is another example of the Oregonian missing the mark on a story.
I do believe the 14th amendment and our supreme court have both imposed the 4th amendment on our states. That's the issue here, they took his property, destroyed a portion of it and then returned it in a compromised state. This is illegal, and THIS is why they settled.
See also: Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Keep the gestapo bullshit in the sullied annals of history, please.
As far as recording cops and their supposed "expectation of privacy"...that's all really laughable. Welcome to the 21st century, morons. You've got no expectation of privacy in public. You've got no expectation of privacy as a public official. Yeah. NONE.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Dying for It
Anyone who spends any amount of time talking to me comes to find out that one of the most intriguing characters of all time to me was Peter the Hermit. If you know nothing about Peter the Hermit, you can easily learn the basics in a quick Google search. But I'll tell you this: Peter led a group of common folk to the Holy Land in what came to be known as a "popular crusade". His goal, for better or for worse, was to appeal to the banditry of the region, to try to get them to stop persecuting Christian pilgrims. Certainly the thuggees of the middle east wouldn't dare to hinder the path of women, children and the elderly, right? One would think. But we know that Peter's gambit failed and the majority of the group he led were slaughtered, captured, raped, robbed or enslaved.
I recently ran across an article about the effects of the DDT ban in sub-Saharan Africa. 2.7 million people dead from a disease--a disease which we have the cure for in our hands, but do not use.
Environmentalism is the Popular Crusade of our time. And we'll all die for it. Don't think for one minute they'll stop with the killing of Africans. They will come for you, Inquisition style.
Did I mention that Peter wasn't among the victims on the Crusade? Nah, he sat back in Constantinople, safe from his own cause.
Where's Al Gore building his new house? Anyone know?
That's all.
I recently ran across an article about the effects of the DDT ban in sub-Saharan Africa. 2.7 million people dead from a disease--a disease which we have the cure for in our hands, but do not use.
Environmentalism is the Popular Crusade of our time. And we'll all die for it. Don't think for one minute they'll stop with the killing of Africans. They will come for you, Inquisition style.
Did I mention that Peter wasn't among the victims on the Crusade? Nah, he sat back in Constantinople, safe from his own cause.
Where's Al Gore building his new house? Anyone know?
That's all.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Family Friendly Prose from J-Slog Sunday Presents: All Together Now
Bipartisanship.
Loathe.
Different is better because it is not you.
I don't want to hold your hand.
I hate the Beatles and especially John Lennon.
Imagine.
Imagine me sticking a slab of C4 on your mother's Beatles LP collection and watching little shards of vinyl launch into the sky. What would those records sing as they whirred through the air with the greatest of ease?
All together now.
1-2-3-4.
Duck.
Loathe.
Different is better because it is not you.
I don't want to hold your hand.
I hate the Beatles and especially John Lennon.
Imagine.
Imagine me sticking a slab of C4 on your mother's Beatles LP collection and watching little shards of vinyl launch into the sky. What would those records sing as they whirred through the air with the greatest of ease?
All together now.
1-2-3-4.
Duck.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Libertarians represent at America Speaks
I couldn't believe my eyes Saturday morning. Libertarians came out in solid numbers, across the nation, to participate in what is now being hailed as the largest town hall discussion in the history of our nation: America Speaks. To be able to participate instantly with other concerned citizens of all political banners was quite a feat. I was impressed by the sheer scope of the event and by the utilization of 21st century technology to bring people together in one virtual town hall meeting. I have sent a letter of personal thanks to the groups' organizers for their efforts.
We had a good day today, I think we made contact with a whole bunch of people who will be inclined to look to alternative candidates without the cloudy mist of confusion and general lack of knowledge about our Libertarian values. After years of shouting into the wind, technology has proven to be our benefactor in diffusion. I can't tell you how exciting this is about to get!
At the event, we sat in groups of eight or so people around a table with one goal in mind: generate a 1.2 trillion dollar decrease in the fiscal deficit by the year 2025. Lofty? Yes. Unrealistic? Maybe. Sounds like a job for a Libertarian!
I have to admit, amid all the praise I have for America Speaks, the process did have a somewhat ubiquitous feel to it. 1.2 trillion is totally incomprehensible and got to be cliché near days' end. I didn't see a comprehensive view of the problem we faced and the information about the debt supplied by sponsors was sophomoric--not on every level--but, enough to make me take pause. There was not one mention of debt monetization in the literature or discourse; not one mention of our trade deficit.
I will say that I thought people worked together quite well despite our differences. There was one little wrinkle in our coming-together-of-the-minds operation though. One guy called me a Nazi because I suggested we not interrupt each other and take turns voicing our opinions as opposed to engaging in less-productive cross-talk and banter. This fellow, a stark-raving Trotskyite, stormed out of the Convention Center after throwing a Nazi/F-word/blah blah blah verbal cocktail my way. I thought he was going to punch me but I think he suddenly remembered the Libertarian stance on the 2nd Amendment, because he just stormed out. After that, the dialogue was encouragingly diplomatic. My table was pretty much filled occupied by left-of-center democrats and a token socialist/eco thug (every other word was either cap and/or tax). By the end of our 6-hour negotiations, I had them agreeing to abolishing the IRS code and 15% spending cuts across the board. I could not overcome a deep-seeded, latent fear of allowing people to manage their own SSI via savings accounts, but who can blame them since they undervalue the government's role in this current fiscal "downturn"? I had to concede an unrealistic 90% taxable income increase that amounted to nothing less than a pipe-dream. They really didn't grasp-or want to grasp-the tax system (which as probably why they finally agreed to put the kybosh on the whole IRS thing!) and failed to comprehend the effect taking 33% of 90% of say, 400,000 would have on their local economies alone. It was 6 hours, I can only do so much.
Here's what I learned, really:
1. People are looking for answers and their general distrust of government is a tool that is driving Libertarian thinking out from the Underground, into the mainstream.
2. Whether it's cliché or p.c. or whatever, people want to come to a consensus solution on this problem. I heard "bipartisan" over and over on Saturday.
3. People think we can get it done. Period. Americans are so cool like that, they believe anything is possible.
My line of the day in response to a complaint that my fiscal policy suggestions were "throwing the baby out with the bathwater":
"Ok. But I have to inform you, that's not a baby, it's a dead possum we only think is a baby because we do nothing but coddle it endlessly".
All in all, I thought it was a good exercise and suggest to anyone who has a chance to participate in the next one to do so.
Feel free to forward this to your own libertarian/fiscally conservative friends...or even your l-o-c democrat friends, who need it the most.
Yours in Liberty,
Chris Lostaglia
Campaign Manager, Jeff Lawrence for Congress
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Munchausen Politic Part Two: Educating Big Bad Wolves
On June 18th, Kyle-Anne Shiver posted an American Thinker article about what she feels is necessary for conservatives to do: re-educate a liberal near you with "facts" and "truth".
Oh, how noble! To sway the mind of one's enemy and to bring harmony to the land through knowledgeable discourse!
How unrelentingly noble!
And utterly, pathetically, stupid.
I'm fairly conservative as Libertarians go, you know. But some of my stances, my Libertarian foundation, if you will, just pisses Republicans off to no end. For instance, while I'm not going downtown to celebrate "diversity" on Gay Pride day--I'm also not going to tell them they can't do it, and will encourage them to do so. If you got it, no matter what it is, I say flaunt it, because no one else is going to do it for you. Example two: I have never smoked a joint in my life...but I aint gonna tell you that you can't do it. There are plenty of "conservatives" and "liberals" out there who will tell you what to do all ready, you don't need my input.
I'm a Paulist-Dualist, Rothbard-Jeffersonian, Kierkegaardian-Subjectivist, Anti-Fundamentalist/Fundamentalist who believes faith is higher than reason. Ironically--or hypocritically--then, I'll be the first to tell you that I base my position on reasonable, result-based logic, and not blind faith. I understand, to a fault at times, the complexity of creating a self-perpetuated belief system and the process of pulling constructable materials from each of the aforementioned philosophic architects in building my own house. The Lostaglia House, as it is. There is nothing more powerful than that--to develop your own, personal philosophical infrastructure and reside there in confidence. To build your spiritual and political house on the foundations of great thinkers requires a complex blueprint that, when fully constructed, is impervious to fire and tyrants, to earthquakes and big bad wolves.
Ah. Libertarians. Such easy prey. They don't stick together, they never agree on anything, they can't win an election, let alone get a decent percentile vote in any race. Lovable losers? Maybe. But the jury is out on whether it's harder work perfecting the "lovable" part or the "loser" part.
Shiver's article is all about making noise. It's good to see the upsurge of political thought in this country of late (even if I'm sheltered from it by the machine of liberal tyranny here in Oregon, we get a taste of it here and there). But, we've seen this all before. The gated-community of our moral betters is the resting place of Neo-Conservatism. Think this, don't think that. Hell, even the title of Shiver's article is self-inclusive: "So What's a Patriot to do?" Only people who think like Shiver are patriots, apparently. Gated-community, I say.
The gated community teaches that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition. That's interesting since the term "Judeo-Christian" wasn't even coined in 1776...or 1876 for that matter. There is ample evidence to suggest the term Judeo-Christian is a World War II phrase concocted by Imperial Socialists attempting to reinforce solidarity against National Socialists. How apropos then, that the new right has taken the phrase on so hardily. Funny how two things as different as Judaism and Christianity can, through time and a little mass engineering, become hyphenated buddy-buddies. Well, Jews certainly are the pinnacle of moral enforcement throughout the world's history; read Leviticus for crying out loud. And Jesus did travel around with hookers and various and sundry low-lives. There's simpatico there, for sure! I think Leviticus says something about an eye for an eye and Jesus says something about cheek turning. Pretty sure Jesus Christ was arguing against the Levites for pretty much the entire time he was on the planet. And I'm pretty sure it was those very same Levites who wanted him dead. Hmm...anyone else sensing some dichotomy there?
The gated community insists that their newfangled version of Levitical social morality is enforceable. That's not what Goldwater said, now is it? That's not what Burke, the father of conservatism, argued when he separated the beautiful from the sublime. Good God, people, you've destroyed conservatism by slamming your dogmatic roof of "that which is beautiful" on the House of The Almighty, which is the awesome, impervious, impregnable fortress of the Sublime. Only God gets to impose moral authority upon Sodom and Gommorah--whether literally with fireballs or figuratively through Natural Law's restrictions on asexual reproduction in mammalian lifeforms. Pick one. I don't care. Whatever you choose, remember this: Only Nature's God gets to hand down tablets of Law--literally or figuratively. Only Nature's God can make the decision to destroy. You, I'm greatly relieved to report, do not. YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHERS SAID THIS!
Conservatism.
Gated Community of hypocrites. Gonna be kind of hard re-educating a Liberal when you can't even educate yourselves. Half the Neo-Cons out there make fun of Neo-Cons. They don't even see the log in their own eye...
News Flash: You're a Neo-Con if you think we have the right to impose our will by force across this, God's Green Earth. You're an Neo-Con if you think personal decisions should be weighed against the "greater good". You're a Neo-Con if you value safety over independence, to ANY degree greater than spelled out in Madison's unparalleled canon otherwise known as The Constitution of the United States of America--a testament your own Conservative tradition has deemed confluent with Natural Law. I don't care how loud Mark Levin yells or how many dittoheads have been brainwashed. They are not Conservatives. They are muckrakers hell-bent on making a buck. Tyranny, Mr. Levin, is the profiteering of mass delusion via revisionist snake oil sentimentality. Go ahead and yell. Make some noise like Shiver wants you to do. I was here in '94, I know where that noise gets you. Liars. Yes, Mr. Levin. You are a liar. And you too, Mr. Hannity. Not one thing will get done. Not one. It's a 1994 deja vu all over again.
Judeo-Christianity... Talk about putting some sheep's clothing on a wolf.
We Libertarians prefer, emphatically, the unkempt house (that's "rustic" in NeoCon terms) in the country-side to the people-farm gated community of elitist hypocrisy-ville. I can fix that dilapidated farmhouse any way I like...or not. Have fun filling out the necessary triplicated forms at gated community headquarters in order to scratch your ass on your own front lawn.
Have fun with that, Mr. Judeo-Christian. Mr. Little Bad Wolf. Have fun, Mr. Patriot.
Hey look, I respect Israel and their right to exist as a nation. No question about it. But, let's face it, in order to be a Christian, you have to respectfully (or otherwise) disagree with Judaism--a belief system that insists on the illegitimacy of Christ himself. Let's stop this Judeo-Christian nonsense simply because it heightens our sense of continuity against a common foe: the Muslim Terrorist. Certainly I don't want to die to a terrorist bomb. No sir. But I will not sacrifice my independence to spiritual terrorism, either. And that is what belief in Jesus Christ frees me from. I am not a Judeo-Christian.
Hey Mr. Neo-Con Wolf, I won't come over to your side, ever. But I'll tell you what, you come huffing and puffing around my front door, be prepared to have your sheeple cloak defrocked and incinerated in the fires of the Tread Not philosopher.
that's all.
Oh, how noble! To sway the mind of one's enemy and to bring harmony to the land through knowledgeable discourse!
How unrelentingly noble!
And utterly, pathetically, stupid.
I'm fairly conservative as Libertarians go, you know. But some of my stances, my Libertarian foundation, if you will, just pisses Republicans off to no end. For instance, while I'm not going downtown to celebrate "diversity" on Gay Pride day--I'm also not going to tell them they can't do it, and will encourage them to do so. If you got it, no matter what it is, I say flaunt it, because no one else is going to do it for you. Example two: I have never smoked a joint in my life...but I aint gonna tell you that you can't do it. There are plenty of "conservatives" and "liberals" out there who will tell you what to do all ready, you don't need my input.
I'm a Paulist-Dualist, Rothbard-Jeffersonian, Kierkegaardian-Subjectivist, Anti-Fundamentalist/Fundamentalist who believes faith is higher than reason. Ironically--or hypocritically--then, I'll be the first to tell you that I base my position on reasonable, result-based logic, and not blind faith. I understand, to a fault at times, the complexity of creating a self-perpetuated belief system and the process of pulling constructable materials from each of the aforementioned philosophic architects in building my own house. The Lostaglia House, as it is. There is nothing more powerful than that--to develop your own, personal philosophical infrastructure and reside there in confidence. To build your spiritual and political house on the foundations of great thinkers requires a complex blueprint that, when fully constructed, is impervious to fire and tyrants, to earthquakes and big bad wolves.
Ah. Libertarians. Such easy prey. They don't stick together, they never agree on anything, they can't win an election, let alone get a decent percentile vote in any race. Lovable losers? Maybe. But the jury is out on whether it's harder work perfecting the "lovable" part or the "loser" part.
Shiver's article is all about making noise. It's good to see the upsurge of political thought in this country of late (even if I'm sheltered from it by the machine of liberal tyranny here in Oregon, we get a taste of it here and there). But, we've seen this all before. The gated-community of our moral betters is the resting place of Neo-Conservatism. Think this, don't think that. Hell, even the title of Shiver's article is self-inclusive: "So What's a Patriot to do?" Only people who think like Shiver are patriots, apparently. Gated-community, I say.
The gated community teaches that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition. That's interesting since the term "Judeo-Christian" wasn't even coined in 1776...or 1876 for that matter. There is ample evidence to suggest the term Judeo-Christian is a World War II phrase concocted by Imperial Socialists attempting to reinforce solidarity against National Socialists. How apropos then, that the new right has taken the phrase on so hardily. Funny how two things as different as Judaism and Christianity can, through time and a little mass engineering, become hyphenated buddy-buddies. Well, Jews certainly are the pinnacle of moral enforcement throughout the world's history; read Leviticus for crying out loud. And Jesus did travel around with hookers and various and sundry low-lives. There's simpatico there, for sure! I think Leviticus says something about an eye for an eye and Jesus says something about cheek turning. Pretty sure Jesus Christ was arguing against the Levites for pretty much the entire time he was on the planet. And I'm pretty sure it was those very same Levites who wanted him dead. Hmm...anyone else sensing some dichotomy there?
The gated community insists that their newfangled version of Levitical social morality is enforceable. That's not what Goldwater said, now is it? That's not what Burke, the father of conservatism, argued when he separated the beautiful from the sublime. Good God, people, you've destroyed conservatism by slamming your dogmatic roof of "that which is beautiful" on the House of The Almighty, which is the awesome, impervious, impregnable fortress of the Sublime. Only God gets to impose moral authority upon Sodom and Gommorah--whether literally with fireballs or figuratively through Natural Law's restrictions on asexual reproduction in mammalian lifeforms. Pick one. I don't care. Whatever you choose, remember this: Only Nature's God gets to hand down tablets of Law--literally or figuratively. Only Nature's God can make the decision to destroy. You, I'm greatly relieved to report, do not. YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHERS SAID THIS!
Conservatism.
Gated Community of hypocrites. Gonna be kind of hard re-educating a Liberal when you can't even educate yourselves. Half the Neo-Cons out there make fun of Neo-Cons. They don't even see the log in their own eye...
News Flash: You're a Neo-Con if you think we have the right to impose our will by force across this, God's Green Earth. You're an Neo-Con if you think personal decisions should be weighed against the "greater good". You're a Neo-Con if you value safety over independence, to ANY degree greater than spelled out in Madison's unparalleled canon otherwise known as The Constitution of the United States of America--a testament your own Conservative tradition has deemed confluent with Natural Law. I don't care how loud Mark Levin yells or how many dittoheads have been brainwashed. They are not Conservatives. They are muckrakers hell-bent on making a buck. Tyranny, Mr. Levin, is the profiteering of mass delusion via revisionist snake oil sentimentality. Go ahead and yell. Make some noise like Shiver wants you to do. I was here in '94, I know where that noise gets you. Liars. Yes, Mr. Levin. You are a liar. And you too, Mr. Hannity. Not one thing will get done. Not one. It's a 1994 deja vu all over again.
Judeo-Christianity... Talk about putting some sheep's clothing on a wolf.
We Libertarians prefer, emphatically, the unkempt house (that's "rustic" in NeoCon terms) in the country-side to the people-farm gated community of elitist hypocrisy-ville. I can fix that dilapidated farmhouse any way I like...or not. Have fun filling out the necessary triplicated forms at gated community headquarters in order to scratch your ass on your own front lawn.
Have fun with that, Mr. Judeo-Christian. Mr. Little Bad Wolf. Have fun, Mr. Patriot.
Hey look, I respect Israel and their right to exist as a nation. No question about it. But, let's face it, in order to be a Christian, you have to respectfully (or otherwise) disagree with Judaism--a belief system that insists on the illegitimacy of Christ himself. Let's stop this Judeo-Christian nonsense simply because it heightens our sense of continuity against a common foe: the Muslim Terrorist. Certainly I don't want to die to a terrorist bomb. No sir. But I will not sacrifice my independence to spiritual terrorism, either. And that is what belief in Jesus Christ frees me from. I am not a Judeo-Christian.
Hey Mr. Neo-Con Wolf, I won't come over to your side, ever. But I'll tell you what, you come huffing and puffing around my front door, be prepared to have your sheeple cloak defrocked and incinerated in the fires of the Tread Not philosopher.
that's all.
Duverger was WRONG and...
...and anyone supporting Duverger's claim is a Nationalist. Anyone who deals with an association that relies on Duverger's theory of mandatory two-party systems of government is not worthy your time. In short, Duverger was an elitist scumbag and so is the Independent Caucus.
The Two-Party System Leads to Totalitarianism
In some areas a member from a particular political party CANNOT WIN. For instance, if you live in a major metropolitan area that sends a member to the U.S. Congress, chances are, that person is a Democrat. In some extreme instances, Republicans in these districts receive a pitiful average of 30% of the vote. Why is that? The answer is easy: Education. Or rather, under-education. In some cases, blatant mis-Education. But really, it is a matter of unbalanced education. The amount of education a child receives in the city from his school far outweighs the education he receives from his parent(s). Which national party controls the Teachers Unions? Yeah. They are arming an electorate and insulating them from exterior influence. This has NOTHING at all to do with Duverger's "law". It has everything to do with totalitarianism--in the true sense of the word: "total". Think like us or we'll make you think like us.
In our cities, the role of parents and nuclear families is downplayed (even ridiculed and belittled by leftist academicians--most of whom come from affluent suburban families, ironically) and the role of the child as a social victim is enhanced. Families are mean, they hurt you, fathers abuse you or abandon you...you don't need them, you've got us...then you grow up under the working assumption that fathers are superfluous and what do you do? Well, you knock up whomever you want and abandon the results of that action. If you haven't seen this is action, then you're either one of the affluent white leftists or you live outside the infrastructure of our ever-socializing major cities. If the latter is the case, a word of warning is in order: you are a redneck hillbilly white-trash racist bible-thumpin' gun totin'anti-semite, anti-palestinian. In other words, you're representative is probably a Republican and even though your U.S. Senator had traditionally been a Conservative, she's not now.
This means that Duverger's theory is wrong at some level (the local level) and in some cases, instead of three or multiple parties (which is the normal counter-argument to Duverger. i.e. Canada, Great Britain), we get ONLY ONE (i.e. U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba).
Less choice is no choice. That's right. If you support the two party system, you're an agent of totalitarianism because eventually one of the two parties will FAIL. Where are the Whigs? Then something rises up to the champion party only to get knocked down again (Republicans and Democrats have both experienced this phenomenon throughout this nation's history).
Thank you to the Independent Caucus for not realizing any of this and adopting a broad-sweeping, generic, Marxist approach to "independence". Thank you for reinforcing the status quo. Thank you for making the Teachers Union's job all the easier.
You rock.
Assholes.
“Duverger's Law, which essentially says that,
in a system dominated by two parties, third party
candidates almost always are either marginalized,
or serve to help the party which is furthest away
from the third party's niche.”
The Two-Party System Leads to Totalitarianism
In some areas a member from a particular political party CANNOT WIN. For instance, if you live in a major metropolitan area that sends a member to the U.S. Congress, chances are, that person is a Democrat. In some extreme instances, Republicans in these districts receive a pitiful average of 30% of the vote. Why is that? The answer is easy: Education. Or rather, under-education. In some cases, blatant mis-Education. But really, it is a matter of unbalanced education. The amount of education a child receives in the city from his school far outweighs the education he receives from his parent(s). Which national party controls the Teachers Unions? Yeah. They are arming an electorate and insulating them from exterior influence. This has NOTHING at all to do with Duverger's "law". It has everything to do with totalitarianism--in the true sense of the word: "total". Think like us or we'll make you think like us.
In our cities, the role of parents and nuclear families is downplayed (even ridiculed and belittled by leftist academicians--most of whom come from affluent suburban families, ironically) and the role of the child as a social victim is enhanced. Families are mean, they hurt you, fathers abuse you or abandon you...you don't need them, you've got us...then you grow up under the working assumption that fathers are superfluous and what do you do? Well, you knock up whomever you want and abandon the results of that action. If you haven't seen this is action, then you're either one of the affluent white leftists or you live outside the infrastructure of our ever-socializing major cities. If the latter is the case, a word of warning is in order: you are a redneck hillbilly white-trash racist bible-thumpin' gun totin'
This means that Duverger's theory is wrong at some level (the local level) and in some cases, instead of three or multiple parties (which is the normal counter-argument to Duverger. i.e. Canada, Great Britain), we get ONLY ONE (i.e. U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba).
Less choice is no choice. That's right. If you support the two party system, you're an agent of totalitarianism because eventually one of the two parties will FAIL. Where are the Whigs? Then something rises up to the champion party only to get knocked down again (Republicans and Democrats have both experienced this phenomenon throughout this nation's history).
Thank you to the Independent Caucus for not realizing any of this and adopting a broad-sweeping, generic, Marxist approach to "independence". Thank you for reinforcing the status quo. Thank you for making the Teachers Union's job all the easier.
You rock.
Assholes.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Liberty is the Answer to your discontent
SALEM -- If you've been paying attention to politics in the last year or so, you've probably noticed a game-change taking place. Starting with the Tax Day protests in April '09, Americans started re-awakening, started wondering what was going on around them and started speaking out against the status quo politics of derision and discontent.
Discontent. The catchword of our day.
Full Story Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)