Papers, please...

To those who don't believe we are living in an increasingly police state, read the following story about TSA agents harassing a Campaign for Liberty official. Be sure to listen to the audio - it is astounding (and infuriating).

On the tape, Mr. Bierfeldt is asked repeatedly where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis.

In each instance, Mr. Bierfeldt asked whether he was required by law to answer the questions.

"You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f--ing game," the TSA official said.

Mr. Bierfeldt continued to refuse to answer, asking whether he was compelled by law to do so. The officers accused him of "doublespeak" and "acting like a child."

"Are you from this planet?" one officer asked.

The officers threatened to handcuff him and turn him over to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration for questioning.

Now, the big question many have is whether he was retained for the amount of money he was carrying, or for his obvious support of Ron Paul. It doesn't really matter: neither one is illegal. At least, theoretically. Neither one is supposed to be cause for harassment. At least, theoretically.

TSA agents are largely untrained, generally incompetent, and given too much authority. As a result, many of them behave as thugs. And most people go along with it.

I highly encourage everyone out there - record every encounter with the law. If it comes to your word against theirs, you will lose. If you have proof, there is a small chance that your rights will be upheld in the long run.

In the short run? Cross your fingers, read about American history, and dream about the time when we were a free country.

Good reading...

Though I occasionally disagree with his conclusions, Justin Raimondo's stock keeps going up and up in my book. He has an interesting way of cutting through BS, and the habit of exhaustively backing up his claims.

Though an early Obama supporter, he has since become soured on our Comrade-In-Chief. Here's a very interesting article he just wrote:

The Audacity of Hype

The mainstream media, particularly on television, has lost all sense of objectivity and proportion, and their reporting of the president-elect's doings has taken on a distinctly Soviet air. "Our Glorious Leader Picks the White House Dog" is the emblematic headline of a servile fourth estate. The political atmosphere is positively eerie: amid calls for "unity" and attacks on "toxic" language that is "divisive," there is an odd uniformity of thought similar to the virtual unanimity that gripped the nation in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Groupthink is all the rage, and the media has joined in the fun.

CNN, in a strange fit of usefulness and taking a break from prostrating in front of Obama, decided to host a series of articles about the GOP's struggles. They made the mistake of giving a slot to Ron Paul, who proceeded to tell the truth:

The GOP should ask why the USA is on the wrong track:

The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election...

...After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people.

One refrain we've been hearing non-stop from the media is how the "conservatives" lost the election, or how Palin ruined it for McCain. Bullshit. The people who hated her were already celebrating their puppy-love for Obama.

Mark Sanford wrote a pretty telling article on this:

Conservatives didn't lose election, GOP did

Beyond the presidential race, it goes without saying the Republican Party took a shellacking nationally. Some on the left will say our electoral losses are a repudiation of our principles of lower taxes, smaller government and individual liberty. But Tuesday was not in fact a rejection of those principles -- it was a rejection of Republicans' failure to live up to those principles.

And last but not least, remember that bailout program? The one that was going to save us? The one that was necessary to buy up bad stocks? Turns out that the money isn't going for that at all. Instead it's going to forced nationalization of banks, regardless of their solvency.

Paulson changes course

In a stunning turnabout, the Bush administration Wednesday abandoned the original centerpiece of its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system and said it will not use the money to purchase troubled bank assets.

What's this? An expensive government program, forced upon taxpayers despite overwhelming opposition to it, now changing course and not doing anything that it was promised to do, or intended to do? Unheard of! Not in America! Why, this is outrageous, illegal, immoral!

Wait, which government program are we talking about, again?

And now, the end is near...

Ron Paul is out. But to be honest, I'm not disappointed. He did far more than I ever thought he could. Even though he was shut out by MSM in so many ways, he managed to get his message out. And now his book Revolution: A Manifesto is selling out everywhere - not just for the first few days it was published...

I still think it's too late for this country. I still think we're far past the point of no return, and yes, I'm cynical. But the ideas of Liberty and Freedom (true freedom, not what we're offered in this nation) are perhaps gaining traction.

Assuming that all the votes cast for him were counted (and that's not something I would ever take for granted), he got 1.2 million votes. That's 1.2 million people willing to quit following the same path. 1.2 million people willing to try change.

Yes, I know there's another candidate promising change. I do not doubt for a second the sincerity or passion of Obama supporters. In a way, I understand it; his speeches are quite masterful. But a conversation with an Obama fan usually runs like this:

OF: How can you not like Obama? He supports change, and gives us hope!
Me: Awesome! What kind of change?
OF: He'll do things differently!
Me: Yes, that would be the definition of change.
OF: He's accomplished so much, and we can believe in him!
Me: What has he accomplished?
OF: He offers hope! Hope, change, hopechange!

Very few Obama supporters seem to realize that he is a Socialist, pure and simple. His rhetoric is pure socialist, his philosophies are pure socialist, and his voting record (what little there is) is socialist. If you're a socialist, fine. But if not, you really ought to know this. Personally, I don't think I'm entitled to the fruits of anybody else's labors, and I sure as hell don't think they're entitled to mine. But too bad, I live in a socialist country.

And yet, Ron Paul really got a lot of people thinking. His message of true Freedom, of true Liberty - it struck a chord in many, many people who realize that something's not right with what we've been told. People who are starting to see - our government is not what it claims to be.

What's next? I'm not sure where he's headed, other than continuing in Congress. But I am so grateful for what he did. It has given me a little hope for the future, that when this present nation crumbles, we can rebuild something better from the ruins. And the sooner we move from our current direction, the less painful that collapse is going to be.

So I'm throwing all my support behind Bob Barr. He's not perfect, of course. But of the candidates out there, he's the only one I could vote for and not feel guilty for hastening the demise of what's left of the USA. And Ron Paul paved the way for Bob Barr to make a real difference this campaign, something I never thought the Libertarian Party could ever do. Ron Paul pretty much converted Glenn Beck from being an absolute opponent to a fan, and then Glenn Beck gave Bob Barr a full hour on his show! Bob Barr appeared on the Colbert Report. He's been on CNN, and MSNBC.

For the first time in my lifetime, the Libertarian Party is not being summarily dismissed. Ron Paul's campaign was at the least a wake-up call to the PTB that not everybody is happy with a pat on the head and a hand-out as they remove the last vestiges of personal liberty. Bob Barr might actually get a significant percentage of the vote.

As I said before, I think it's too late. But boy, would I LOVE to be proved wrong!

To all you Patriots; DON'T VOTE!

Okay, my headline is perhaps a bit misleading. Voting is important, and a great deal of what should be deciding the direction of this country. But here's my issue; most people believe it their patriotic duty to vote, regardless of their knowledge of politics, of history, of economics, even of what issues are at stake.

I've said it before, but let me say it again. Voting does NOT equal freedom. The right to vote does NOT mean you live in a free country. In most dictatorships, the citizens are given the right to vote; the ruling party merely decides ahead of time who you will be allowed to vote for. Anyone with a touch of cynicism will have a hard time finding that different from our current system. Anyone without a touch of cynicism is either inhaling some really exotic drugs, or not yet old enough to write their name in cursive letters.

The right to vote does NOT in any shape, form, or fashion mean that you are free. Contrary to what you have been told (or are likely to tell me), in the history of this country, very few people died to give you the right to vote. Many thousands died to give you freedom, a freedom most people are actively throwing away with every ballot cast. You CAN vote for freedom. But most people do not. Most don't even know how. (I'll give you a hint - it's not by voting for the candidate who promises you the most free stuff, or even for this guy, though at least he's honest)

Most people have a decided lack of interest in politics. I more than understand this; I sympathize, perhaps even admire this. I can't break away, myself. But at times, I sure wish I could. But yet these same people believe they have a patriotic obligation to vote. In essence, they are actively participating in a system they neither understand nor wish to be engaged in.

Voting is not an inalienable right, nor was it ever intended to be. But we have pushed ever harder for universal suffrage as a means to promote... Something or other. Fairness, I guess. But competence is more fundamental to true progress than this false sense of equality. You wouldn't say the best way to solve the medical crisis would be to declare everybody a doctor, would you? Admittedly, it would make prescriptions really fun. In medicine, you want a certain level of competence. And yet, isn't deciding the fate of a country as important as being a doctor?

Most people base their vote on feelings, party lines, and the oratory of the candidates. This is about as effective as betting on BasketBall Teams based on who has the best smiles in the starting line-up.

I think rather than making it easier to vote, we ought to make it much, much harder. Yes, this would mean far fewer votes would be cast. But it would also mean only the competent people who actually care would be making these decisions. Open to anyone, but you have to pass the following tests:

1. Speak English - I hate the English language, but it is the primary language of this country, and should remain so. If you can't read it, learn to.
2. Know basic economic principles - if you've never studied Austrian Economics, you might be suckered in by the governmental sleight-of-hand approach increasingly used for the last seventy years or so. And chances are you were taught the Keynesian Bullshit in college.
3. Know the voting record of every candidate you vote for. Don't know what Barack Obama voted for? (hint - he voted to fund the Iraq war every time it came up) That should be a problem. If the candidate is an incumbent, it should have say, 10 major votes that he/she cast in the last term. If you get 8 of 10 right, your vote for him/her counts. Otherwise, you're effectively voting in the best haircut, which is not really the best method. Well, not always.
4. Have read the Constitution. If you don't know what's in it, and what is most certainly not, then you have no real basis for knowing whether the president is doing his job (he's not), or whether congress is doing their jobs (they're not), or whether the government has grown beyond its intended scope (think Rosie O'Donnell in a size 2 dress).
5. Know some basic history. If you don't know shit about the Roman Empire (watching "Gladiator" doesn't count!), if you can't name any founding fathers not appearing on our currency, if you don't know why we fought the civil war (not about slavery), why we got into WWI and WWII, why Korea and Vietnam and Iraq I and II were unconstitutional, if you don't know what the Federal Reserve is or does... You really should be looking these things up before you vote.

Is this really too much to ask? I know, most of you will say it is. Relax. I'm not in charge. And if I were, I would totally go with a dictatorship anyway. Rather than appeal to intelligence, decency, and freedom, I'd probably have a different platform, largely based on eliminating Reality TV.