Reinke Faces Life

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=536270&in_page_id=1770

***Begin Quote***

Then Camra, the Campaign for Real Ale, was founded to fight for traditional beer and pubs.

It found a surprising ally. Margaret Thatcher, who hated monopolies and brewers (despite the fact that they were significant donors to the Tory Party), rallied to the cause.

Laws were passed that no brewer could own more than 2,000 pubs. Furthermore, they would have to give their landlords the option of selling at least one “guest beer” produced by a rival.

The idea could not have been simpler: by smashing the big brewers’ monopoly, there would be a flowering of smaller brewers, varied pubs and more choice for drinkers. But it didn’t work out like that.

Roger Protz of Camra looks slightly uncomfortable when I ask him what went wrong. “Basically, I think we were tremendously naive,” he says.

What happened was that the brewers created stand-alone pub companies – known as PubCos – to which they sold all their pubs.

Because they didn’t brew beer themselves, these new companies were exempt from the legislation.

“There were a lot of sweetheart deals,” explains Protz. “The brewers would say to some of their management team, ‘Here’s a golden handshake, go off, buy a tranche of pubs and in return only take our beers.’ That was what happened.

“We were offered this great shangri-la of choice but now choice is just as restricted under the pub companies as it was under the brewers.”

The statistics bear him out. In 1989, the three biggest brewers owned around 20,000 pubs, about a third of the UK’s total. Today, the three biggest PubCos own – wait for it – around 20,000 pubs.

In 1989, the six biggest brewers produced 75 per cent of all the beer drunk in Britain’s pubs. Today, they produce 84per cent.

What have changed are the pubs themselves.

***End Quote***

Ahh, the gooferment at work.

It’s hard to imagine bigger stupidity.

Where there is a will, there’s a way.

And, what exactly was the gooferment seeking to do? Didn’t work. So, I guess, they’ll pass yet another law!

Argh!

# # # # #

***Begin Quote***

“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”

– Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992),
Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences 1974

***End Quote***

# # # # #

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502358_pf.html

D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court
Justices’ Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 16, 2008; A01

***Begin Quote***

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

***End Quote***

If the Second Amendment doesn’t protect and individual right, then what does the First Amendment protect?

The right to a gun is fundamental to the question of who owns you.

Tyrants don’t want sheep that can shoot back. “Victim disarmament” is the FIRST thing that tyrants do to the people. After all, an armed citizen can be dangerous to the “bad guys”. Criminals, with or with the government uniform, can’t face an armed populace.

It’s the key issue. Let’s see what the court decides. It might surprise us.

# # # # #

—–Original Message—–
From: Luddite
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:22 PM
To: John Reinke
Subject: Vermont?

Vermont isn’t one of those ‘free states’ is it, or is that just New Hampshire? Anyway, it sounds like it is a very bad place to live…it’s full of secular progressives, extremely liberal judges (who let pedaphiles out of jail), they have the highest percentage of underage drinkers, way, way, too liberal for me (and you!). (Just passing on info for a more informed American society)

—–Reply Message—–

Well, none of the states are “free”. NH is the “free-est”. VT has the virtue of having a very active secession movement.

SECEDE & SURVIVE: Liberty and Democracy as Antidotes to Sectarian Secessionism
Submitted by Carol Moore on Fri, 03/07/2008 – 10:50pm.
http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2008/03/07/secede-survive-liberty-and-democracy-antidotes-sectarian-secessionism

HI, TX, AK, and SC are all hot beds of secession. BUT, VT is the most advanced. Last time I read about it, VT had >10% of the people favored secession and in the high 70s thought it should be studied. NH has smaller percentages, but are not far behind.

IMHO, it’s the Massholes and old hippies in VT that make it liberal. Again, imho, if VT goes, then NH will go together with them, or on the heels. The secessionists claim that they can bring VT, NH. ME, and some of the English speaking Canadian provinces into a “New England” country. Economically, VT needs NH to be at least a trading partner. Add ME and it’s like Switzerland.

It’s the only viable way to disempower the gang in DC. Remember the line in Mel Gibson’s the patriot about trading tyrants. :-) How else is the fictional “Federal Government” brought back under control?

As far as politically, I think you’d see a very “classical liberal” society evolve there in VT. Remember that in a classical liberal society, whose roots are in the Renaissance, the sovereign individual governs themselves; not King, or country. Liberal judges are an anomaly.

And, if you eliminate “Prohibition” (i.e., all drugs are legal), then there is no such thing as “underage drinking”. People have to be free to make mistakes, learn from them, and move on. If you poke around, you’ll find that there is a core percentage of “drug users” (i.e., a small percentage) that use regardless of legality.

Suggest http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf as a five minute primer that explains the concepts very nicely. Best that I’ve ever seen.

# # # # #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99NHb6B03s

FMG9: Prototype 9mm Folding Submachine Gun

***Begin Quote***

“Things get nasty; get down to business.

***End Quote***

I love it. Perfect for a BOB!

# # # # #

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019718.html

March 01, 2008
Government This, Government That
Posted by Manuel Lora at March 1, 2008 11:32 AM

***Begin Quote***

We should start referring to state owned and managed properties and functions by the word “government” and not “public” for strategic reasons. Instead of public parks we have government parks; instead of public schools we have government schools. There is something more nefarious and sinister about it. “Government Police” sounds a lot worse than “State Police” doesn’t it? Let’s apply it to government housing, government inspections, government licensing and every program and department out there such as the (government) lottery and (government) roads. If we had government restaurants, just imagine how awful they would be!

***End Quote***

I like this idea. And, I’ll try to do it.

# # # # #

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=99999999

The Government Hoax
Written by Marc Stevens
Tuesday, 21 November 2006

***Begin Quote***

The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It’s the belief in non-existent “states” and “nations” and that “government” is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the “United States,” it’s claimed only “government” can provide the service of protecting “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This is nonsense if only for the reason “government” has no duty to protect anyone and their property.

Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It’s that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then “government” is not “necessary” to “protect” what doesn’t exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don’t “protect” them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don’t acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn’t:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.

***End Quote***

Gooferment is the meme (i.e., an idea is like a gene; mental model; belief) that can kill you, enslave you, or just make you miserable. Even if you don’t realize it.

# # # # #

http://www.impactlab.com/2008/02/24/how-not-to-release-a-bear

February 24th, 2008 at 6:46 am
How Not To Release A Bear
in: Photo Perspectives

Some day, silly humans will realize that the world is a dangerous place. For this bureaucrat to be with a bear’s reach during release is the height of stupidity. Luckily the fellow wasn’t killed. Note he had no side arm (i.e., a nice 1911 45 “bear discouragement device”) and no backup (i.e., someone with a big shotgun). I just shake my head.

“Attention KMart shoppers! The world is a dangerous place. Predators, of the two legged and four legged varieties, abound.”

I’d add some of those predators dress up as politicians, bureaucrats, and “law enforcement”. But no one would be listening any way.

Argh!

# # # # #

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Supreme-Court-Refuses-To-Hear-Wiretap-Case-92011

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Wiretap Case
Offers no comment or justification of decision
08:49AM Wednesday Feb 20 2008

***Begin Quote***

The US Supreme Court refused without comment the ACLU’s appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked the group from suing over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program. The appeals court has blocked the case from proceeding because complainants couldn’t prove they were being tapped, yet they couldn’t prove they were being tapped because claims of national security block further investigation.

***End Quote***

AND, you EXPECT the gooferment court to even hear the suggestion that the gooferment infringers are WRONG.

What space time continuum are you in?

Remember Mao? Power comes from the barrel of the gun. They gottem; you don’t!

# # # # #

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” — Samuel Adams

# # # # #