Reinke Faces Life

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200605/POL20060501a.html

Advocacy Group Launches Campaign Against Marriage Amendment

***Begin Quote***

(CNSNews.com) – A homosexual advocacy group has launched a postcard campaign urging senators to vote no on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

***End Quote***

Would NOT a better question be: "Why is the Gummamint (Federal Government) involved in Marriage?"

One should question why any level of government has any business in the institution of marriage. Isn't that the province of the people and possibly the Church?

Why does one need the permission of one's government to marry? That's what a license is. Oh please, Mommy Government and Father State, may I have your permission to do this? It couldn't be rooted in the desire to keep the black men from marrying the white women? Remember we can trace most of the bad and restrictive laws to racial discrimination and fear of immigrants. The Saturday Night Special and Gun Control laws were designed to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and immigrants. In the days when immigrants referred to the Irish and the Italians!

No, the State should mind its own business. Was force or fraud used? If it was, then it has a duty to protect and serve regardless of what the Supreme Court says. (Remember the Dred Scott decision?) If not, so be it.

Butt out! The answer to the title question is "None whatsoever".

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/434527.html

***Begin Quote***
Evan Bayh: Making a stand on stewardship
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Rob Christensen, Staff Writer

Editor's note: Even though the presidential election is not until 2008, potential candidates to succeed President Bush are already making their way around the country. When they visit the Triangle, The News & Observer will try to ask them a few questions.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh was in Raleigh over the weekend to speak at the Democrats' annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner when reporter Rob Christensen caught up with him. Bayh was twice elected governor in Republican-leaning Indiana before being elected to the Senate in 1998. He is looking at running for president in 2008.

{extraneous deleted}

Q: Why do you think we should abolish the Electoral College?

A: "I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."

***End Quote***

What a bone head!

Obviously, this Presidential candidate has never read the Federalist Papers, thought about the implications of the Electoral College, or taken a course in Engineering Measurements with Brother Austin Barry. The reporter and writer must have missed those experiences as well.

The electoral college is part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representatives in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. This ensures a republic; not a democracy. remember that the dead old white guys view democracy as mob rule and rightly so.

Thinking about the implications would expose a few hidden benefits. (a) The Electoral College presents the image of a plurality when the nation is closely divided. Thus, in 2000, 271 to 266 Electoral College vote disguises the razor thin popular vote. (b) It insulates the process from fraud. Stuff the ballot box in a red or blue state all you want, you'll only get that state's electoral vote.  In a popular vote, that's a problem. (c) What happens if a candidate dies before inauguration? The Electoral College will solve the problem. The peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of the republic. (d) The States are sovereign entities. They make the rules for their own state. They could decide to pick them at random like jurors. (e) It ensures that the President MUST campaign in the small states. Popular vote could be decided in the big cities, even without fraud. The current system ensures that candidates know where New Hampshire and Iowa are. Remember if Gore had carried his "home" state of Tennessee, he'd be president. Kerry lost West Virginia. Ignore the small states at your own peril. (f) A state or local issue could bring a big turnout for someone in one state at the expense of another state. Turnout rates don't matter ACROSS state boundaries. (g) [My personal favorite] A third party elector could influence the election in ways that have not yet been seen. The Repubocrats and the Democans split the Electoral vote 267 each and NH elects 3 Libertarians. Those three guys extract promises to increase freedom, lower taxes, and curtail the growth of government from one side or the other. Probably the side that would lose by throwing the election to the House of Representatives. And the Libertarians could care less after that. Imagine the howls of "we wuz robbed" from the losers. And, the "winners" wouldn't be that happy either! Love it.

Finally, as Brother Austin Barry could have instructed the candidate, every measurement has blunders and errors. We don't worry about blunders, but we do worry about errors in measurement. Every measurement process has errors. Count a deck of cards ten times and you won't get the answer 52 every time. And we know the answer we are supposed to get. Unless the good Brother, took out a card or two OR stuck in a joker. Different people can measure the same thing and come up with different "correct" answers. Counting votes is no different (e.g., Florida recounts). The electoral system does not mandate that the vote tally be exactly right. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This confers the benefit that we don't need an exact nose count. "Close enough" is good enough. Some places don't bother counting absentee ballots when the plurality is larger than the number of absentees.

So the dead old white guy continue to earn my undying admiration for their political construction.

And, before anyone glibly says "amend the Constitution", remember all the bone headed results form messing with success. Prohibition gave us organized crime. Direct Election of Senators gave the States unfunded mandates. Presidential term limits gave us lame duck two term presidents.

Don't mess with what you don't understand!

###

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49995

***Begin Quote***

Public schools that can't teach children how to read or speak English is nothing new, but when a team full of NBA All-Stars can't even medal in basketball, then one must truly fear for the future of America.

***End Quote***

I like that line. We have survived on an abundence of natural resources, two oceans to protect us from Europe's insanity, and a small does of freedom after the Revolution. What are we going to do now?

I'd suggest: MYOB geopolitically speaking, a big dose of Freedom as oppose to the Serfdom we have now, and a return to an ethic of 'personal responsibility'. As both a Big L and little L libertarian, my suggestions are right out of the Libertarian playbook.

MYOB in all things but especially geopolitically. Stop mucking about the world. Democracy in Iraq that the Iraqi's problem. Nut job in Iran that's an Iranian problem. Hamas in Gaza that's an Israeli problem. Gay marriage, any Marriage ain't a Government issue. Drugs, stick anything you want in your body, but pay the costs. Government has two very minor roles: keep the peace domestically and repel foreign armies. period.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=29976

***Begin Quote***

Investigators went to the school and obtained his consent to search his person. They say they found a set of brass knuckles and a knife.

They say he also consented to a search of his vehicle, where deputies found two more knives and a pipe with marijuana residue in it.

***End Quote***

Nope sorry. No one can consent to a search. Put me on this fellow's jury and he walks everytime. He was detained pending arrest. They obviously had no probably cause because why did they ask for his consent. he was in no position to freely consent.

Furhter he has an Intelligent Deisgned given right to carry any weapon he chooses for self-defense. The "no weapons near a school" guearantees that the bad guys have no opposition when they seek to do bad things. Drugs, what a joke. Anyone is free, again with right that is inherent to all of our species, to put anything they want into their bodies. While I think drug abuse is "bad", I don't impose my opinions on others' by force of arms.

This story saddens me how we have lost our liberties.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/27/when_parents_value_conflict_with_public_schools/ 

When parents' values conflict with public schools By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  April 27, 2006 

***Begin Quote***

When it comes to the education of children, there is always an agenda — and those who don't share that agenda too often find themselves belittled, marginalized, or ignored. Perhaps it was true, as Thomas Reilly says, that the public schools his children attended "reinforced the values of our home." But as the Parkers and Wirthlins in Lexington can testify, other families have a very different experience. When Kerry Healey says she wants her children "to be in an environment where they can talk about values ….. in a way that you can't always do in a public school setting," many public-school parents will know exactly what she means.

***End Quote***

Sorry to say it but the "gmmamint publik skoolz" are a socialist idea that were designed from the beginning to create cannon fodder and factory robots. It's an "experiment" that needs to stop.

In no particular order. It's racist! It's sexist! It's egalitarian! It's unfair! It's ineffective! It's inefficient! It's unsafe! It's dehumanizing! It's socialist! It's "one size fits all". It's not subject to marketplace discipline! It's a financial rat hole! It's social engineering! It's a class warfare! It's divisive! It's anti-family! It's anti-religious! It's union dominated! It's corrupt! It's inescapable! It's anti senior citizen!

Other than that it's a great system.

Oh I'm exaggerating am I?

It's racist! Can you tell em the black and white literacy rates? It's ok use their numbers. We know they are fudged but go ahead.

It's sexist! Boys get treated badly. Girls are pushed around. Both lose.

It's egalitarian! As cited in the article 5/6 of rich white people don't send their children to publik skool. Why?

It's unfair! The childless pay to educate other people's children. Why is that? I don't pay to clothe them.

It's ineffective! Even using their fudged stats, the results are an absolute joke.

It's inefficient! Does it take twelve years to not tech these people to read? They are out of school more than they are in. It's unsafe! Look at teen violence in skoolz. Skool buz accidents. Guns and drugs?

It's dehumanizing! More like a prison, ring bells to change classes like a Pavlovian dog. Justice in proceedings. Rights?

It's socialist! The designers like Horrace Mann wanted a classless society.

It teaches socialism! It's "one size fits all". Too smart;too dumb. Look at the boundary students. Handicap? Everyone is ADD and dosed with drugs if they won't sit still for the nonsense paraded as education.

It's not subject to marketplace discipline! No child left behind? When a business doesn't serve, the marketplace "rewards" it with a going out business sale. When a school fails, they give it more money.

It's a financial rat hole! Look at private preschools, there's financial and quality competition. Look at the parochial schools; even with one foot in a bucket, they cost a third of a state skool.

It's social engineering! The stat skool fosters worship of the state religion — state worship. Children are taught and trained to expect the gummamint to solve their problems.

It's a class warfare! There's a reason that the suburbs have better skoolz. And, it ain't cause we are all equal. The curse of low expectations is placed on all who enter the 'system'.

It's divisive! Parents fight among themselves to get the best, or any, education for their children. It's played by the state as a zero sum game.

It's anti-family! It contradicts the beliefs of the parents and the community.

It's anti-religious! It teaches state worship and Earth Day paganism. It sneers at the cultural and religious values. It subsumes the religious holidays and relabels them.

It's union dominated! Guess that goes without saying. Tenure in skoolz?

It's corrupt! There is a education industry that has grown up around the politicians – 'educators' – contractors. They've got a nice scam going and it keeps everyone rich and happy.

It's inescapable! A Catholic friend of mine can't afford to pay the taxes and pay to send his kids to the Catholic school. Then as the final kick in the <pick your favorite sensitive region> they teach his kids things contrary to his beliefs.

It's anti senior citizen! Why are seniors taxed to pay for skoolz from their fixed incomes?

Did I miss anything? Any redeeming value? Nope!

http://feeds.feedburner.com/HammerOfTruth?m=1556

***Begin Quote***

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court, in overturning the verdict, said a juror had had inappropriate communication with an attorney.

“Juror A” had asked the attorney during trial whether she had to follow the law or could vote her conscience because she suspected Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medicinal uses. The attorney told her she must follow the judge’s instructions to follow federal law or she would get in “trouble.”

“We hold that here the communication was an improper influence upon Juror A’s decision to acquit or convict,” the appeals court wrote.

***End Quote***

Interesting that people don't know about "jury nullification" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification. I guess that's why I never get on a jury. I do. It's a pre-constitutional tradition emerging out of English common law and I first learned about it in connection with the Peter Zenger trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenger. It says the jury is sovereign. They can not only judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. But they can judge the law. Sort of like a one person veto.

Now, needless to say, the judge ain't gonna be to happy if you vote "not guilty". For example, in your opinion, the Drug Laws may unconstitutional, or they may be intrusive, or they may be draconian, or they may be just plain stupid. You may think that the cops planted it, or that the Prosecutors are picking on some poor dumb defendant. Or that the judge is just a horse's behind. Bottom line, for what ever reason, you can vote "not guilty".

My personal advice is if you do, keep your mouth shut. Do NOT elaborate. Don't discuss. Don't tell anybody anything. Just say "not guilty" when asked.

It doesn't matter if he was caught on video tape, recorded, and 22 people swear that they bought drugs from him. Just smile quizzically and say "I believe the defendant. Hence, I vote "not guilty"." and shut up.

There are cases where your fellow juror will report all sorts of stuff to the judge in their zeal to do their duty.

You have to be just a zealous doing yours.

:-)  "Not guilty" ;-)

Did you have a preformed opinion? Nope! Did you apply the law as I explained it? Yup! Did you go into the deliberations with an open mind? Yes! Have you ever heard of the FIJA http://www.fija.org/or jury nullification? Nope!

:-)

How can you justify your verdict? I heard the defendant and believed him.

Period!

Bet you never get called for jury duty again! Yeah, I know it's completely random. Just register as a Libertarian and see how often you get called.

It's a rigged game.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49917

***Begin Quote***

Minimum wages can have a more insidious effect. In research for my book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" (1989), I found that during South Africa's apartheid era, racist unions, who'd never admit blacks, were the major supporters of higher minimum wages for blacks. Gert Beetge, secretary of South Africa's avowedly racist Building Worker's Union, in response to contractors hiring black workers, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate-for-the-job [minimum wages] as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." Racists recognized the discriminatory effects of mandated minimum wages.
 
***End Quote***

Dear Professor Williams,

As usual, spot on!

My own observation is that a raise in the minimum wage is an automatic pay increase for unions, government workers, and politicians!

I never get a raise due to minimum wage laws.

And, when I was running my own business (twice) where do I get my “minimum wage” from? I know that many a week I worked my tush off for zero income. Did I miss the memo of which “gummamint agenze” to submit my claim to? Interesting that because I formed my own business, I wasn’t eligible for unemployment “insurance” (another misnomer). If I could have kept all those “contributions” (nothing voluntary there), then I could have paid myself my minimum wage!

Any way just thought I’d chime in.

Thanks,
“student” John

I've taken the liberty of reproducing Cloud's excellent advice. I have signed the Small Government pledge and I try never to miss a chance to toss an incumbent, defeat a school budget, nuke a proposition, or otherwise gum up the works.

http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/sgpledge.htm

***Begin Quote***

"Here's what the Small Government PledgeSM means:

I will vote for and support only those candidates who consistently vote for small government; who work to make government smaller than it is today. For candidates who have never served in office, I will vote only for those who campaign to make government smaller than it is today.

I will vote against and refuse to support every candidate who votes to sustain or enlarge today's Big Government – or campaigns for it.

I will vote in every federal, state, and local election. If necessary, I'll get an absentee ballot. I'll find out about the choices on my ballot – and make sure I always vote small government.

If there is no small government candidate on the ballot, I will either write in and vote for a small government candidate or leave the ballot blank for that office.

I will vote for every ballot initiative and referendum that shrinks the size, spending, taxes, scope, or power of today's Big Government.

I will vote against every ballot initiative, referendum, and bond that increases the size, spending, taxes, scope, or power of today's Big Government."

***End Quote***

AND here's the Cloud article that I thought was GREAT!

***Begin Quote***

IS VOTING UN-LIBERTARIAN? by Michael Cloud

A well-known libertarian scholar once told me:

“Voting is an act of force. Libertarians are opposed to force. Ergo, true libertarians don’t vote.”

His syllogism was, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “… simple, neat, and wrong.”

Why?

“War is simply the continuation of politics by other means,” wrote Carl von Clausewitz.

True, but libertarians recognize that the opposite is also true:

“Politics is war by other means.”

Voting is conflict by ballots, not bullets. Big Government is domination and looting by the victors. Voting is force.

But the argument misstates and misrepresents the libertarian principle.
Libertarians oppose the INITIATION of force. Libertarians recognize and endorse the right of self-defense.

For true libertarians, for champions of small government – voting is an act of self-defense.

I live by the Small Government Pledge:

“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Every vote I cast is designed to dismantle, reduce, and remove Big Government programs and policies. At all levels of government: local, state, and federal.

Neither I, nor any other champion of small government votes to take our neighbors’ life, liberty, or property. We vote to reduce or stop Big Government aggression and plunder.

Voting to shrink government is an act of self-defense.

NON-voting is political pacifism.

And, for one who loves liberty, it is slow motion suicide.

But the political pacifists do not stop there. They insist that the rest of us surrender, too – stop voting in self-defense.

In 2002, Carla Howell and I put Question 1 on the Ballot in Massachusetts.
This Ballot Initiative would END our state income tax, put $9 Billion per year back in the hands of the men and women who earned it, and cut state government spending 39%.

Yet several ANTI-voting libertarians told us that Carla Howell and I are UN-libertarian, immoral, and evil for putting this to a vote. These paragons of libertarian principle told us that they refused to vote for it – because voting is force.

But the income tax is the initiation of force.

Voting to END the income tax is a vote to END the use of force. ENDING a tax is an act of self-defense.

We earned 881,738 votes to END the state income tax. 45.3% of the vote. In Massachusetts!

Would freedom have been better served if 881,738 voters had stayed home?

And wouldn’t that have made Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry giddy?

Anti-voting libertarians are the people who attack Richard Rider, tax cut activist, for opposing tax increases and tax bonds in San Diego.

Politics is war by other means. Demanding that libertarians cease voting is like urging Colonial Soldiers to desert George Washington’s Army in the winter of 1776.

In that hard winter, many American soldiers did desert. Tom Paine sought to rally and inspire those hard-pressed and discouraged soldiers who remained when he wrote in “The Crisis”:

“These are times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Aren’t you grateful that our colonial soldiers refused pacifism and desertion?

Because of their efforts over 230 years ago, you and we have the opportunity to move freedom forward.

[This is the first of several rebuttals of false libertarian arguments against and objections to voting. Moral and practical.]

***End Quote***

http://drjoewebb.blogspot.com/2006/04/all-kinds-of-stuff-and-rant-about-oil.html

***Begin Quote***

Industry profits still are exceeded by taxes paid from the processing level to the consumer price. There are 43 different direct and indirect taxes on gasoline, from pumping from the ground until the customer puts it in their tank. Maybe stopping the tax shell game would lower the prices, ya think? Tax collections are so strong, especially in states where sales tax as a percentage of the sale is collected, that there is no incentive to lower or remove the taxes; there is only an incentive to have meaningless press conferences with much flailing about. 

***End Quote***

I know why they tax everything in sight! Because they think we're too stupid to realize it. Taxes are bad enough. But taxes on something that every business and person depends upon? Let come to the realization that only "the folks" pay taxes. You and me and him and her. Real people, who can't include in the cost of producing a good for sale, are the ones who PAY taxes. Do you think that UPS doesn't price their services to INCLUDE the full cost of any taxes that they pay on gas? Do you think, that when you buy bread and milk at the grocery store, you are NOT paying for the gas that got them there? Do you think that any business doesn't just mark up their price to cover the gas? (If they can't sell their product for a profit, including the price of gas, guess what? They close their doors!)

So there you have it. The gummamint sticks it too us by taxing gasoline. It gets buried in the price of everything we buy. And we really really do NOT know how much we pay in taxes!

We'd be better off, to know the true cost of everything minus the hidden gas tax, if we paid more at the annual blood letting than allowing them to think that they have fooled us. The dead old white guys would have never stood for this nonsense. The american revolution was fought over a 1% tax! Best solution is not to pay any taxes at all.

But then I am a Libertarian. I want freedom. And for me to be free, I have to let you be as free as I want to be. So none of us should pay any taxes. PERIOD!