Smash the State

Here's a "project" we could easily do, and promote everywhere. Feel free to edit and add/subtract questions, of course. I know you will anyway. :)

Absolutely sterling article... print off these "questions" and offer them to anyone who wants any sort of infringement on our self defense rights. Could start a real discussion, once in a while anyway. I intend to post this all over the place. Oh, and how many of those questions can WE answer accurately? I had to look up two of them. ML

I'm not done reading this yet, but it is powerful stuff and well worth a look. Download free or read on line.

Rats! Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin
By Claire Wolfe
with the Commentariat of the Living Freedom blog

It turns out that federal taxes often inflict a double cut upon us, according to an op–ed in the Wall Street Journal. Although politicians promise to apply the additional sum to reducing the U.S. deficit, that never seems to happen.

I’ve debated talking about this news item for a few days; it’s the kind of thing I don’t want to feature much (if at all) any more ... yet the story is so outrageous that I cannot get it out of my head. The seductive allure of power in the financial sector and the short–sighted hubris of local politics combine, to appalling effect.

It is wonderful to see that our dear Uncle Warren is back to making music.

And the young woman who labeled herself “the best slave” also clearly and beautifully demonstrates that it applies in only a very limited context.

What with all the military madness this country maintains, I’m rather surprised it took the winter Olympics to bring one of my favorite Rush songs out of the recesses of my memory:

I saw this article this morning and thought we might continue our discussion of the agora and its importance in our struggle for liberty. Kyle is a good friend, and a member of my FSW family - as well as a contributor to The Price of Liberty.

I expect that many freedom-loving individuals would answer that question in the negative; but some would aver otherwise, pointing to the power of a jury as a (perhaps “the”) remaining check on the state’s dominance. I’ve pondered that issue for some time—wanting to be convinced by the arguments, truth be told, but never making it that far. The primary obstacle is the vanishingly small role juries directly play in most people’s lives. How many adults are tapped for jury duty? Out of those who go, how many actually serve? How many times does an average person sit on a jury? I have no numbers to pin to those questions, but it should be clear that I am skeptical that an activity that at best probably commands only a few hours of a person’s life is going to be seen as enormously important to him.

Another assertion that would likely be offered is that juries can make or break laws—and that does affect many people, as we all live under the burden of the laws of our jurisdiction. But again, I have problems ... Jury nullification depends upon at least one informed, courageous person; and the voir dire process actively seeks to eliminate such individuals from juries. That person must also keep his intentions secret until deliberations, else a mistrial could be called. Even that doesn’t guarantee that a mistrial won’t happen.

But—and here’s the heart of the matter—all the jury power in the world won’t make a bit of difference if the judge plays fast and loose with his power in the courtroom. A judge has a variety of means by which he can skew a trial, including what he allows as evidence, lines of questioning the lawyers are allowed to pursue, and the instructions he gives to the jury before they retire for deliberation.

Some judges have apparently become so brazen that they will not allow the jury access to the actual law(s) under consideration in a case. Pete Hendrickson says that’s what happened to him in his recently-concluded trial with the IRS.

My friend Mike Gogulski apparently learned that lesson back in September, although he just published information about his unfortunate encounter with some Slovak policemen. As happens here in the USSA with disturbing frequency, Mike called them for help, and instead they turned on him.

I’m not sure what Mike intends to do from here, but he has requested support and I am giving it, by helping to publicize his story and archiving a copy of the report in case his web site is yanked. I can’t at present upload it here for sharing, but will happily email the PDF to those who request it. For now, it and other formats are available in Mike’s blog post I linked earlier; my dear friend Tom Ender has also archived Mike’s report.

If anyone wonders whether Mike is worth supporting, in addition to his fine blog I recommend reading my interview of him. Mike walks the walk, and surely is an inspiration to many.

That is probably not news to regulars here—after all, my interview of B.W. Richardson displayed my high regard of him; and I’ve pointed to several of his blog posts here. But if you’ve not been by Montag ... lately, take a mosey over there and you should easily see why I’ve titled this ramble thusly. He’s been on a powerful tear lately—and lest you think you can suss out my favorites based on my commenting pattern there, to that I say “Nay!” Of late I’ve been racing the heat as well as very busy, so I often let great bits slip by without comment.

But today’s post is simply too good to let pass, nor to keep to myself. Hie thee over there and bask in his inspiring words. Thank you very much, my friend.

That’s the claim of a recent Economist article, titled The Ungovernable State. While I agree with the author(s) somewhat (not knowing the details of California’s constitution nor governance systems, I’m trusting that the information in the article is at least nominally accurate), at a fundamental level California is not alone.

Well, not exactly. But the story’s encouraging, all the same.

Given how frequently I’ve been pointing to him of late, it probably comes as no surprise that I’m pointing to another essay by Peter Saint-Andre this morning.

To be blunt about it, the real problems aren’t the burst bubbles in the home mortgage market, in credit default swaps (CDS), in commercial real estate, nor in credit. It’s the systemic fraud masquerading as government policy that encouraged too much of the risky behavior that allowed bubbles to begin in the first place.