Constitutionalist Libertarians's topics - tribe.net

Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law.

2007-10-12T21:35:17Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYr4ogpVk0k

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Zeitgeist

2007-10-01T20:27:41Z

Has anyone else seen this.

www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 5 replies

Israel NOT Lebonon started war.

2007-06-26T23:50:53Z

War Is Terrorism With a Bigger Budget

Israeli war crimes continue unabated across Lebanon and Palestine

By Christopher Bollyn

The Israeli aggression against Lebanon is a monstrous war crime in which the Zionist state has been aided and abetted by the U.S. government. The vicious Israeli assault on Lebanon has been accompanied by a host of lies that have been dutifully parroted by the Bush administration and the Zionist-controlled mass media.

After two weeks of fighting, at least 422 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon and thousands more have been injured, while in Israel, 18 Israeli civilians are reportedly killed. Certainly, many more Lebanese dead will be found beneath the rubble of the many flattened residential buildings of south Beirut and southern Lebanon. Up to 750,000 Lebanese have been driven from their homes and have become refugees. Israel’s ethnic cleansing of south Lebanon is now a fact.

The controlled media lies about the Israeli aggression in Lebanon are similar to its propaganda about the terror attacks of 9-11. In both cases the gross deception foisted upon the public caused widespread misunderstanding of the facts and the identity of the guilty party.

A poll conducted by USA Today and Gallup found that 53 percent of the U.S. population blamed Hezbollah for the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and the popular Shi’ite resistance group based in south Lebanon. Hezbollah, which was formed in 1982 as a local resistance movement
to challenge the Israeli occupation, is increasingly popular today throughout the Arab and Muslim world because of its ability to confront Israel.

The Gallup poll reveals how successfully the media has deceived the American public about the current crisis in Lebanon. The poll found that 39 percent of respondents blamed Iran, while 29 percent blamed Syria. Lebanon, the beleaguered and devastated victim, was blamed by 27 percent while Israel, the party most clearly responsible for the criminal destruction of Lebanon, was only blamed by 15 percent of those polled. These results reveal the degree of Zionist mind control over American perceptions of the Middle East.

The poll, which was conducted as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice departed for the region, found that 67% of the population does not think the Bush administration has a clear and well thought out policy in the Middle East, although it is obviously supporting the Zionist agenda.

ISRAELIS CAPTURED

In the controlled press, Hezbollah, branded as a “terrorist” group by the United States and Israel, is blamed for having sparked the crisis by having “kidnapped” two Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory on July 12. Iran and Syria are usually blamed for being the powers behind Hezbollah.

The initial news reports, however, indicate that the two Israeli soldiers were not kidnapped at all. They were reported to have been captured—inside Lebanon—after having crossed the border and entered the Lebanese village of Aitaa al-Chaab.

The capture of the Israeli soldiers inside Lebanon was reported by a number of leading international press services, including the German news agency (DPA), AP, AFP from France, and UPI Arabia.

“The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,” the DPA reported from Beirut on July 12.

“Implementing our promise to release the Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured at 9:05 a.m. two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,” the Hezbollah statement said.

The BBC, usually quite precise, translated the Hezbollah statement as having said “captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine.”

Lebanese police said the two Israeli soldiers had been captured as they “infiltrated” into the Lebanese town of Aitaa al-Chaab, which lies near the fortified border with Israel.

Early in the day, Joseph Panossian of the Associated Press reported that Hezbollah “captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them.”

“The two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated,” the Agence France Presse reported from Aitaa al-Chaab and Beirut.

On July 13, the DPA reported that Israel vehemently denied reports by Lebanese police that the two soldiers had been captured inside the Lebanese border. Israel said the soldiers had been on patrol on the Israeli side of the border fence.

Hezbollah Chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said he would only return the captured soldiers through “indirect negotiations and an exchange of prisoners.”

“This is the only available way to release” Lebanese prisoners held in Israel,
he said. “The Israelis always first say they do not wish to negotiate but eventually they accept.”

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denounced what he called “kidnappings” as an “act of war” by one sovereign country against another. Olmert said, “Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions,” and warned of a “very, very, very painful” response.

The Israeli response has been both disproportionate and illegal in its use of U.S. supplied precision-guided weapons, cluster bombs and phosphorus weapons to target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

The obvious falseness of the Israeli military claim that it does not target civilians was plain to see from the front page of The New York Times on July 22.

The lead story reported that the Bush administration was rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel while the large color photograph next to the article showed some of the coffins of 86 civilians who had been killed in Tyre.

Reports on National Public Radio described how Israeli planes and helicopters had targeted civilian vehicles fleeing from their homes and villages in south Lebanon. One family’s car was struck just feet from the hospital in Tyre. In another case 23 of the 27 civilians in one truck were killed by an Israeli missile. An Israeli helicopter machine gunned a civilian vehicle killing all 9 civilians.

As Israel is wont to do, a number of Red Cross ambulances were targeted. “Israeli missiles had clearly pierced the very center of the red cross on the roof of each ambulance,” Robert Fisk of The Independent (UK) wrote on July 26.

Meanwhile, U.S. war planes arrived at Israeli airbases carrying weaponry and military equipment. The American planes came from Gulf States including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, according to the Al Manar newspaper. The newspaper reported that five U.S. planes had landed in three Israeli airbases, bringing more weapons and “vacuum bombs of many sizes.”

“We are aiding and abetting war crimes,” Francis A. Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, said about the U.S. weapon shipments to Israel. “This has been planned for quite some time,” Boyle added.

On the same day that U.S. war planes delivered weapons to Israel, Israeli bombs struck a reportedly well-known and clearly marked United Nations observer post in Lebanon, killing 4 UN monitors from China, Austria, Finland and Canada.

Despite six hours of urgent calls from top UN officials in New York and its officers on the ground to the Israeli mission the base continued to come under fire and received a total of 21 strikes from the air, 12 of them artillery rounds.

UN General Secretary Kofi Annan called the Israeli attack on the Khiam
base “deliberate.”

China strongly condemned the Israeli air strike and summoned Israel’s ambassador in Beijing to demand an apology.

Asked about the attack on the UN base, Boyle said, “They do it all the time; it’s a power thing.”

Israeli officials are demanding an apology from Annan for his comments.

Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, rejected claims that the Israeli military had intentionally targeted the UN peacekeepers. “We want it to be clear it was not a deliberate attack because Israel would never target a UN force. It is not part of our policies; it is not part of our values,” Livni said.

Livni’s statement is a bald-faced lie. Israel does target UN bases. On April 18, 1996, during the Israeli “Grapes of Wrath” aggression against Lebanon, then Prime Minister Shimon Peres, now the vice premier, ordered the precisionguided artillery shelling of the UN base at Qana (Cana) in which hundreds of Lebanese had sought shelter. Some 102 Lebanese civilians were killed in this previous deliberate attack on a UN base.

Christopher Bollyn is a the American Free Press Midwest Bureau Chief. He has written extensively on a wide variety of subjects including the controversy surrounding computerized voting systems, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the many unanswered questions surrounding 9-11.

(Issue #32, August 7, 2006)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 9 replies

Alex Jones interviews Michael Badnarik

2007-04-29T08:05:18Z

Alex talks with Constitutional Scholar and Libertarian Candidate for Congress (and former presidential candidate) Michael Badnarik about eminent domain, the constitution and his run for Congress.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/050106badnarik.mp3

http://www.badnarik.org/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Also:
Badnarik's Constitution Class
The 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik teaches his famous class about the Constitution.

If you don't know the difference between a right and a privilege, this is a must see! If you think you know the difference, then answer this question: Is the US a democracy? For the answer (surprisingly), watch this.

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

http://tribes.tribe.net/infobunker

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 2 replies

Videos to watch

2007-03-21T14:54:47Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7618741732329303591

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj3sQ_T-x7M

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

A constitutional amendment banning torture, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition

2006-11-30T04:02:13Z

The first constitutional amendment I would like to propose for your consideration is an amendment banning torture, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition. I present the text of it below. for the full essay & analysis please see:
http://demablogue.typepad.com/

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. Amendments V, VI, and VIII shall be understood to apply to all persons, US citizens and non-citizens alike, in times of war as well as in times of peace.

Section 2. Neither the US government nor any branch of the Military or the Intelligence Services shall hold any person without trial or without access to a lawyer, under any circumstances whatsoever.

Section 3. Neither the US government nor any of its agencies shall hold any person, citizen or non-citizen, in any form of secret prison or detention center. Any prison operated by the US government or any of its agencies shall allow access by the media, lawyers, the Red Cross or any other medical agency, and any international watchdog agency wishing to verify the humane conditions therein. These agencies or persons must have access to individual prisoners for private interviews for the purposes of verifying the humane conditions of the prison.

Section 4. Torture of any kind, on any person, citizen or non-citizen, held by the US government or any of its agencies, is espressly forbidden. Torture shall be understood to mean the intentional infliction of any kind of pain or discomfort, physical, mental, or psychological, whether for the purposes of extracting information or not.

Section 5. The US government, or any of its agencies, may not transfer any prisoner, citizen or non-citizen, for any reason, to the custody of any other nation, agency, government or corporation that does not guarantee the same rights and protections specified in this amendment, or that has a verifiable record of torture or other human rights violations.

Section 6. Any prisoners currently held by the US government, or any of its agencies, in conditions prohibited by this amendment, shall be guaranteed trial or released within six months of the passage of this amendment.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

America Freedom to Fascism

2006-11-17T16:49:58Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

WOW

2006-09-17T21:53:20Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4023196628588378412&q=freedom+to+fascism&hl=en

Long but so worth the watch. While I may not agree with them on all points, if even half of this is true (and its well documented) everyone needs to watch it.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

"9/11: Press For Truth" Grand Lake showing

2006-09-07T04:27:45Z

http://www.911PressForTruth.com/

SEPTEMBER 7 – OAKLAND, CA
Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave.
(510) 452-3556
(2 Showings. 7PM. 9PM)

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Total Information Awareness Program far from dead.

2006-08-18T05:19:21Z

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16741&ch=infotech

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Christopher Hitchens: What Reason Do We Have to Trust the State to Know Best

2006-06-29T14:25:45Z

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060117/cm_huffpost/013985;_ylt=A86.I1z3XM1Du4UAshP9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Christopher Hitchens: What Reason Do We Have to Trust the State to Know Best? Christopher Hitchens
Tue Jan 17, 3:52 PM ET

Although I am named in this suit in my own behalf, I am motivated to join it by concerns well beyond my own. I have been frankly appalled by the discrepant and contradictory positions taken by the Administration in this matter. First, the entire existence of the NSA's monitoring was a secret, and its very disclosure denounced as a threat to national security.

Then it was argued that Congress had already implicitly granted the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on the territory of the United States, which seemed to make the reason for the original secrecy more rather than less mysterious. (I think we may take it for granted that our deadly enemies understand that their communications may be intercepted.)

It now appears that Congress may have granted this authority, but without quite knowing that it had, and certainly without knowing the extent of it.

This makes it critically important that we establish an understood line, and test the cases in which it may or may not be crossed.

Let me give a very direct instance of what I mean. We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of "national security" however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.

We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet (whose underlings have generated leaks designed to sabotage the Administration's own policy of regime-change in Iraq, and whose immense and unconstitutionally secret budget could not finance the infiltration of a group which John Walker Lindh could join with ease) was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true.

The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Lower case L

2006-06-22T01:36:25Z

Good to be here. Its interesting isnt it... constitution. Well thats enough of that. Lets talk about something else. Hashem, I came here to tell you that Hashem is better then Jehovah or Yehweh. It means The Name. You ask... isnt that Jewish? Yes and No... you see God is not just for Jews anymore. BREAK THE CHAINS OF GUTTER FAITHS CHRISTIANITY AND MUHAMMADENISM. We can praise God now with the Jews as equals for a time... UNTIL THAT GREAT DAY COMES WHEN WE WILL DIE OR BE SUBORDINATED BY THE ONES WE SUBORDINATE... COME JEWS COME!!!!

tribes.tribe.net/noahide

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

U.S. of A. v U.S.

2006-06-19T18:12:44Z

U.S. of A. v U.S. is a new book.

http://www.usofavus.com

From the back cover:

The People of this once great republic have through ignorance and deception traded their sacred God-given rights away by silent assent, waiver, agreement or contract. The legal concepts of political relations, conditions precedent and contract law are exposed in relation to Executive, Legislative as well as Supreme Court usurpations. The authors of this groundbreaking book expose down to the very core, the political exigencies, the legal meandering as well as the outright corruption of our political and legal systems as they have been used to create a legislative democracy where a Republic once stood.

Contrary to the beliefs of many in the patriot community, the real blame for this current situation rests with the People, and consequently; the solution also rests with the People individually. Contained within the covers of this book is a treatise on the political and legal history of deceit, Constitutional reinterpretation and utter socialism that has been silently assented to by the people. The authors also plainly describe to the reader the simple yet elegant solution to reclaiming one's lost rights through the reassertion of one's status as a Citizen of one of the Several States of the Union and by severing legal relations with the United States which is revealed in this book as a federal corporation.

Whatever your political affiliation or philosophical proclivities, this book is intended to provide a foundational basis for a new understanding of the reader's political and legal relations with the "Government of the United States". These relations have a very profound effect on one's rights, claims to property, and every aspect of one's day to day life, even if those relations are politically and legally established through silent assent, waiver, contracts or agreements the reader is completely unaware of.

The State Constitutions, as well as the Constitution for the United States of America (1789) have been allowed to be removed from the "legal memory" of the people as those very same people have become United States citizens, devoid of the rights, privileges and immunities referenced in the Bill of Rights and in place been granted civil rights. Most Americans alive today are proud to be referred to as United States citizens. If those same Americans were aware of what the courts had to say about the rights of United States Citizens, they might reconsider their thinking on the matter. Here is what one Court had to say:

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

What else might you need to know about the difference between the United States of America and the United States? What you don't know can cost you your life, liberty and property. If one reads this book, the authors believe, that every citizen, whether of the United States or one of the Several States of the Union, will have the understanding to make a conscious decision on whether legal relations with the United States is an appropriate choice.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: In the Beginning: The Sovereign People
Chapter 2: Some Historical Perspective: Wilson to Roosevelt's New Deal
Chapter 3: Switch in Time and the War in the Supreme Court. What a Difference a Year Makes!
Chapter 4: Switch in Time and the War in the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court Defines Controversies Under the Constitution
Chapter 5: Switch in Time and the War in the Supreme Court. Re: "Controversies", A Legislatively Created Procedure
Chapter 6: Switch in Time and the War in the Supreme Court. The Court's new interpretation of Due Process
Chapter 7: Switch in Time and the War in the Supreme Court. The Changed Constitutional Interpretation of "Commerce" in 1937
Chapter 8: The Sovereign People as Citizens and Their Old Union
Chapter 9: Federal Citizenship Defined for "All Persons"
Chapter 10: The United States, a Federal Corporation and Dual Citizenship
Chapter 11: Dual Citizenship and Political Question
Chapter 12: Some Thoughts on Agreements and Contracts in Relation to the U.S. Community
Chapter 13: American Citizens in Relation to "Foreign States"
Chapter 14: In Conclusion

Appendix

The Social Security Act of 1935
Ashwander, et. al. v Tennessee Valley Authority, et. al.
Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn. V Haworth, et. al.
West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish et. ux.
Nat'l Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Chas. C Steward Mach Co. v Davis
Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et. al. v Davis

About the Authors

The authors, Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson and Ed Wahler are uniquely qualified to present this material.

Richard received a B.S. in Business Administration from Walla Walla College in 1968, an M.S. in Business Administration from University of Idaho in 1970, and a Masters Degree in Economics from Washington State in 1974. He spent 8 years teaching college level economics and business courses. The last nine years have been spent in voluminous reading in economics, law, case law and limited private writing and teaching.

TJ received his education in law from the school of self study and long hours studying every law book he could lay his hands on. TJ has had numerous wins in the courts in various areas of law, as well as a few rare losses. He claims that each and every case he has handled was an inspiration that drove him to study the law to the fullest extent. TJ won his very first argument arguing the right to non-bar counsel in Judge Ron Rainer's court in Stevenson, Washington. He is currently teaching and counseling attorneys nation wide in the area of consumer protection law. TJ also writes and teaches Constitutional law in its purest form. TJ has written several books discussing those areas of law, such as "You're an Outlaw", "Secrets of the Lending Institutions Revealed" and "Mortgage Audit Analyses and Defenses" (MAAD).

Ed founded his own company in 1984, which he ran as President and CEO until 1998. The last eight years have been spent full-time researching law and law history, alternative energy and alternative approaches to maintaining one's health. His association with Richard and TJ has culminated in the book U.S. of A. v U.S., The Loss of Legal Memory of the American State. He has put the principle in this book into practice over the year with amazing results in regaining lost freedoms.

The authors pray that this book will be accepted as our small contribution to the memory of the founding fathers and their gift to us, their posterity, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Please help

2006-04-08T02:25:31Z

please go to this website to send a fax to the related US
congress and senate members to Request a Congressional Hearing on the
Sujiatun case. it's a very easy to Fill out form, With just a click, the fax will be sent.
thank you,
joshua

here is the link:
http://publicpetition.unvcc.com/UN/index.php

there is more information about Sujiatun on the website:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/211,111,,1.html

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

New Witness Confirms Existence of Chinese Concentration Camp, Says Organs Removed from Live Prisoners

2006-03-18T04:45:09Z

Please help to end this horrible persectuion. knowledge is our greatest weapon, so please share this information. together in peace we can make a difference.

Falun Dafa is a peaceful meditation practice that teaches putting others before yourself, kindness, always telling the truth and being tolerant of others. We are literally being killed for being good people. The national media has done very little to help us because of trade issues with China. It is up to us to let the world know. Please help us.

By Ji Da
The Epoch Times Mar 17, 2006
www.theepochtimes.com

The witness, a former employee at the Liaoning Thrombosis Treatment Center of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, and says the bodies of Falun Gong practitioners are cremated immediately after the organs are removed. (The Epoch Times)
[High-resolution image ] A former employee of Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine told The Epoch Times during a recent interview that the Sujiatun Concentration Camp in China was actually a part of a hospital. The concentration camp has engaged in taking organs from Falun Gong practitioners when they were still alive and selling the organs. Since 2001, the concentration camp has secretly detained approximately 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners, none of whom have been able to leave the camp alive. The hospital removed many kidneys, livers, and corneas from the practitioners. After the organ removal, the practitioners were thrown into an incinerator, which was converted from a boiler. Their ashes were dumped together with burned charcoal.

Organs from Three Quarters of the 6,000 People Were Removed
Those whose organs were removed were in various states of health. Because many of the victims were illegally detained, there was neither an arrest warrant nor identification as to who these people actually were. Often after their organs were removed, nobody claimed the bodies. Sometimes their bodies were picked up by crooks who pretended to be their family members.

About three-quarters of the 6,000 people died after their hearts, kidneys, corneas, or skin was removed; their bodies were then burned. This witness, whose family member participated in the removal of Falun Gong practitioners' organs, said that approximately 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners remain in the hospital. She was afraid that the authorities would kill all of them to destroy evidence.

The Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine is located at 49 Xuesong Road, Sujiatun, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, China. It was the first hospital in China to specialize in the heart, the brain, and surrounding blood vessels. The hospital is composed of several organizations, including the Liaoning Traditional Chinese Medicine College Teaching Hospital and the Shenyang Thrombosis Treatment Center.

Concentration Camp Details
The hospital site is 21,087 square meters, with 17,564 square meters of building area. It employs 460 people in 24 departments and 20 specialized offices. Information from the Chinese government shows that the hospital was established in December 1988, and was formerly named the Shenyang Research Institute of Thrombosis and Liaoning Province Thrombosis Treatment Center of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine. In June 1998, it was renamed China Traditional Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center.

The Chinese Business Morning View said in a story on July 4, 2004, that a farm worker died of abnormal causes in Sujiatun, Shenyang and was later cremated. The death certificate was provided by the Chinese Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center in Sujiatun. The news caused a stir in China.

Epoch Times: Did the hospital's medical staff inside the concentration camp know about this?

Answer: This hospital has a small number of officials and some doctors involved secretively in the operation of organ harvesting. Some other staff in the hospital knew about this, but this is absolutely a taboo [to talk about]. They all are afraid of being killed or courting trouble, so they all avoid the issue. Only those highly trusted doctors could be chosen to be the surgeons for organ harvesting operations.

ET: Were Falun Gong practitioners alive when their organs were harvested? Did their families know about this?

Answer: Falun Gong practitioners who were imprisoned there came mostly from Dabei Prison, Masanjia Labor Camp, and other prisons in Shenyang, or they were Falun Gong practitioners arrested in parks or residential homes. Because they refused to denounce Falun Gong, they were arrested without formal warrants, and their families did not know their situation. Many did not even have their names [recorded]. In addition, since the Chinese authority exercises a policy of "not being responsible" for killing Falun Gong practitioners, the death of Falun Gong practitioners is not a very big issue for prisons. The Chinese Communist Party persecutes Falun Gong, [but] these medical personnel were told Falun Gong practitioners were facing death because they killed people, or they were sentenced to death because of crimes, or they had become insane from practicing Falun Gong.

Those Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were harvested came from several types.

Organs harvested from live bodies are worth far more than organs taken from dead bodies. Many Falun Gong practitioners were still alive when their organs were taken. After their organs were cut out, some of these people were thrown directly into the crematorium to be burnt, thus leaving no evidence. For some others, after their organs were stolen, the doctor sewed up the wound and asked the family or family representative to give a signature for cremation. Family members did not know at all that the dead had their organs taken out.

Furthermore, there were some healthy Falun Gong practitioners in prisons in other areas who were injected—without their knowledge—with psychoactive drugs that made their minds confused. They then were transferred to Sujiantun concentration camp to suffer further torture, till in the end their organs were harvested and their bodies were cremated in secret.

Among the Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were harvested, some were weak and some were healthy. Since most of them were illegally arrested, there were no arrest warrants or identification cards. After their organs were taken out while they were still alive, no one came to claim their bodies; or [sometimes] people using fake identities claimed their bodies.

None of these people have come out [of the concentration camp] alive; three-quarters of these 6,000 people have died, having their hearts, kidneys, retinas, and skins harvested and their bodies disposed of. I think now about 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners are still in this hospital, and I am afraid now that the authority will destroy all evidence and kill them.

Question: How did you know these things? Were you yourself a doctor involved in organ harvesting?

Answer: I worked at the Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Shenyang. This is exactly where this concentration camp is located. One of my family members was involved in the operation to harvest Falun Gong practitioners' organs. This has brought great pain to our family.

Question: Please tell us what you knew about.

Answer: From 2001, our hospital started to detain Falun Gong practitioners. At the beginning, these people were detained in the single-storey houses in the back yard of the hospital. Later, the hospital authorities demolished the single-storey houses, and it was unknown where in the hospital the Falun Gong practitioners were transferred. Many staff of the hospital discussed in private that these Falun Gong practitioners had been secretly transferred to the underground chambers of the hospital. According to some people working inside the hospital, the hospital has a huge system of secret underground chambers.

At the time when we went to work there, the person in charge of logistics and purchasing in the hospital said that the quantity of disposable sterile gloves used for operations and daily supplies that the hospital authorities asked to be purchased had increased dramatically. The logistics people estimated based on the scale of purchases at that time that there were at least 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners detained in this hospital.

These Falun Gong practitioners were not detained in the 4-story building under the in-patient department and administration at the front of the hospital, in order to keep the hospital staff from seeing them at all. We only occasionally saw Falun Gong practitioners being sent on a mobile intensive care bed to the first floor for physical examinations. These people were very weak. For the majority of the Falun Gong practitioners, nobody knew where they were being secretly kept. While they still did not know where these people were kept, some staff inquired to the hospital authorities about why so much food and so many sterile gloves and daily supplies were purchased. The hospital authorities said, "You only need to do your job well. There is no need for you to ask any other questions."

Starting in 2001, a family member of mine participated in organ-harvesting operations. My family member tried to keep me from knowing about this at the beginning. The hospital authorities selected doctors they trust in different aspects to perform the secretive operations. After a period of time, I found that my family member was in a lot pain, often had nightmares, and appeared panic-stricken. After repeated inquiries, this family member told me the truth. The leader of the hospital had asked my family member to participate in the organ harvesting operations on Falun Gong practitioners as early as 2001. It was 2003 when my family member confessed. A few years after, my family member felt so much pain from participating in this incident that it was impossible to continue with the evildoing. My family member decided to go abroad to get away from this matter.

My family member also told me: "you don't understand my suffering; those Falun Gong practitioners were alive. It might be easier for me if they were dead, but they were alive."

Question: Were there any other doctors from the hospital taking part in the operations of cutting out Falun Gong practitioners' organs?

Answer: I know there were some. All these things have been carried out secretly. Many doctors at our hospital involved were practicum doctors transferred from other hospitals. Because the government does not want to be responsible for Falun Gong practitioners' bodies and lives, their lives are treated as garbage by the regime, and their bodies were used in experiments by new doctors doing their practitcums.

Many doctors came and left the hospital because they suffered a lot after having been involved in these kinds of things. They either requested to be transferred to other places, or changed their names. Some might have been killed to eliminate the evidence, their identity files were taken out from the hospital's filing system, or their names were changed. Nobody knows where the doctors have gone.

The hospital staff all know that the rear part of the hospital is forbidden. It is always watched. The staff avoids talking about the place.

Question: It is said the hospital is equipped with an incinerator. The person whose organs were removed will be burned when he or she is still alive. Is that true?

Answer: The employees in our hospital call this place "the incinerator." Actually, it is a boiler room. Some poor farmers from nearby places were hired to work in the boiler room. They were penniless when they first came here. But they could scrape up some watches, finger rings, necklaces, and so on. The amount is not small. It is said by the employees in the hospital these jewelry and watches were collected from the Falun Gong practitioners whose organs had been removed when they were about to be thrown in the boiler to be burned. It is also said by the employees in the hospital, some were still alive when being thrown into the boiler.

Question: Do they get injection of anesthetic when in surgery?

Answer: Yes. There is a cap to the anesthetic quantity used in mainland China's hospitals. Generally, the supply of anesthetic was determined according to the accommodation of the hospital. To the public, the number of patients in our care appears to be very small, and publicly reported number of surgical procedures performed is quite low. But the equipment and articles used in surgery are abundant. Because the amount of anesthetic is limited, these secret surgeries could not use the normal anesthetic doses. In order to save anesthetic, they economized on the anesthetic used in surgeries on these Falun Gong practitioners. The amount of anesthetic used was very small. However, many whose organs were removed were still alive. You can imagine the pain suffered by the Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were removed.

Question: Are there any survivors among the 6,000 people detained since 2001?

Answer: Nobody has come out alive. The number of them gets smaller and smaller. The Falun Gong practitioners detained at Sujiatun are fewer now than before. But I believe that the sin of removing the organs of the Falun Gong practitioners is still continuing.

Question: Where are these organs usually sold to? Do the higher authorities in the government know about this?

Answer: They are mainly sold to Thailand, but I believe they are also sold to other regions of the world. Nowadays, there are many patients in China who need human skin, corneas, and kidneys for organ transplant surgeries. Many patients have to wait in line to purchase organs. Currently, a kidney can be sold up to the price of 30,000 to 100,000 U.S. dollars. The profit from selling organs is simply too great. The people who benefit from this are not only the top leaders of hospital and the officials of the Chinese Communist Party's Heath Department. This is a crime present across the entire nation. People ranging from government officials to doctors to organ sellers are all involved in this and are profiting greatly.

Question: Why did they target Falun Gong practitioners as the source of organs?

Answer: Because relatives of many Falun Gong practitioners don't even know that their family members were arrested. So if the Falun Gong practitioners are killed, there will be no one to come and claim their dead bodies.

Question: Why did you want to expose this? This may bring great danger to you.

Answer: I know that there are many Falun Gong practitioners who are currently detained at the hospital. I would like to expose this to the international community, so those who are not yet killed can be saved. Also, I would like to expose this as an atonement for my family.

I am not a Falun Gong practitioner. But as a former staff member of the hospital, I have the responsibility to expose the truth, and let the world to save those Falun Gong practitioners who are still alive. Organs of some Falun Gong practitioners are still living on patients' bodies. I would like to call on all society to pay attention to this issue and stop this shocking crime.

you can find out how you can help at www.fofg.org

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

A Brief History of Liberty by Mark Dorroh

2006-02-19T18:55:17Z

A Brief History of Liberty
The most misunderstood aspect of personal liberty is its reliance on chaos as the prime catalyist for meaningful change.
Although liberty is the only natural human condition, it is inherently frought with peril, personal and societal.
For more information, please reference my blog at http://youthsongs.blogspot.com/
In it, you will find a poem, titled "Let's," dedicated to the Greek Goddess of Chaos, Eris, whom the Romans called Discordia.
In America today, chaos is the most dreaded potential outcome of the application of libertarian principles. But, before the daylight fades, before we accept the killer's kiss, let's-

Mark Dorroh
Reporter, Staff Writer, Columnist
The Hopewell News
Hopewell, Virginia

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

New Tribe - For a Gold Standard

2006-01-12T21:23:22Z

Because inflationism is a form of control
http://tribes.tribe.net/goldbugs

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Obscenity Prosecutions

2005-12-08T19:18:57Z

And this is why TRIBE is now censoring your civil rights....

Wave of Obscenity Prosecutions Leads to Closure and Self-Censorship of Websites

Contact:
Susan Wright, NCSF Spokesperson
(917) 848-6544

October 20, 2005
October 20, 2005 - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has announced that his office will specifically target "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior" in pursuing new obscenity prosecutions. The Department of Justice began recruiting in late July for a new anti-obscenity squad to pursue obscenity prosecutions, and the FBI announced in September that it was forming an anti-obscenity task force to crack down on pornography.

Any website that has content containing "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior" should be forewarned that prosecution is possible. Additionally, Federal sentencing guidelines state that any obscenity- related punishment should be "enhanced for sadomasochistic material."

Forty people and businesses have been convicted of obscenity since 2001, and 20 additional indictments are pending according to Andrew Oosterbaan, chief of the Justice Department's child exploitation and obscenity section. There were only four obscenity prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration.

Though adult content is, in theory, protected by the First Amendment, only a jury can determine if a work is obscene or not under the subjective set of standards that vary from one community to the next established in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. California.

Text is not inherently more protected than images when it comes to obscenity charges. The erotic fiction website Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges after federal agents raided the owner's home on October 3rd, taking computer equipment and diskettes that contained all of their files and site information.

The Department of Justice is clearly hoping that websites will self-censor or remove their content entirely. Midori, a fetish model and SM educator who teaches classes on bondage, has removed her website, BeautyBound.com, citing fear of obscenity prosecution. The owner of three SM websites, known as GrandPa DeSade, removed his websites from the Internet. SuicideGirls.com also announced they are self-censoring their materials over concerns about a possible obscenity crackdown.

Recent prosecutions of obscenity on websites include: A former police officer in Lakeland, Florida, was arrested on October 7th on over 300 obscenity-related charges for the sexual content posted on his website. The same day, webmaster Chris Wilson, owner of amateur website NowThatsFuckedUp.com, was raided on charges of obscenity by a local Sheriff s office.

"I think it's crucial for us to stand up for consensual sadomasochism and other alternative sexual practices," says Barbara Nitke, fetish photographer. "This is a battle worth fighting, and I hope everyone who can will just censor out the most provocative material from their websites, but keep them up. I also appeal to the lawyers in our community to help us find ways to keep people's websites up."

Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) have proactively challenged federal obscenity laws as applied to the Internet, arguing that obscenity laws based on "local community standards" are too vague and their existence burdens protected speech, resulting in self-censorship due to the fear of prosecution. A district court three-judge panel in New York ruled that while Nitke and the NCSF members were at risk, more proof was needed that obscenity laws cause otherwise protected speech to be restrained through acts of self-censorship. The case is currently on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

"The effect of silencing alternative lifestyle speech was exactly why we brought the lawsuit," says attorney John Wirenius, lead counsel for NCSF. "The self- censorship we are seeing underscores the importance of supporting our ongoing obscenity challenge."

To contribute to the appeal of the CDA lawsuit, go to: www.ncsfreedom.org/donations.htm

Barbara Nitke - www.barbaranitke.com

###

A project of NCSF and the NCSF Foundation

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
media@ncsfreedom.org
www.ncsfreedom.org

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Hate Bill

2005-11-10T21:03:27Z

THOUGHT POLICE THWARTED ON NEW HATE BILL

By James P. Tucker Jr.

An attempt to slip “hate crimes” legislation (S. 1145) into the Children’s Safety Act was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a victory for grass-roots America and First Amendment advocates. But Rev. Ted Pike, who spearheaded public opposition to the bill, cautions that the peril remains.

There are several “hate crimes” bills lurking in Congress and they are typically added to “must pass” legislation, such as major spending bills, as amendments.

Some have been dangerously close to becoming law as congressmen unwittingly voted on legislation, buried in foot-thick bills, without realizing the contents.

The latest victory shows that voters can educate congressmen. Three years ago, Sen. Orrin Hatch (RUtah) joined with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in supporting hate crimes legislation.

However, after hearing from vociferous voters, Hatch joined in rejecting the latest effort to slip hate crimes legislation through Congress.

All such hate bills have two fatal flaws: they do violence to the Constitution and expand the role of the federal government down to your street and neighborhood. But these problems cannot be explained in a TV “sound bite” to nonreading Americans. This makes it hard for congressmen not to “vote against hate,” so it is critical that thoughtful Americans educate lawmakers.

The hate crimes legislation would have to be enforced by “thought police” who look into a criminal’s mind to determine if “hate” was part of the motivation. Critical evidence in such cases is whether the attacker uttered words offensive to certain handpicked groups—blacks and Hispanics, homosexuals and the handicapped.

Under the First Amendment, Americans can say awful, wrong, offensive words but their free speech is protected. It is, many lawmakers point out, a precious right that should not be compromised.

All states and localities enforce laws protecting individuals against violent crimes and they typically punish more severely than under federal laws. For example, two of the three white Texas men who dragged a black man to his death with a pickup truck are on death row (the third, who claimed he tried to stop the attack until he, too, was threatened, is serving life). The two are afraid to die and would have preferred that Texas yield to the federal government because the “hate crime” law has no death penalty.

Hate crime laws extend the heavy hand of Washington into states and localities by federalizing local crimes. A fist fight in your neighborhood can become a federal case. With such legislation now pending on virtually a year round basis, it is important to keep educating lawmakers, Pike said.

He does so on talk-radio and in appeals to Christian ministers. Readers of American Free Press called, wrote and emailed their two senators and their House member. It was a formula for victory, all agreed, but the fight must go on.

(Issue #45, November 7, 2005)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Liberty411

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class

2005-09-17T22:21:58Z

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

"The 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik teaches his famous class about the Constitution.

If you don't know the difference between a right and a privilege, this is a must see! If you think you know the difference, then answer this question: Is the US a democracy? For the answer (surprisingly), watch this."

This is a great seven-hour seminar on the Constitution. I encourage everyone to check it out.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

We the People Tribe

2005-08-11T03:01:58Z

Calling all Independants, Third Party Supporters and even disgruntled Republocrats. It is time for We the People to do something to take back America in the name of "We the People".

Specifically, We the People Coalition has several Libertarians active already, and is hoping to convince the LP to become a "Partner" in the Coalition effort.

Join the Tribe to find out more.

http://tribes.tribe.net/wethepeople

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills

2005-05-19T13:34:49Z

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43685

LIBERTY ???

A man trying to pay a fee using $2 bills was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail after clerks at a Best Buy store questioned the currency's legitimacy and called police

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 4 replies

Tribe name change

2005-02-18T09:21:39Z

What do you guys think?

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents

2005-02-10T01:29:08Z

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents

President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

- Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."

Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.

"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."

Some Republicans also were displeased.

"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."

The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes.

Page A - 8
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Liberals deserve what they get

2004-11-09T19:25:54Z

Liberals deserve what they get
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_269577.html

By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, November 7, 2004

Someone check if E.J. Dionne is still alive.

The Washington Post columnist was on NPR's "Some Things Considered" Wednesday night already sounding suicidal about the reign of conservative terror he fears is coming in President Bush's second term.

Voicing the concerns of millions of distraught liberals, Dionne worried that President Bush - a partisan ideologue he says deliberately ran a mean and divisive campaign that has cynically polarized the country - is going to claim a policy mandate despite his slim 51 percent victory over John Kerry.

Dionne didn't break down in tears or anything. But he was whining that the president had cynically exploited moral and cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage to win the votes of millions of nutballs on the Christian and NASCAR right.

Now, Dionne worried, with the help of an even more dangerously Republican Congress, we're all going to get things like Social Security privatization shoved down our throats!

And somebody call Kofi Annan! President Bush thinks he has the divine right to nominate any new Supreme Court justice he likes - even strict constitutionalists!

Too bad, E.J. You and your liberal pals deserve every right-wing Republican nightmare you get.

Welcome to the downside of the Big Government world you've created and been propagandizing for since 1932. This is what happens when your side keeps losing elections: the other tribe gets to pass laws they like and you are forced to follow them.

Tuesday's results caused me no particular heartache or joy, though I admit I always like to see the elite media suffer when the good citizens of Flyover Country reject the liberal political and cultural ideas they hold so dear.

I was torn about whom to root for. I believed Bush deserved to be punished for Iraq, but I didn't think 290 million innocent Americans should have been sentenced to four years of President and Mrs. Kerry.

Unlike Dionne, however, "Bush II the Sequel" doesn't worry me much. I figure our quasi-conservative president has already done his worst damage at home and overseas. Without having to get elected again, he might actually be able to honor his rhetoric about wanting to cut the size and scope of government.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to guilt-trip Bush into becoming more moderate or compromising with congressional Democrats, pundits like Dionne should be hiding in shame for having supported a New Deal Neanderthal like Kerry.

Kerry, by the way, is the immoderate one, not Bush. Kerry is a welfare-state-adoring zombie whose political brain was frozen in 1969. Watching his boring campaign was like watching a nine-month-long director's cut of "Night of the Living Liberal."

And let's get real. President Bush is hardly Barry Goldwater reborn. He needs to become less compromising with Democrats, not more. He's already too comfortable with the Big Nanny state, which is why Republicans who really still believe in individual freedom, limited government and laissez faire economics - all 145 of them - are unhappy with his first term.

In any case, don't blame me for the next four years. Along with 0.3 percent of my freedom-loving countrymen, I voted for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. He finished fourth with a rousing 395,711 votes, which should tell Dionne and grieving liberals everywhere how silly they are to worry about the longevity of their precious welfare state.

Bill Steigerwald can be reached at (412) 320-7983 or bsteigerwald@tribweb.com.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

What next?

2004-11-09T19:20:39Z

http://www.techcentralstation.com/110904C.html
What Next for Libertarians?
By Ryan Sager Published 11/09/2004

Libertarianism is in a bad way following the 2004 presidential election -- and not just because Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik failed to overtake Ralph Nader for third place (though, if it's any consolation, he tied the erstwhile consumer advocate in the Electoral College).

No, the problem is that both parties proved themselves able to ignore libertarian ideas almost completely this year and are only likely to do so increasingly going forward.

Now, make no mistake about it, this was an election mainly about foreign policy (a topic to which libertarian philosophy has traditionally been difficult to apply). While much has been made of the fact that 22 percent of voters chose "moral values" as their "most important issue" when asked in exit polls -- making it the most popular of the options given -- that was only because "terrorism" and "Iraq" were listed as separate choices. Together, those foreign-policy topics, inextricably linked in the minds of many, were the deciding factor for 34 percent of voters.

But the utter irrelevance of libertarian ideas this year can't be written off simply because of the nation's current foreign-policy concerns. It's impossible to ignore the fact that the domestic agendas of both parties this year were based firmly on expanding the power of the state.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign, in its only small-government gambit, opposed certain provisions of the Patriot Act; but, for fear of looking soft on terror, that position was, shall we say, deemphasized.

Otherwise, the Democrats pushed a pretty standard, statist line: "rolling back" tax cuts (otherwise known as "raising taxes," be it only on the rich), nationalizing health care, leaving Social Security to fester, spending more on education, increasing the amount of environmental regulation and putting a flu shot in every pot.

The Bush-Cheney team had its version, a little lighter on economic statism but heavier on cultural statism: leaving in place its own move toward socialized medicine (a.k.a., the colossally expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit), cracking down on "indecency" and banning gay marriage. Tax cuts were also promised, though not paired with any cuts in programs to pay for them. Social Security reform may have been the only bright spot.

So, what can we expect from the Republicans going forward? More of the same -- but worse.

Karl Rove is already out in the press promising President Bush's evangelical base a renewed push to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And there can be absolutely no doubt that such an amendment, if not passed soon, will become a central issue in the 2006 midterm elections, used as a wedge issue to paint any Democratic senator or congressman who doesn't go along as a hopelessly out-of-touch liberal.

And what can we expect from the Democrats?

It's too soon to tell definitively, of course, but there are really only two directions the party can move, neither of them terribly favorable to the libertarian-minded.

The party could begin playing to its liberal base -- MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, etc. -- but that would only pull it further out of the mainstream, leaving the Republicans to run the country unchallenged.

More likely, we'll see a serious move by the party to close the "values gap" that supposedly cost its candidates so dearly this election cycle. There are any number of ways this could happen.

Suddenly, Democrats in Congress could join Republicans in supporting a flag-burning amendment. They could suddenly become quite attached to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They could roll over on the anti-gay marriage amendment.

And it would be completely unsurprising if Americans woke up suddenly to find the Democrats initiating new hearings into violence and sex in the music industry, television, movies, video games, Web pages, comic books or wherever.

Libertarianism never flourishes during times of war, but that's exactly why people concerned with economic liberalism and social freedom should be concerned. With the War on Terror likely to be the defining issue of a generation, libertarians must begin to grapple with it seriously instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

The forces of statism in this country have grabbed onto this war to move the center of gravity in our politics to the left economically and to the right socially. Karl Rove and the forces of "national-greatness conservatism" embodied in places such as The Weekly Standard have seen the chance to create a "permanent Republican majority" -- a platform combining traditional Republican strength on national security with a radical expansion of the size of the federal government, designed to rob the Democrats of their natural constituency.

The Republican Party under Bush, in short, has ceased to be a hospitable environment for libertarians, and the alternative looks no better.

The party that came in second isn't the only one with some thinking to do right now. Those of us in fourth need to wake up as well.

Ryan Sager is a member of the editorial board of The New York Post. He also edits the blog Miscellaneous Objections and can be reached at editor@rhsager.com.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

thx all

2004-11-08T19:23:55Z

thx for the shits and giggles.

glad this election is finally over. now i can go on worrying about more mundane things.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Libertarian philosophy

2004-11-01T21:07:14Z

If there are any out there that want the Libertarian philosophy, check out http://badnarik.org/libertarian.php

Happy voting!
Steve

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Libertarian contributors wanted

2004-10-23T00:53:59Z

Battle Cry (www.BattleCry-CA.com) is an electronic periodical dedicated to articulating, shaping, and promulgating the ideas that will secure liberty and prosperity for the inhabitants of California.

Battle Cry is a non-partisan news source that seeks to increase individual freedom and responsibility, protect the rights of property owners, bolster a marketplace that encourages business and the creation of wealth, improve education, manage our environment at the crossroad of sustainability and profitability, aid in the swift rendering of humane justice, and find solutions to the problems we hold in common with our neighbors in a manner that encourages peace and tolerance.

We give equal space to all qualified viewpoints. Our philosophy is built around respect. We are looking for intelligent activists and writers to join our team. Here is our code:
Working for Change First, Dollars Second
Our contributions to Battle Cry should be directed in the spirit of our mission statement: to articulate, shape, and promulgate ideas that will secure liberty and prosperity for California. Our goal is to make the world a better place. BattleCry-CA.com is run for profit, but compensation should not be our sole consideration. Ideally, we will look upon working for a better future as our foremost reason for contributing to BattleCry-CA.com. At Battle Cry we work for change first, dollars second. This mind-set will help BattleCry-CA.com survive until our company begins to generate revenue. Helping one’s community is a reward unto itself; the paycheck is gravy. (Compensation schedules are addressed below.) Remembering this attitude after the money begins to arrive will assure that we continue to affect positive change.
Employee Empowerment
People are Battle Cry’s most important resource and the key to our competitive advantages. We have experts writing in every topic. The way to sustain a high level of enthusiasm and personal satisfaction is to empower the individual. Our product is timely, interesting information that people trust and want. How editors and writers go about making that product is up to them.
Building networks of contacts and writers is an important task for all levels of Battle Cry personnel. The more people working with us the better our product will be, the faster our popularity will grow, the quicker we will turn a profit. We are our own best publicity department and our own best recruiters.
Editors have been told they should treat their subject categories as their own personal kingdoms. It is up to the editors which topics are reported. The editor of each bureau knows that subject best; they know what should be written.
Battle Cry’s only content stipulations, besides that articles be timely, interesting, and pertinent to California, are no advocating treason (violent overthrow of the United States government/giving comfort or aid to foreign enemies), no anonymous sources (all original writing citing opinions or containing quotes must have a name verifiable by a phone number), and no conspiracy theories (no proof means no publish).
However, editors are advised to keep the publisher and managing editor informed of their intended course of articles. Doing so will prevent repetition of subjects, conflicts with other editors, and the wasting of time on subjects that are of marginal interest. Occasionally a subject may straddle the lines between the boundaries of two subjects. The publisher will decide which editor and writer will offer Battle Cry’s position.
Respect for Diversity

Respect for the views of others is the concept that unifies Battle Cry into a team for change. Harnessing the thinking, ideas, and energy of a wide cross-section of people is the best strategy for us to find stories and information that no one else has yet. It is of paramount importance that we demonstrate trust and respect for the unique talents and perspective of each member of Battle Cry. Each person on our staff is an expert in their field. Please defer to their expertise or simply agree to disagree.
Professionalism
Everyone is expected to conduct themselves with professionalism when acting in their capacity as members of the Battle Cry staff. We must be seen by all who come in contact with us as sober, rational, and lucid.
Please take the time to use an endearment when writing email on behalf of Battle Cry. Please use the spell check and re-read what you have written when corresponding with writers or other companies. Please do not over-use capitals, engage in “flaming” email, over-punctuate (???), or use dem

Visit our site, take a look around, then contact us at managingeditor@battlecry-ca.com. Help change California for the better! Join our team today!

It’s a great day for California!
- Michael M. Forbes, Publisher of Battle Cry (www.BattleCry-CA.com)

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Compare and contrast

2004-10-21T17:33:45Z

Okay, let's start...

Michael Badnarik has studied the Constitution for twenty years, and has been teaching an eight-hour class on the subject for the last three years. All of his political positions are derived from the principle of individual rights, and are consistent with the Constitution. He would like to see strict enforcement of the Bill of Rights, and would establish a "zero tolerance policy" for all elected officials who violate the supreme law of the land.

John Kerry has stood in the Senate for twenty years and, um, all of his positions are derived from whichever way the wind is blowing.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 2 replies

68% Say Badnarik Should Be Invited to Debates

2004-10-04T03:06:43Z

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Badnarik%20in%20Debates.htm

Should Badnarik Be Invited to Presidential Debates?

Yes 68%
No 20%
Not Sure 12%
RasmussenReports.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday September 12, 2004--Sixty-eight percent (68%) of American adults believe that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik should be invited to participate in the Presidential Debates this year. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 20% believe Badnarik should not be invited while 12% are not sure.

The Libertarian Party candidate has been on the ballot in all 50 states for each of the past three elections and Badnarik is expected to be on every state ballot this November.

When voters were asked to choose between President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry, and Badnarik, 46% said they would vote for the Democrat, 43% for the Republican, and 3% for Badnarik.

However, 29% of voters said there are circumstances under which they would consider voting for Badnarik. That includes 25% of Bush voters and 30% of Kerry voters.

When voters are informed that Badnarik opposes both the War in Iraq and the Drug War, 34% say they would consider Badnarik. That figure includes just 11% of Bush voters and 50% of Kerry voters.

The survey also found that 10% of Americans identify their political ideology as libertarian rather than conservative or liberal. Sixty-two percent (62%) share the Libertarian view that tax dollars should not be spent to support the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

anagrams

2004-10-01T09:01:47Z

If you rearrange the letters in "Badnarik" you get "kind arab"

If you rearrange the letters in "John Kerry" you get "horny jerk"

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

what are they afraid of?

2004-09-30T06:30:18Z

http://zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=9593

Libertarian is squeezed out of the campaign

When a radio newsman described Ralph Nader as "providing a choice for those who don't want to vote for President George Bush or Sen. John Kerry," I ran to my phone and dialed the station. "Don't you know," I asked the newsman, "that there already is a `choice' on the Oregon ballot, whether Nader is on or not?" I asked. "The Libertarian Party has been on the Oregon ballot for years," I huffed.

As a matter of fact, the Libertarian Party has been on the ballot of almost every state in the union, offering a third presidential candidate for years. Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik is obviously the major choice of the undecided vote. A Zogby poll released Aug. 30 showed Badnarik performing better than any other alternative candidate among the critical block of undecided voters.

But you'd never know that from radio, TV or newspaper reports.

According to Rasmussen Reports, a major polling firm, Badnarik not only has 3 percent support nationwide, but 10 percent of Americans identify their ideology as libertarian rather than conservative or liberal. Yet in most of the media, Badnarik has been virtually invisible.

What would happen to Badnarik's support if the media mentioned him 10 percent of the time? Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. In fact, Badnarik's name has been suppressed.

My friend Dean Ahmad, former treasurer of the national Libertarian Party and a representative of Muslims for Badnarik, was invited to appear on Fox News' ``O'Reilly Factor,'' but was told by the producers not to mention Badnarik's name on the air.

Earlier, Badnarik himself had been invited to appear on the show but he was canceled the day before his appearance, without any reason given.

When "third parties" are mentioned in the media, the commentators almost never mention Badnarik or the Libertarian Party, although the party has run more candidates than all the other third parties combined in past elections and has 600 elected officeholders nationwide.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? What are the major news media afraid of?

Could it be that most Americans share the Libertarian ideals of fiscal conservativism (reducing the size and cost of government) and social liberalism (allowing citizens control and responsibility for their personal lives)?

It is apparent that neither President George Bush nor Sen. John Kerry will discuss the many issues that cause new political parties to form.

In their debates, perhaps they will discuss how they plan to reduce our huge national deficit without initiating tax increases. Perhaps they will discuss the high cost and low results of the drug war, the declining value of the dollar, the real rate of inflation, the reason prescription drugs cost less in Canada, American public school students' relatively low test scores, the effect of environmental policies and the political favoritism given to special interests.

The American public has a right to hear discussions on all issues that concern them. But the commission that organizes the presidential debates was altered years ago when the League of Women Voters invited a Libertarian congressman to participate.

The candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties refused to debate him and formed their own commission. When Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992, the biased debates commission adopted requirements that eliminated third party candidates. This is obviously unfair.

There wouldn't be other political parties if the Republicans and Democrats covered all the issues of interest to the electorate.

If all views were represented, more voters would participate and the results would offer and a better indication of what voters really want. If the winning candidate could know the real concerns of the public, he or she could act upon them.

After all, the election is the most revealing and authentic poll of all, if the voters are aware of all viewpoints on issues.

The election isn't a horse race, and voters don't have to pick a winner. Voters should vote their consciences and pick the candidate who best represents their values.

That way is the best way, and really the only way, for voters to get their concerns before those who will ultimately determine the direction of this country.

(9/26/2004)
- By Tonie Nathan , The Register-Guard, Oregon

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies

Third-party voters criticize debates

2004-09-29T18:26:04Z

9/23/2004
Third-party voters criticize debates
Advocates say it's a 'right' to hear all points of view
By Tama Swan

The first presidential debate is next week, but not one of the eight "third party" candidates will take part.

"It's the right of the American people to hear all voices, especially if they're on your state ballot," said Jeff Frazee, a spokesman for Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

Debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group. The group took over for The League of Women Voters in 1988.

Opinion polls must show a candidate has at least 15 percent of the national electorate, based on the average of five separate polls. The commission also requires debaters' names appear on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the Electoral College.

"There are a lot of good ideas that come from third-party candidates that aren't being heard," said Ben Woosley, president of Libertarian Longhorns. "Sometimes it takes the odd person out to suggest a new way of doing things."

Woosley said 15 percent is almost impossible for a candidate to get.

In 2000, Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne earned 0.36 percent of the popular vote and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader earned 2.74 percent, according to the U.S. Federal Election Commis-sion's Web site.

"They're setting a criteria they know no one can meet," Woosley said.

Julian Garza, president of Students for Kerry, said the commission's criteria are sound, and only viable candidates should be featured in national debates.

"There are always primaries to see the different wings competing in the party," he said.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2004/09/23/WorldNation/ThirdParty.Voters.Criticize.Debates-728187.shtml

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 1 reply

Iraq, etc.

2004-09-28T03:06:07Z

I don't agree with Badnarik on this particular issue, but at least I know where he stands on it.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/badnarik.php?articleid=3657

posted in Constitutionalist Libertarians - 0 replies