FREEDOM & LIBERTY is for EVERYONE!!!. . . . .

Folks from all over the world have accessed this site. The desire to be free of the shackles of fascism, socialism, communism and progressivism are universal. Folks just want to live their lives and be left alone... Dammit!

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run. Don't walk. We're in their homes, and in their heads, and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome." River Tam referring to the government.

Not Politically Correct. . .

"Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
- John Adams

Abraham Lincoln

To quote Jack Donovan’s Violence is Golden: ‘Without action, words are just words. Without violence, laws are just words. Violence isn’t the only answer, but it is the final answer.’

In a world gone mad we are the villains. We wield the truth and the light. In the end we will only be answerable to ourselves and our God. If we win then we inherit the earth, if we lose we get to Heaven.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Consumer Confidence Dives; Treasury Yields Plunge to April 2009 Levels; An Economic Depression is Here - Congress, the Fed to Blame

The week is not over yet but this looks rather ominous. Treasury yields are back where they were in April of 2009 at the start of the so-called "recovery".

More here from Mish's Global Economy

Big Call From Jeff Gundlach: "The US will 'Politely Default' on its Debt"

“If the world starts to behave differently,” he said, “you need to sell immediately, because you don't have much time. So I suggest that all of us watch the way the markets react to bad news regarding risk. If their behavior changes, you have to sell very, very quickly.”

Gundlach is full of doo-doo but the comments are prescient and a riot.

Click here for more from Zero Hedge

Just FYI. . . . .

Reflections by comrade Fidel


            As I was writing every one of my previous Reflections, and a catastrophe was quickly zeroing in on humanity, my major concern was to fulfill the primary duty to inform our people.
            Today, I feel more relax than 26 days ago. As the situation evolves, I can reiterate and expand on the information to the national and international public.
            Obama has committed to attend the quarterfinals match on July 2, if his country’s team makes it to that stage. He supposedly knows better than anyone that the quarterfinals will not be contested because very serious developments will take place before that; or at least he should know.
            Last Friday, June 25, an international press agency known for the attention to details in its reports, published a statement by the “…Navy Commander of the elite Corps of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution General Ali Fadavi…,” warning “…that if the United States and its allies inspect Iranian ships in international waters ‘they will have their response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.’”
            The information was taken from the local news agency Mehr of Iran.
            According to the press dispatch, said news agency reported that “Fadavi added that ‘the Navy of the Revolutionary Guardians currently has hundreds of vessels equipped with missile launchers.’”  
            The information, produced approximately at the same time of what Granma published or perhaps before, seemed at some points an exact copy of the Reflections elaborated on Thursday June 24th and ran by that paper on Friday 25th.
            The coincidence can be explained by the simple use of a logical reasoning. I was completely unaware of what the Iranian local agency had published.
            I have absolutely no doubt that as soon as the American and Israeli warships are deployed –alongside the rest of the American military vessels positioned off the Iranian coasts-- and they try to inspect the first merchant ship from that country, there will be a massive launching of missiles in both directions. At that moment exactly the terrible war will begin. It’s not possible to estimate how many vessels will be sunk or from what country.
            Knowing the truth timely is the most important thing for our people.
            It doesn’t matter if almost everybody, I’d dare say 99.9% or more of my compatriots, instinctively cling to hopes and agree with my sincere wishes to be wrong. I have talked to people close to me, and I have also received news from many noble, selfless and hardworking people who have read my Reflections and do not challenge my considerations in the least but rather absorb, believe and swallow my reasoning through a dry throat; however, they immediately go back to the tasks to which they devote their energies.
            That is precisely what we expect of our compatriots. But it would be worse to suddenly become aware of extremely gave events without having heard as much as a news about such possibility. Then there would be confusion and panic, and that would be unworthy of our heroic Cuban people, which was very close to becoming the target of a massive nuclear strike on October 1962, and still did not hesitate for a second in discharging its duty.
            Our brave combatants and the military chiefs of our Revolutionary Armed Forces taking part in heroic internationalist missions were close to becoming the victims of nuclear strikes against the Cuban troops deployed close to the Angolan south border from where the South African racist forces --at the time positioned on the Namibian border-- had been expelled after the battle of Cuito Cuanavale.
            The Pentagon, with the consent of the President of the United States, supplied the South African racists through Israel with about 14 nuclear bombs, more powerful than those dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as we have indicated in previous Reflections.
            I am neither a prophet nor a fortune teller. Nobody told me a word of what was to happen. It has all been the result of what I today describe as a logical reasoning.
            We are neither new to this complicated issue nor are we meddlesome.
            It is possible to predict what will happen in the rest of the Portuguese and Spanish speaking Americas during the nuclear post crisis.
            Under such circumstances, it will not be possible to talk of capitalism or socialism. A stage will open that will see the management of the available goods and services in this part of the continent. Certainly, every country will continue being ruled by those who head the governments today, some very close to socialism and others euphoric over the opening of the world market to fuels, uranium, copper, lithium, aluminum, iron and other metals being sent to the developed and rich countries today that will suddenly disappear.
            An abundance of food exported now to that world market will also disappear abruptly.
            In these circumstances, the most basic products needed for life: food, water, fuels, and the resources found in the hemisphere south of the United States will suffice to preserve some of the civilization whose unbridled advance has led humanity into such a disaster.
            Nevertheless, there are still some uncertainties. Will the two mightiest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, be able to refrain from using their nuclear weapons against each other?
            There is no doubt, however, that from Europe the nuclear weapons of Great Britain and France, allied with the United States and Israel, --the same that enthusiastically imposed the resolution that will inevitably unleash the war, which for the abovementioned reasons will immediately become nuclear-- are threatening the Russian territory even though this country and China have done everything within their capabilities to prevent the conflict.
            The economy of the superpower will fall to pieces like a house of cards.  The American society is the least prepared to endure a catastrophe like the one the empire has created in the same territory where it started.
            We don’t know which will be the effect on the environment of the nuclear weapons that will unavoidably explode in various parts of the world, and that in the least serious variant will happen in abundance.
            As for me, to advance a hypothesis would be pure science fiction.

Fidel Castro Ruz
June 27, 2010
2:15 PM     

Ya, the recovery is going just fine thank you. . . . .

States of Crisis for 46 Governments Facing Greek-Style Deficits

By Edward Robinson - Bloomberg.
Californians don’t see much evidence that the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression is coming to an end.
Unemployment was 12.4 percent in May, 2.7 percentage points higher than the national rate. Lawmakers gridlocked over how to close a $19 billion budget gap are weighing the termination of the main welfare program for 1.3 million poor families or borrowing more than $9 billion in the bond market. California, tied with Illinois for the lowest credit rating of any state, is diverting a rising portion of tax revenue to service debt, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August issue.
Far from rebounding, the Golden State, with a $1.8 trillion economy that’s larger than Russia’s, is sinking deeper into its financial funk. And it’s not alone.

Want to know more?  Click here.

Hang onto your hats folks. . .

RBS tells clients to prepare for 'monster' money-printing by the Federal Reserve

As recovery starts to stall in the US and Europe with echoes of mid-1931, bond experts are once again dusting off a speech by Ben Bernanke given eight years ago as a freshman governor at the Federal Reserve.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor

Entitled "Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here", it is a warfare manual for defeating economic slumps by use of extreme monetary stimulus once interest rates have dropped to zero, and implicitly once governments have spent themselves to near bankruptcy.
The speech is best known for its irreverent one-liner: "The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."
Want to know more?  Click here.

When in the course of human events. . . . Though provoking at the very least. . .


Monday, June 28, 2010


AG Van Hollen applauds SCOTUS gun ruling

MADISON (WKOW) -- Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued the following statement applauding the United States Supreme Court's decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago that says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.
"Today's decision is a victory for those who value liberty. The United States Supreme Court's opinion in McDonald vindicates every individual's fundamental right to keep and bear arms.  Adopting the position I joined on behalf of the state of Wisconsin with 37 other states, the Court rightly concluded that the right to bear arms is a right that should be protected from unconstitutional governmental interference, whether by the federal government or state governments.  This puts the right to bear arms on same footing as other fundamental rights, such as free speech and free exercise of religion. 
To me, the Court's decision today is a natural and anticipated extension of the court's decision two years ago in Heller in which the Court held that the right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense is a fundamental individual right.  If there is any surprise about today's decision, it is that it was not unanimous.
Wisconsin citizens know how fundamental the right to keep and bear arms is.  When Wisconsin voters were given the opportunity to protect the right to bear arms in the Wisconsin Constitution, they overwhelmingly voted in favor of protecting the right, with nearly 3 votes in favor for every one opposed.  The amendment, which passed in 1998, received more votes for a constitutional amendment than any other amendment in Wisconsin's history that was voted on in a non-presidential election year. 
It is important to me to do what I can as Wisconsin's Attorney General to protect this fundamental individual right.  I sought the required permission to file a brief in the Heller case.  While the Governor denied my request, the State Assembly passed a resolution that authorized my office to write and file a brief with the United States Supreme Court, advocating for the right to bear arms.  When this right became an issue again in the McDonald case, Governor Doyle once again rejected my request to advocate in the Supreme Court for this fundamental right on behalf of the state of Wisconsin.  Once again, the State Assembly stepped in and provided the required authorization I needed to advocate for Wisconsin. "

Blackburn Hails Supreme Court Decision on Second Amendment

Washington, DC - Congressman Marsha Blackburn, in a press release today, praised the Supreme Court's ruling today that the Second Amendment applies equally to Federal, State, and local governments.

"Today the Court maintained what Americans already know; our right to keep and bear arms is absolute. As the founders understood, the individual's right to self protection is endowed by the creator, not by the government," Blackburn said.

"I regret that the ruling on so obvious an issue was a narrow one. This 5-4 ruling highlights how important the confirmation hearings underway in the Senate are. Elena Kagan will do the nation a disservice if she is less than explicit in her views of 2nd Amendment rights. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to examine her position on this issue closely."

The high court ruled earlier this morning that firearms are "essential for self-defense." This latest ruling was handed down following "handgun bans" that were overturned in Washington DC by the "Heller" ruling in 2008.
"Today the Court maintained what Americans already know; our right to keep and bear arms is absolute." - Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R, TN)

The court found that if the Second Amendment indeed
protects an individual right to own a gun, the notion that
the government can't ban all handguns is the minimum
protection the Constitution can offer.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

From:   Gonzalo Lira

A must read treatise on the 1A. . . 

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

I lived in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship—I can spot a fascist police-state when I see one.

The United States is a fascist police-state.

Harsh words—incendiary, even. And none too clever of me, to use such language: Time was, the crazies and reactionaries wearing tin-foil hats who flung around such a characterization of the United States were disqualified by sensible people as being hysterical nutters—rightfully so.

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing isexpanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the terrorists—and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.

Want to know more?  Click here.

This is well worth your time and trouble. . . . .

June 25, 2010
The Leftist 'Purification' Movement
By Andrew Thomas

To the contemporary conservative, progressive ideology is often murky and incomprehensible. It is very difficult for some on the right to understand the apparently illogical and unrealistic machinations of the radical leftist mindset. Their political objectives, if achieved, inevitably lead to further demands for concessions toward an ever-greater ideological purity.

Something even darker and more malevolent is happening, however. The various radical leftist factions and special interest groups are rapidly coalescing into a global movement.

A comprehensive and enlightening treatise on this topic was recently published in Orbis, the Foreign Policy Research Institute's journal of world affairs, written by University of Buffalo professor Ernest Sternberg. The article is titled, "Purifying the World: What the New Radical Ideology Stands For". It will open your eyes and scare you to death.

Want to know more?   Click here.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

If you are not paying attention now, You will pay. . .

Bayonetting The Dead

This is from Jennifer III over at I'll Take Liberty. . . . .

Interesting that this should happen while everybody is distracted with McChrystal. I’ve already written that the first amendment is dead. But just to be sure, they have bayonetted the body of the First Amendment. No need to check her pulse, they just verified her death for us. She is indeed dead.
Go and read this.

Jennifer III will fill you in on the details.   Click here.

Reposted with permission.   

Tuesday, September 15, 2009


The Tripwire

by D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson

From The Resister

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"

-- Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago

What would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another.

Documenting those violations would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as "the tripwire," but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?

For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, "See, that's why; figure it out." Any suggestion that more Wacos, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion?

For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand's identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and "above all," censorship.

With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly [Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF's enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture "laws," the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalization (communism).

However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion -- the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners -- is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.
Does this censorship include the regulation of the "public" airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising -- in their own defense -- on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry "public service" propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically-correct twaddle for "The Children"? Does it include the Orwellian "Communications Decency Act"? Does it include any irrationalism "sexual harassment" or tribalist "hate speech" laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.

Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box -- or lost forever.

Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.

Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution.

The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change the form of government. To this end we believe:
The enforcement of any laws -- local, state, or federal -- that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.
The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honorable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation.

The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.

However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.

America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.

Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government's first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual.

Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Antifederalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.

To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).

Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional "law." Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.

Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.

However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter's property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.

Censorship is already being "legally" imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all levels. Note the demands by "progressive" organizations and self-appointed "civil rights" groups to ban so-called "hate" speech (they mean thought and debate), or "extreme" language (they mean principled dissent), or "paramilitary" books (they mean the knowledge of how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your own self-defense, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL's "model" anti-militia legislation).

Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won't resist, it will make sure you can't resist.

The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative "slippery-slopes," and sycophantic adherents of a supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective "laws." Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.
No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things are as bad as they can get, "sometime" "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to appeal to those mystical equivalents of "divine intervention" for "deliverance" from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable within the scope of rational human intelligence.

The time to organize resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit that only the following meet that criteria:

* freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment);

* the right to keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment);

* the right to be let alone -- so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment);

* the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).

For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated -- although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance -- their abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.

Consider this a warning. . .

One day soon, we will step outside our doors to a very different world. The Stanley McChrystal interview is perhaps the most overt example, perhaps a warning of sorts. If the top of our military is so very unhappy as to flirt with court martial for badmouthing the civilian chain of command;

[“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” not to mention article 133, Conduct unbecoming an officer.],

I agree with Karl Denninger here. This is a frightening thing to have happened. A soldier may badmouth his leaders, his president, or his chow but only to himself or his compatriots. To challenge the civilian authority here is astonishing. Dangerous. Telling.

This hack court ruling, if allowed to stand is one of the last nails in our coffin. In order to control a society, one must control the information and communication. This ruling should take care of that.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s rulingand said there’s no problem with the First Amendment because copyright law “addresses a substantial or important governmental interest.” This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it shows a “substantial or important government interest.” But that makes no sense. The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect citizens’ interests against situations where the government’s interests went against citizens’ interests. It should never make sense to judge a First Amendment claim on whether the government has “substantial or important” interests.

On top of that, the court basically said “Congress knows best” on this issue. Again, this seems to go against the entire point of the First Amendment and the important judicial protections of the First Amendment. The whole point of court oversight of Congress is because Congress doesn’t always know best. But here, the court has no problem deferring entirely to Congress:“This deferential standard is warranted for two important reasons. First, Congress is “far better equipped” as an institution “to amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing upon the legislative questions.” … Second, we owe Congress “an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.”"

Much more here at TechDirt

We live in very dangerous times and it is showing no sign of abating. What you see here, as outrageous as it is, should; perhaps, be considered the tip of the ice berg. Everything they have done prior to this has inexorably led to this.

Political outrage will not change things. The judiciary has taken powers they were never given and we've gone along. The congress has taken powers they were never given and we have gone along.

In Germany, before WWII, it went just this way. There was no sudden usurpation of power. Rather, reasonable, sensible laws were passed to ensure the safety of the people. No revolution occurred. The sheeple went right along with the status quo because it never occurred to them that it was wrong.

I just hope there are enough of us to raise the flag. This next year will be an interesting one.

More on this here at I'll Take Liberty

New home sales plummet to record low

By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporter
NEW YORK ( -- 

New home sales plummeted to a record low in May, the first month following the expiration of the homebuyer tax credit. [No freakin' kidding!] This snapped a two-month streak of gains.

New home sales declined 32.7% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 300,000 last month, down from an downwardly revised 446,000 in April, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. Sales year-over-year fell 18.3%
This is the slowest sales pace since the Commerce Department began tracking data in 1963. The prior record was set in September 1981, when new homes sold at an annual rate of 338,000.
"We expected a slowdown, but the extent of this decline was a surprise," said Anika Khan, an economist at Wells Fargo. The figure was even worse than her relatively pessimistic forecast of an annual rate of 380,000 in May.  [Doesn't sound to good at all.   With an expected drop in home values near 50% You'd have to be an idiot or listen to lamestream media to buy now anyway.]

New-home sales plunge 33% to record low in May

The results were much worse than expected, [who pays these turds?  Worse than expected?  Let's see,  no jobs, Europe is going done the toilet, China disengages the dollar,  and things are worse than expected?  Somebody needs to be fired if they couldn't see this coming.]  and economists had expected a 20% decline to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 405,000. See complete economic calendar and consensus forecast.
U.S. stock markets dropped quickly on the news. Gold prices also fell. See full story on the market reaction.
That sales fell was "not at all surprising," wrote Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. "However, we would be lying if we said the size of the drop was not shocking."
"By the fall, we expect the very favorable affordability picture to start pulling people back into the market, [by people, you would mean those who have a job?   Wishful thinking is not going to fix this mess.  and lying, cheating banksters are just going to keep up thier lying, cheating ways.  The have a compliant congress, aiding and abetting them all the way.   good luck with that]  but the next few months are likely to be very grim," wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. domestic economist for High Frequency Economics, who predicted the number precisely.


Sales of U.S. New Homes Plunged to Record Low in May

Purchases of new homes in the U.S. fell in May to a record low as a tax credit expired, showing the market remains dependent on government support.

A report yesterday showed sales of previously owned homes unexpectedly fell in May, adding to concern the retrenchment following the end of the tax incentive will be deeper than anticipated. Existing house purchases, calculated when a contract closes, dropped to a 5.66 million annual rate, the National Association of Realtors said.
[If they think a few jobs will fix this,  they have another thing coming.   The banksters are still in power,  The Constitution according to Obysmal is still in operation,  and the incredibly myopic, self-serving, criminal, liberal congress still has power for the time being.   Good luck!]

A breath of fresh, honest air. . . 

Recovery? WHERE?

What sort of abject bullshit have the folks on Tout TV been running?

June 23 (Bloomberg) -- Purchases of new homes in the U.S. fell in May to a record low as a tax credit expired, showing the market remains dependent on government support.
The entire economy is dependent on government support.
But the government has no money.  It is in fact borrowing nearly as much as it takes in via taxes. 
Want to know more?  Click here and here and here and here