Not being drone murdered is an individual right

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Statement of Principles, Libertarian Party

That line, especially the bit about the “cult of the omnipotent state,” has been the subject of many internal battles within the party at conventions. There is a group within the party and the broader libertarian movement that believe that language prevents us from growing as a party. After all, the two legacy parties don’t have that kind of language and they win elections.

I come from the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. I’ve been a Libertarian since I was 10 or 11 years old and my father would take me to meetings of the Maricopa County Libertarian Party. I vote for Ernie Hancock when he runs for Chair because I’ve known him longer than anyone else in the party. I’ve never been anything other than a big-L Libertarian.

You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Lee Wrights once said, “We can make a difference by being different.” I believe that. The Libertarian Party is still much smaller than the two legacy parties. We cannot beat them by playing the game on their terms and by their rules.

This is not to say that our candidates should not be professional in appearance, nor that we can ignore the mechanics of running political campaigns. But it is to say that we can’t just be “Republicans who mean it,” or “Democrats who really believe in civil liberties.” If all we offer is a slightly better version of a legacy party, most voters won’t risk their vote for something slightly better when the legacy party candidate could, you know, win.

We can win by being the only party that supports actual freedom. Social freedom. Economic freedom. All of your freedoms. All of the time. Without exception.

These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.

White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney

According to a memo (PDF) obtained by NBC, the Obama Administration has decided that they can kill anyone overseas with a drone strike, including American citizens, with no trial, charge, or any due process protections at all. The Democrats don’t have a problem with this, since it’s a Democrat making this unilateral decision to kill people. Oddly, the Republicans don’t have a problem with it either, possibly because they want to have that power in 2016.

Libertarians are the only ones who have a problem with it. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, “nor shall any person be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” There is no more stark and frightening example of “the cult of the omnipotent state,” than the idea that it’s okay to murder people drone missiles as long as it’s the President doing it and he’s pretty sure you’re a bad guy.

I’m a Libertarian and I challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual, and that most certainly includes the right to not be murdered by the government with no due process at all.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Former ‘Iran/Contra pilot’ and 9/11 conspiracy theorist shoots and kills 2 teen children, then himself…
CIA RESPONDS: “We’re unaware of any information that would substantiate Mr. Marshall’s claims.”

( -)-(- )Comments Off


TWO YEARS: Virginia passes first law restricting drones…
11 states consider bans: CA, FL, ME, MO, MT, OK, OR, NE, ND, TX, VI…
Congress mulls national restrictions…
Obama kills another American, 16-yo born in Denver…
LINDSEY GRAHAM: Protect Obama from “libertarians and the left”…
WHITE HOUSE: ‘LEGAL’, ‘ETHICAL’, ‘WISE’…
DOJ KILL MEMO LEAKED: U.S. Citizenship won’t ‘immunize him from lethal operation’…
64 Drone Bases on US Soil (and counting)…

( -)-(- )1 comment

Manufacturing leaving China, returns to ROBOTS in U.S…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Ron Paul crosses line with Chris Kyle death tweet

On Monday February 4th, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul tweeted the following:

Understandably, a shitstorm ensued as people inferred that Ron Paul was saying Chris Kyle had it coming because of his past history as a Navy SEAL sniper. In fact, the writers at ronpaul.com said just that in a tactless post titled “Ron Paul: Chris Kyle Had It Coming“.

TheWeek jumped on the story:

And just like that, the three-time Republican presidential candidate’s tenuous coalition of pro-gun libertarians, anti–Federal Reserve goldbugs, and foreign policy non-interventionists crumbled. Paul is an opponent of gun control — saying after December’s Newtown, Conn., grade school massacre that “more guns equals less crime” and that “private gun ownership prevents many shootings” — but also of U.S. military adventurism. Kyle, also an outspoken gun-rights advocate, earned a reputation in Iraq as one of the deadliest snipers in U.S. military history.

Hours later, after a lot of backlash on social media and the conserva-sphere, Ron Paul meekly put out a follow-up tweet pointing to a short facebook post:

As much as it pains me to say it, Ron Paul simply doesn’t look good here.

Hopefully Paul will come out and say it was an intern posting tasteless drivel his accounts, but don’t count on it.

UPDATE: Lt. William J. Lawler II, M.Ed posted the following praise of Ron Paul’s tweet at LibertyCrier which hit my inbox along with a lot of negativity from military veterans:

When I first heard about the shooting I felt bad.

As soon as I learned who Chris Kyle was and how proud he was of how many people he had murdered, I felt less bad.

What goes around comes around.

In this case it was on an individual level. Soon it will be on a national level.

Unfortunately, those of us who fought against the tyranny of the American Empire are going to have to pay the price for all of the scumbags and idiots that supported American Imperialism.

Oh well, life’s not fair.

There’s definitely a schism growing in the Ron Paul revolution over this tweet. It’s unfair to veterans, many who have fought in wars and killed people, to suddenly claim that for them to die would be no great tragedy.

I reiterate that the Iraq war was misguided and a terrible spilling of blood on both sides, but that’s no excuse to start flinging insults and derision at the soldiers. The blame lies squarely on the politicians who fabricated evidence and ordered aggression.

As libertarians, we ought to be taking the moral high road and insist that all deaths are tragic, even those of our soldiers.

Let’s not forget that many allies in the Ron Paul revolution have fought in previous wars under a draft. Those troops are going to view any slights against the rank and file soldier as a severe affront to their patriotic duty to protect those who can’t or won’t fight from those who would.

UPDATE II: Someone from Liberty Crier dropped by and rudely commented. I have responded.

( -)-(- )27 comments

Newtown, CT parent Bill Stevens delivers gun rights testimony

On Monday, January 28th, Bill Stevens gave a short three minute testimony to a special Connecticut Congress hearings called the “Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety”.

Here’s a transcript of his powerful testimony:

My name is Bill Stevens, I live in Newtown.

My fifth grade daughter was in “lock down” on December 14th, 2012. Unfortunately, her classmate’s little sister… was murdered in Sandy Hook that day when “lock down” and 911 weren’t enough to protect her from an evil person. Not protect her from an assault rifle or some type of inanimate object, but from an evil person.

Quite different, from the elaborate security you all enjoy here at the capitol. It was fun getting frisked on the way in. [Some laughter]

I’m not here to cite the crime statistics: lives saved with a gun, or the economic impact of the proposed asinine legislation (some of these gun control bills you have proposed). I will however read from the Connecticut state constitution. Section 15 reads very clearly… We all know what the Second Amendment says… But section 15 in the state constitution says very clearly: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” [Applause]

There’s no registration, there’s no permitting, there’s no background check. It’s quite clear.

I’m frankly shocked by some of the testimonies today.

In case some here failed American history, there’s something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a process by which to amend it. The same goes for the state constitution. These rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator — not you politicians — to all citizens regardless of gender, race or creed. In order to limit the rights of citizens, there is something called “due process”. And, “legislation” is not “due process”.

You wanna take my rights away, let’s go to court.

And with regard to due process, the final report with all the facts on Sandy Hook will not likely be issued until this Summer. It was stated clearly in the newspapers. How can any legislation be passed in good faith or good conscience without all the facts?

Again, gun ownership is a constitutional right, but it’s not for everyone. That’s okay, and shouldn’t make gun owners suspects regardless of how many guns they have or how much ammunition they may have.

My guns are not dangerous. They are at home, locked up, collecting dust and cat hair. [Laughter]

But criminals and tyrants — tyrants, especially — BEWARE! “Lock down” is not an option at the Stevens residence. And 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established.

Why is that same security my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal.

Charlton Heston made the phrase “from my cold dead hands” famous. And I will tell you this today: You will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands. [Applause]

Mr. Stevens then pounded his fist on the table, closed his laptop and strutted out of the hearing like a boss. And America applauded his audacity to stand up to tyrants and criminals.

UPDATE 2/7: We have been informed that Bill Stevens is not actually a Sandy Hook parent, in fact he has gone out of his way to disabuse several media outlets of this notion. From an update at the bottom of an article at Examiner.com:

Thank you for the nice article about my testimony in Hartford. Unlike the Liberal media who don’t let facts get in the way, I just wanted to let you know that my daughter does not attend Sandy Hook Elementary, but was in “lock down” nonetheless on December 14, 2012 at Reed Intermediate School (5th & 6th grade) about a mile away with her classmates, one of whom lost his little sister that day.

As you’ll note in his testimony, at no time does he claim to be a Sandy Hook parent, instead saying simply that he is from Newtown and had a daughter in a school that was in lockdown.

We have edited the title of the post to reflect this revelation and regret the error. We were just as snookered as everyone else by the wishful thinking of the YouTube video description.

( -)-(- )8 comments

Big city military drills becoming “normal” across America

Police and military are conducting scary drills that involve firing blanks in schools and downtown areas. ThinkProgress.com reports, “Students at a high school in Illinois experienced a uniquely terrifying school shooting drill on [January 30]. Instead of conducting a regular school lockdown, Cary-Grove High School administrators simulated gunfire by shooting off blanks in the hallways while students locked their classroom doors, pulled the curtains, and hid.” TV stations in Houston & Miami are reporting of military drills that involved military helicopters and gunfire.

In Miami, “a Black Hawk helicopter flew over the [downtown] area. According to Miami Police, it was part of a military drill, simulating an attack in an urban community. Miami was specifically chosen for the simulation.” WSVN-TV in Miami reported, “Police were unable to disclose specifics about what agencies were involved, but they said the drills were done at night for the public’s safety.” Miami Police Commander Delrish Moss said, “the reason they were done at night, and the reason they were done in the later hours is because we are trying to minimize disruption to traffic, minimize safety concerns.” He also said the drills will continue and cites security concerns as the reason for the secrecy.

The drill in Houston involved several agencies taking over an old high school building. KTRK-TV reported (full video), “There were armed men in fatigues, plenty of weapons and what many thought were real live rounds.” Frances Jerrals who lives near the area said, “When you see this, you think the worst. When you hear this, you think the worst. I felt like I was in a warzone.”

Parents of students from the Cary-Grove High School in suburban Chicago received a letter that read, “These drills help our students and staff to be prepared should a crisis occur, but it may cause some students to have an emotional reaction.” Protecting children was viewed as a reason for the drills in Houston as well. Glenn DeWitt from Houston said, “If it’s to protect our kids, I’m all for it.”

I’m reminded of the quote from Benjamin Franklin, “those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I certainly don’t like the idea of military and police conducting drills in populated areas and it disturbs me that more people aren’t outraged!

( -)-(- )4 comments

ATF/FBI can’t comply with Obama gun control orders due to outdated software…

( -)-(- )Comments Off


4 arrested at San Francisco nudity ban protest…
VIDEO…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

CBS bans SodaStream SuperBowl ads in favor of soda duopoly

It’s not just politics that the mainstream media has a duopoly problem with. CBS has decreed that the only fizzy sugar drink ads it will be airing during the Super Bowl are Coke or Pepsi:

CBS banned SodaStream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it.

The media’s job isn’t to judge.
SodaStream has a product that could be wildly disruptive to the soda industry, if successful. As in, the “automobile” to the soda industry’s “buggy whip.” If SodaStream takes off, Coke and Pepsi would have a lot to worry about, for sure. But isn’t that what progress is all about?

CBS is protecting its relationship with Coke and Pepsi. Those two brands spend big bucks on the Super Bowl and on the network, in general. I get it. But all CBS would have to do, if Coke and Pepsi put the pressure on, is say, “Hey, we’re just the unbiased middle man here. It’s not up to us what competitors of yours say about you.” There’s no need for the medium to have a say in the message. [...]

No more ‘Davids’ allowed.
I also called veteran creative director, David Baldwin, of Baldwin&, to get his take with CBS’s move. He nailed it. “That’s a disturbing turn of events. No more Davids allowed I guess at CBS.”

And it’s so unnecessary. If CBS had simply played the “unbiased middleman” card in this case, there’s very little Coke and Pepsi could have done. They certainly would not have pulled their Super Bowl ads. Instead, Coke and Pepsi would have been forced to retrench and figure out a marketing way to solve this SodaStream problem and not a mafia way (I mean that metaphorically, of course).

Now, CBS has essentially opened the door for its biggest advertisers to forever complain about those “annoying little competitors” that are trying to steal share. “Take them off the air. Make them stop!” is what they will scream. “You did it for Coke and Pepsi.”

And it won’t only be CBS. All media will have to bear the burden of this biased, un-capitalistic, anti-progress, move. But, guess what? This isn’t the first time in recent months CBS has overplayed its hand.

Libertarians have long complained of their blackout in the media, yet we’ve seen a more and more blatant bias towards Democrats and Republicans in news coverage at outlets such as CBS. “We told you so” has become the standard refrain from libertarians when it comes to voting for the lesser of two evils presented as the only viable choices.

Thankfully, corporations like SodaStream won’t take the affront lying down, and I expect a major campaign is in the works similar to when UK broadcaster ClearCast also banned them:

Clearcast said in a statement that the ad “denigrated other soft drinks.” In response, SodaStream U.K.’s managing director Fiona Hope called the move “absurd” and said that Clearcast clearly gives priority to soft drink giants.

But it seems SodaStream will have the last laugh. Bloomberg reports that the company is enjoying considerable levels of success on the stock market this year. In the U.K., the video has been viewed more than a millon times online. Jim Chartier, an analyst from research firm Monness Crespi Hardt & Co., explains the obvious — that “SodaStream got a ton of free advertising and publicity because the ad was banned.”

Regardless of whether or not SodaStream portrayed big soda companies unfairly in this ad, it can’t be denied that it has baited big outfits in the past. This past summer, SodaStream erected a caged display of used soft drink and water bottles in South Africa — including Coca-Cola products — to illustrate the wastefulness of bottled drinks. Similar SodaStream exhibits have popped up across the globe in the last two years, with stops in Times Square and Union Square in New York City.

Coca-Cola responded with a cease and desist letter — after which SodaStream announced plans to build a used bottle display not far from Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

Score for the little(r) guy, I hope they are planning to stick it to CBS as well.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: This ban is actually a little stale (over a week old), but SodaStream has capitalized on this in the best way possible, splashing the ad (over 2.2M views as of this update) on the front page of their website.

And no, it’s not low quality stuff that makes Ronco look good.

( -)-(- )3 comments

Samsung makes commercial mocking first amendment limits

How does a company get around copyright and trademark over-zealotry? By being bitter about intellectual property rights.

In Samsung’s commercial about making a SuperBowl commercial (so meta, you guys), Bob Odenkirk — best known as the lawyer Saul “better call Saul” Goodman from AMC’s Breaking Bad — asks comedians Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd to pitch ideas for some new product (flashed at us for only a mere three seconds).

The trio then spend the next minute hashing out how exactly to even make a commercial when they are muffled by legal precedent and unable to speak any of the trademarked names (they are constantly shushed by Odenkirk before they can finish them, but it’s clear what’s been unsaid). The Super Bowl becomes “the big game” and ultimately “el plato supremo”, while the Baltimore Ravens and San Francisco 49ers are re-nicknamed the “black birds” and the “fifty minus one-ers”. At which point they all laugh and embrace “hashtags” because twitter hasn’t been smart enough to trademark that term yet.

Samsung doesn’t deserve a free pass on intellectual property abuse themselves. Ironically, and rather hypocritically, Samsung has previously partnered with the International Olympic Committee — one of the most notorious trademark enforcers around the world.

And consider the following: If anyone made a widely broadcasted commercial without clearance (“hey guys, go download the new Hammer of Truth’s message notification buddy app widget thingie, which works awesome on my Samsung Android” *holds up $40 flip phone from 2004 for camera*), Samsung’s legal department would certainly be sending out cease and desist letters. For a company that has spent millions of dollars on litigating against the little guy, for them to hire three multi-millionaire actors to play the roles of potential chilling effect victims is only convincing… because they hired convincing actors.

Regardless, for a commercial focused on the inanity of legal hurdles involved in making commercials, it’s a well deserved poke in the eye of copyright laws.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what they’re selling.

( -)-(- )1 comment


ROBO SAPIEN: Scientists create complete bionic prototype…
“It’s exciting and a bit scary. We might be at a point in science and technology where we see first glimpses of the possibilities to go beyond the limits of evolution.”

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Finally, majority of Americans realize government is threat to individual rights and freedoms…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Justin Amash trashes “No Budget, No Pay” as unconstitutional

Earlier this week Darryl Perry wrote here at Hammer of Truth that the No Budget, No Pay Act (H.R. 325) was an unconstitutional measure, and a sure sign of Republican weakness to boot:

The 27th Amendment reads, in part, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of the Representatives shall have intervened.”

Despite the fact that the compensation is not changing, the bill could still be unconstitutional as it alters the scheduled dates of pay, which would be “varying the compensation.” It is unlikely any of the Republicans will challenge the bill, and the Democrats reportedly see “the legislation as a white flag on the part of the GOP, something that allows Congress to skirt the debt limit issue and move on to other fiscal arguments.”

On Tuesday, Justin Amash — a second-term, libertarian-leaning, Republican Congressman from Michigan — posted his take on facebook:

I voted no on H R 325, No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. The bill has two parts.

First, the bill suspends the debt ceiling through May 18, 2013. In other words, it allows the government to operate as though there is no debt ceiling. On May 19, the debt ceiling will automatically increase by the amount borrowed during the suspension. Because the government borrows about $4 billion per day, this bill will likely increase the debt ceiling by $400 billion or more, without any cuts or reforms to reduce future spending. see more…

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Aaron Tobey beats DHS, TSA over civil rights violations

Aaron Tobey of Virginia sued in federal court and won:

Aaron Tobey claimed in a civil rights lawsuit (.pdf) that in 2010 he was handcuffed and held for about 90 minutes by the Transportation Security Administration at the Richmond International Airport after he began removing his clothing to display on his chest a magic-marker protest of airport security measures.

“Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,” his chest and gut read.

In sending the case to trial, unless there’s a settlement, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 and reversed a lower court judge and invoked Benjamin Franklin in the process. According to the opinion by Judge Roger Gregory:

Here, Mr. Tobey engaged in a silent, peaceful protest using the text of our Constitution—he was well within the ambit of First Amendment protections. And while it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance, our Forefather Benjamin Franklin warned against such a temptation by opining that those ‘who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ We take heed of his warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections—even in an airport.

Hopefully more young adults will take the torch and push back. They are our best hope to defeat a tyrannical government. The lawmakers, regulators and enforcers should be very wary of what is coming from the agitated young adults if they do not back off their brown shirt jackboot tactics against common citizens.

Tobey is a true American patriot and hero. He stood up for his rights, made a statement to the pat down thugs while doing so and was arrested for exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Senator Ted Cruz: Uber pwnage!

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) had an interesting spee^Wquestion for Wayne LaPierre during the AWB hearings in Washington today.

Cruz pointed out that the AWB is about “scary-looking guns”, among other things. For those of us that don’t want to watch it, The Dallas Morning News did a pretty good text story about it.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz displayed a flair for showmanship this afternoon at the Senate’s gun violence hearing as he sought to puncture the argument for a proposed ban on assault weapons.

“What it bans, I would suggest to you, are scary looking guns,” he said.

With a life size photo of a Remington 750, a popular hunting rifle used — as Cruz said, by millions of Americans – the senator argued that the proposed ban focuses on “cosmetic features” such as pistol grips that in no way change the lethality of a weapon.

He produced a plastic pistol grip and held it to the photo to demonstrate.

“If this were attached to this rifle, it would suddenly become a banned assault weapon,” he said, prefacing a question to witness Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, who concurred with his analysis.

“The problem with the whole bill,” LaPierre said, is that “it’s based on falsehoods from people who do not understand firearms.”

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Macklemore: Billboard #1 and what it means for politics

Back in mid-September, I told earsucker readers about Macklemore as an up and comer in the music biz. I shared his great video “Thrift Shop”, and then that dude totally blew up.

Bad economy be… thanked?

Ryan Lewis has a look. It’s the look that comes through the 99 cent apparel, the half-long/half-stubble haircut, and the cheap clothes. Lewis wears the inestimable look of getting the job done, building class out of thin air.

Lewis is happy to boast that look in this well done, and rather polished music video about a rather unpolished subject (being poor, having to shop at crummy thrift stores, something we doubt any presidential candidates are doing). Singer Wanz throws down his own fortunate rhymes about pink granddad suit thrifting finds, and well… some people just understand the formula for awesome.

The popularity of “Thrift Shop” has even spawned a parody video called Pot Shop (which is damned hilarious and has nearly 1.5 million views).

Now, Macklemore is riding a wave of popularity to become the first unsigned artist to top Billboard’s Hot 100 in nearly 20 years. He has a very special message for those that would grant him greatness and deny him his share through recording contract shenanigans:

Macklemore makes his strong feelings about big labels no secret on the album: In a song titled “Jimmy Iovine” — named for the chairman of Interscope-Geffen-A&M who helped make another white rapper, Eminem, famous — Macklemore takes down record contract politics with the unequivocal closing line, “I’d rather be a starving artist than succeed at getting f—-ed.” Geez, Mack, tell us how you really feel.

It’s always been a love/hate relationship between new talent and behemoth companies with a room full of marketing employees. But thanks to the Internet’s leveling of the playing field, the tables can turn very quickly in favor of the upstarts. A similar parallel has occured in politics as grassroots candidates are able to raise significant amounts of money in short periods and run successful online campaigns. The phenomenon of online social engagement that was unheard of decades ago is now practiced by the majority.

What does this mean for politics? It means the new gatekeepers are blogs. Period.

Politicians and business execs take note, the game has officially changed.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Heated debate over whether E15 gas ruins engines


The American Petroleum Institute issued a press release warning motorists about a study of the E15 blend of ethanol and gasoline. Turns out, E15 causes expensive damage to engines:

The additional E15 testing, completed this month, has identified an elevated incidence of fuel pump failures, fuel system component swelling, and impairment of fuel measurement systems in some of the vehicles tested. E15 could cause erratic and misleading fuel gauge readings or cause faulty check engine light illuminations. It also could cause critical components to break and stop fuel flow to the engine. Failure of these components could result in breakdowns that leave consumers stranded on busy roads and highways. Fuel system component problems did not develop in the CRC tests when either E10 or E0 was used. It is difficult to precisely calculate how many vehicles E15 could harm. That depends on how widely it is used and other factors. But, given the kinds of vehicles tested, it is safe to say that millions could be impacted.

In 2010 and 2011, EPA gave the green light to use E15 – the 15 percent ethanol gasoline blend – in model-year-2001-and-later cars and some other vehicles. EPA’s action was irresponsible. EPA knew E15 vehicle testing was ongoing but decided not to wait for the results. Why did EPA move forward prematurely? Part of the answer may be the need to raise the permissible concentration level of ethanol so that greater volumes could be used, as required by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. Most gasoline sold today is an E10 blend, but rising volume requirements under the law can’t be met much longer without going to higher blends. When Congress passed the law, it could not know it was creating this problem. Today we know. The answer is to repeal the RFS before it puts millions of vehicles and many motorists at risk.

The Coordinating Research Council’s initial tests — first released in May of 2012 — are once again coming to light after further testing proved that delicate components in newer cars were most at risk.

AAA, the recognizable and leading auto club in the U.S., also called for an outright suspension of E15 earlier this month, citing a lack of research:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and gasoline retailers should suspend the sale of E15 gasoline until more is done to protect consumers from the potential for costly auto damage and voided warranties.

Research to date raises serious concerns that E15, a fuel blend consisting of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline, could cause accelerated engine wear and failure, fuel system damage and other problems such as false “check engine” lights.

The potential damage could result in costly repairs for unsuspecting consumers. This is especially tough for most motorists given that only about 40 percent of Americans have enough in savings to afford a major auto repair.

In June, the EPA approved the use of E15, and a handful of gas stations in Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas have begun to sell this fuel. There is a strong likelihood that retailers will market E15 in additional states soon unless regulators take immediate action to protect consumers.

Nearly all of the gasoline sold in the United States today is E10, which contains up to ten percent ethanol, primarily produced from corn. The ethanol industry has lobbied hard to increase the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline as a way to increase sales and help meet the Renewable Fuels Standard.

AAA’s concern with E15 is not about ethanol. In fact, AAA believes that ethanol-blended fuels have the potential to save Americans money and reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels. The problem is that available research, including the EPA’s exhaust emissions tests, is not sufficient evidence that E15 is safe to use in most vehicles.

Ethanol producers, backed by politicians reaping ethanol lobbying money, fired back by claiming the study by the CRC was rigged. Senior Vice President of the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) Ron Lamberty, called out AAA as “hypocrites” and alarmists for “turning a blind eye and most likely allowing people to shorten the lives of their vehicles by using unapproved and untested oil-company produced sub-octane gasoline for decades, while loudly attacking thoroughly tested and approved E15 when only a few stations are offering it for sale, is quite unbecoming for an organization that claims it puts the best interests of the American motorist first.”

Last November in California, E15 was outright banned as an option for motorists because, “it would take several years to complete the vehicle testing and rule development necessary to introduce a new transportation fuel into California’s market.”

The results will no doubt speak for themselves when E15 becomes more widespread at gas stations in other states this year. I for one, will avoid it.

( -)-(- )2 comments

Poll asks retards: “describe an assault weapon”

Reason/Rupe conducted a phone survey (of mostly retarded people) asking an open-ended question, “In just a few words, how would you describe an assault weapon?”

The list of uninformed opinions they posted shows how incredibly stupid some people are in this country when it comes to limiting the rights of others. In other words, they’ve been successfully brainwashed:

[...] A GUN

I THINK ANY WEAPON THAT CARRY MORE THEN 4 OR 5 BULLET IN A WEAPON

SOMETHING THAT IS QUICK FIRE AND HAS MORE THEN SIX ROUNDS IN IT.

SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPON CLIPS RAPID FIRE. DESIGNED FOR OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE.

ANYTHING CAN BE AN ASSAULT WEAPON LIKE KNIFE FRYING PAN HAMMER BOARD.

A WEAPON THAT SHOTS VERY FAST THAT HAS A MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS A LOT AMMUNITION AT ON TIME

A WEAPON DESIGNED FOR MASS KILLING

HIGH REPETITION LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE AND SIZE OF AMMUNITION

ANYTHING THAT SHOOTS CONSECUTIVELY

PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS GUNS, I DON’T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT GUNS BUT THEY SEEM KIND OF WICKED [...]

That’s just a small sampling, and shows that at least one person out there now thinks a hammer is an assault weapon. Fuck yeah, mission accomplished.

At this point, even sheriffs and police — the very folks who would supposedly be tasked with enforcing “assault weapon” bans — are starting to look at each other and shake their heads in disbelief.

( -)-(- )2 comments

Seattle gun buyback program turns into free marketplace

Seattle police held their first gun buyback program in 20 years on Monday. When the line of sellers started growing, things got… interesting:

[P]rivate gun collectors were working the large crowd as little makeshift gun shows began dotting the parking lot and sidewalks. Some even had “cash for guns” signs prominently displayed.

Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program.

People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers.

John Diaz, Seattles Police Chief, wasn’t pleased with the turn of events stating “I’d prefer they wouldn’t sell them,” but admitted it’s perfectly legal for private individuals to buy and sell guns, FOR NOW. Mayor Mike McGinn said at a news conference the private transactions are a loophole that needs to be closed. “There’s no background checks, and some (guns) could be exchanged on the streets that shouldn’t be in circulation.”

But Schuyler Taylor, a previous gun retailer attending the event in hopes of buying weapons, asked “Why not offer them cash versus a gift card? I’m still taking the guns off the streets; they’re just going in my safe.”

People were reportedly, at one point, jumping out of vehicles whilst sitting in traffic – making on the spot deals with the gun buyers.

The free market works! “Cash for guns” is the new cash for gold, that’s golden.

To top things off, some crazy guy nearly ended up selling a used “launch tube assembly for a Stinger portable surface-to-air missile” to a private party to use in the coming revolution. MURICAAA!!!

I can’t wait for one of these silly gun buyback programs to be announced in my area so I can run out and outbid the laughably low prices being offered by law enforcement.

( -)-(- )3 comments

Alex Jones will give $100K to next Paul Revere

Alex Jones — the tinfoil-hat wearing, alternative-media maven, and liberty activist who’s arguably been right more times than is comfortably acknowledged — is running a high-value prize contest called “Operation Paul Revere”. The contest terms:

Requirements
• Film can be documentary or fictional narrative (any genre)
• All work must be free of copyright issues. If requested by InfoWars, you must provide detailed information regarding the source, creator and background information of your work. If you utilize any 3rd party materials, such as music, you must provide license and/or consent forms to InfoWars upon request. Any news clips used must be short and clearly fair use.
• Videos must be in English or subtitled in English
• Submission deadline is 11:59 PST April 30, 2013
• The majority of the Content must be newly created and previously unpublished
• Submission consists of posting on YouTube and one other alternate video site on or before contest deadline and notifying InfoWars at PaulRevere@infowars.com
• Video title must include “Operation Paul Revere InfoWars.com Contest”
• Video description must include the website (http://www.infowars.com) It is important to “liberty place”, i.e. product placement of InfoWars.com and related Alex Jones awakening information tastefully into your production.
• Slate at beginning stating your name and InfoWars Contest information
• Running length must be between 3 minutes and 2 hours
• Film must contain no profanity, offensive language, nudity or otherwise objectionable material, the determination of which is solely at the discretion of InfoWars
• Multiple unique submissions are allowed and encouraged
• Cash Prize winners will agree to non-exclusive, unrestricted, royalty free use by InfoWars.com and Free Speech Systems, LLC, in perpetuity in the known universe. All contest entrants authorize InfoWars.com and Free Speech Systems, LLC, and its media platforms to air their submission in whole or in part in perpetuity.

Eligibility
• If a collaborative effort, one person must enter
• Contestants must be over 18. Minors wishing to participate must present a signed waiver from parent/legal guardian
• Residents of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Myanmar (Burma), Northern Ireland, and Quebec, or to other individuals restricted by U.S. export controls and sanctions are ineligible for Cash Prizes

Judging Criteria
This is a judged contest. Winner will be picked at the discretion of Alex Jones. Judging criteria will be:
• effectiveness in promoting liberty
• creativity and originality
• aesthetics

Entries will be available for public viewing and comment

Cash Prizes
• 1st Place: $100k cash prize
• 2nd Place: $10k cash prize
• 3rd Place: $5k cash prize

Requirements for payment of cash prizes are

(1) timely delivery of a properly-executed Filmmaker Agreement;

(2) timely delivery of all properly-executed Talent Release Forms (and, if applicable, Music Rights Clearance Forms);

(3) full content clearance by InfoWars of the submitted video

“I’m more excited about this than any other contest we’ve held. It is my goal to release the explosive power of liberty. If you are reading this information, remember YOU are the resistance.” – Alex Jones

Even though it’s a certainty that the contest announcement video will be better looking than the majority of the entries, this is an impressive feat: Jones putting his money where his mouth is.

I’m excited to see what kinds of pro-liberty (and anti-tyrannical fear-mongering, awkwardly entertaining, made-by-folks-who-don’t-realize-how-they-sound) videos this will turn up. Here’s hoping the winner doesn’t turn out to be a two-hour documentary. Because seriously, have you ever watched a two hour documentary with a micro budget? Yawn.

( -)-(- )3 comments

Tancredo reneges on pot promise, but still cool with it

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (Republican/Constitution Party) made a promise last year that if Amendment 64 passed — the marijuana legalization initiative — he’d roll up a doobie and giggle all Tommy Tanchongo on us:

“Look, I made a bet with the producer of the film that if Amendment 64 passed (I did not think it would) that I would smoke pot,” he said through his research and education institute, the Rocky Mountain Foundation. “I will therefore smoke pot under circumstances we both agree are legal under Colorado law. Hey, it’s better than having to do a stupid dance as (Denver) Mayor (Michael) Hancock must perform as a result of losing a bet on the Broncos beating the Ravens.

The promise was apparently only half-hearted, because after some cajoling from his wife he’s now doing the politician thing and saying it’s not going to happen:

Tom Tancredo has just said “no.”

Under pressure from his wife and grandchildren, the former GOP congressman will renege on a public pledge to smoke marijuana, which he made after losing a bet on Colorado’s pot-legalization initiative on Election Day.

Tancredo, a conservative Republican who has been out of Congress since 2009, supported Colorado’s Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana in his home state when it passed on election day. Tancredo said he had never smoked marijuana and that he did not condone its use, but argued that the government shouldn’t tell adults what they can or can’t ingest.

The former congressman never thought it would pass. “I thought it would take at least one more time around to do it,” Tancredo told ABC News last week. He made a bet with film producer Adam Hartle, who was in Colorado to make a film on the pot measure, agreeing to smoke marijuana if it became legal.

Recently, Tancredo said he would make good on the bet, agreeing to inhale “just a puff” with Hartle, leaving the filmmaker to handle the marijuana procurement. On Friday, he even suggested Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper should join in.

But that made a lot of people unhappy, including Tancredo’s family, and now the former congressman says he won’t do it.

“My wife is absolutely-she’s pissed,” Tancredo told ABC News last week. “Oh man, she is not happy.”

Also upset were his grandkids (really? that part is surprising).

To temper the wimping out, Tancredo has fully acknowledged that marijuana is a state’s rights issue and that the nanny state is a threat to individual liberties.

“My conservative friends just believe what I’m doing is encouraging people to smoke it,” Tancredo said. “I don’t think people should. That decision is up to an individual. An adult, in this society, is not something the government should have any control over.”

All in all, good on Tancredo for having the cajones to finally come around to libertarian principles on individual choice, but we’re more than a tad disappointed he’s only latching on to the issue after the battle is already won.

For his support, we give him honorary dreadlock status — which means very little because he merely ends up looking like a sober white guy acting like a poser at a Phish concert.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

DHS ordering 7,000 rifles “for personal defense use”

The Department of Homeland Security is currently soliciting RFP’s to purchase 7,000 “personal defense” weapons, also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. From Radio Vice Online:

The United States Department of Homeland Security has stated a rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO (compatible with .223) with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…”

Well smack me up-side the head. First, a hat tip to Breitbart’s Awr Hawkins who pointed us to a posted General Services Administration (GSA) business opportunity solicitation posted and updated last summer. Basically, the site posts a request for proposal (RFP) for personal defense weapons for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The irony is staggering. The actual text from Solicitation HSCEMS-12-R-00011 has been excellently marked up by Radio Vice Online’s Steve McGough:

Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document. The “assault weapon” terminology is only used for non-LEOs and non-military who own those firearms.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …

In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.

The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

If you did not catch the interesting part in one of the quoted sentences above, let me point it out to you. The personal defense weapon should be select-fire capable.

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…

The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).

From the Fire Control Section, paragraph 3.10.1.

The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic. The selector shall have positions which are clearly labeled for the mode of fire.

This formal DHS RFP – which is specific concerning requirements – clearly indicates a select-fire rifle is appropriate for personal defense in close quarters.

They will get the good stuff, a selector switch for full auto to blow through all 30 rounds of each magazine included in the request in no time flat. We have to pull the trigger one shot at a time yet ours are the “assault weapons,” not “personal defense weapons,” when we own the same firearm minus the full auto design.

Are they planning on going to war? It sure would seem that way with the ammo they recently purchased.

Who will be the enemy? Those who have only “assault weapons” that fire one shot at a time? I believe the DHS should have the term “assault weapons” since they are the assaulters and we should get the term “personal defense weapons” to defend ourselves and our families.

( -)-(- )11 comments