Pot Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

FedGov is pretending to give the idea of self-ownership another shot, the AP is reporting. This time, it appears, the dying, rather than the sick are the intended recipients of a small shot of liberty.

This round, like those before it, matches one person (and her attorney husband) against the state leviathan and its endless cash. Although a long shot in this political climate that has Bush’s hands tightly around Liberty’s neck, there is the possibility of an upset here. If the case somehow goes back to the Supreme Court and is argued well, the “justices” (assuming their hypocrisy has an end) may have a difficult time opining against the right to life when they just ruled in favor of the right to death.

Of course, the Administration has made a compelling case against medical freedom by stating that, well, marijuana is bad and that the government doesn’t like it, or some such stirring oration. More on the well-reasoned opposition from the ass’s mouth:

“There is no fundamental right to distribute, cultivate or possess marijuana,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan, the government’s lead medical marijuana attorney, wrote to the appeals court.

From an ethical medical standpoint, the government sounds foolish beyond description. While no one enjoys a right to be healthy, the pursuit of health, like that of happiness is a fundamental right.

If this reality were somewhat more normal and felt a bit less like an altered, down-is-up, parallel one, it might shock the sensibilities that someone like Mark Quinlivan could rise to the level of Assistant US Attorney and not hold the slightest understanding of the Constitution. His position, no more than a parroting of what the Administration’s puppet masters dictate, is without authority on at least three constitutional levels.

Firstly, the 9th Amendment clearly states that rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive, stating, in clear language, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Mr. Quinlivan assumes the Constitution is dead wrong on this point. He seems to subscribe to the tyrannical belief that many were concerned about with respect to a bill of rights. James Madison wrote on this point, illustrating the concern.

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”

While well-intending, the verbal guard against statism became, in time, less than a paper tiger.

The 10th Amendment makes it very clear for anyone with third grade reading comprehension skills that the federal government’s power is limited to what the Constitution grants it, and that any power not so delegated, is reserved to the states.

Then there is the “penumbra” of a privacy right (violations of which are not actual if perpetrated by the government) located within the Bill of Rights by court opinion in Griswold vs. Connecticut. In that case the government saw fit to rule in favor of defendants who were trafficking drugs that were illegal under state law. Up to this point, the government has been blazing newer and wider trails of sanctimony by ruling against defendants who are trafficking drugs that are legal under state law.

None of this matters to Messrs. Bush and Quinlivan, who usurp rights for usurpation’s sake. But precedent and constitutionality aside, the entire situation can be distilled down to simple matter of personal choice. If I own my body, as I do my mind, it would reasonably follow that I have as much a right to ingest a tray of black Afghani Hash brownies as I do to chain smoke filter-less Pall Malls as I shoot a fifth of Everclear with a bacon grease chaser. I can not legally do the former, but the latter act, the more ill-advised, I can perform without fear or threat whenever I wish. I am so blessed to have a government that protects me from myself.

That I can harm myself with some substances but not others, or that I can’t choose my own medication while the FDA approves dangerous drugs with horrifying side effects on a daily basis magnifies the absurdity of Washington’s position. If I truly feel that my physical, mental and spiritual heath is best maintained by copulating with racially-mixed circus midgets in a bathtub full of no. 3 heroin, I can’t imagine that being anyone else’s business, so long as the little people were there by choice. Likewise, if I choose to forgo conventional poison therapy to treat cancer, and favor the odds of laetrile and ozonation, that too, is solely my concern. But doctors who operate outside of the mainstream and offer their patients the treatment of their choice, are usually jailed and have their medical licenses revoked. Thus much for the penumbras of the Constitution.

And let us not forget that terminal patients often get all the opiates they want. The dying are sent home with bags of potent and addictive Morphine, but a few tokes of pot could lead to ruin. No one seriously believes that government is a bit concerned that someone with stage IVb pancreatic cancer might be victimized by marijuana’s “gateway drug” charms and start snorting lines of coke in the stall at the local nightclub.

Although I am excited about any foot in the door and hope those worried about a slippery drug slope are right, this upcoming case isn’t really about medical marijuana or even the prohibition of recreational drugs. It is about self-ownership and choice. If we own our bodies, we can put anything we wish into them. If we don’t, then someone else does, which makes us slaves. There is really no third option.


The Things We Shove…

As the war on error against the liberal/conservative demagogues continues, I thought it would be funny to point out some interesting contrasting Google searches:

up your liberal ass
up your democrat ass

up your conservative ass
up your republican ass

And for good measure (a whopping 2 results):

up your libertarian ass

Really, this is just Saturday night fun/boredom, carry on with your usual weekend drinking and debauchery, we’ll catch ya later.

But seriously… at least Penn Jillette knows what the ellipsis is all about.


GYWO #53: Mr. Super President

GYWO #53: Mr. Super President

David Rees’s Get Your War On series rarely fails to make me laugh as he exposes the apparent foibles of our leaders and government, peppering his comics with cussing and in-your-face truisms. So it’s no suprise that I nearly ruined a keyboard after spewing out my drink reading his latest installment and got to this strip. I can only wonder if Mr. Super President’s arch-nemesis is the Evil Veto Bandit.

Go read the rest of GYWO #53, some definite political comedy gold.

( -)-(- )Comments Off on GYWO #53: Mr. Super President

Ohio: Going off the Deep End in Lorain

I’m as opposed to rape and sexual assualt as the next person. I’m especially protective of children when they become the victims of such heinous acts. In Lorain, Ohio, they are taking things too far. To begin, they wish to establish the city as a predator-free zone. That’s fine until one looks at the details:

The ordinance would prohibit sexual predators, the most dangerous class of registered sex offenders, from living within 2,500 feet of any school, library, day care, park or public pool in Lorain. Some on council also favor adding school bus stops to the list.

Effectively, the ordinance would prohibit sexual predators from living in much of the city. […]

Now Provenza’s office must research if the ordinance can include all categories of sex offenders; if it can also include school bus stops; and the maximum distance possible to restrict sex offenders.

No matter how one feels about such ordinances, tracking devices or notification programs across the country, we also need to look at how people in Lorain define sexual offenses. In one case, a principal recently lost his job over this silly issue:

Robert Holloway, 49, of Parma, quit his job as principal of St. Anthony of Padua school in Lorain last month, said the Rev. Joe West, pastor of St. Anthony parish. Holloway already had been suspended when he chose to quit.

Holloway told police that he kissed the feet of three 14-year-old boys after promising to do so 50 times if educators lost a recent teacher-student volleyball game.

West wrote St. Anthony parents last week to say that he accepted Holloway’s resignation.

According to a Lorain police report, Holloway paid each student $15 as promised besides kissing their feet – one boys’ in the school library and the other two in the gym, the report stated.

The boys said they did not believe the prank was done in a sexual way and Lorain police said no criminal charges would be filed.

It gets worse. They seem so uptight they’d even arrest Charlie Brown for his crush on that little red-haired girl. Here’s today’s news from Lorain:

School documents provided by Barth and the boy’s father, Frank Johnson, did not give specifics on the incident but showed that the second-grader was removed from school on Tuesday for ”sexual harassment during gym.” It also states the student ”admits to writing notes saying ‘I love you’ and giving them to a student.”

”It’s an embarrassment to me and it’s an embarrassment to him because he doesn’t understand what’s going on,” Barth said.

Lorain schools spokesman Dean Schnurr confirmed yesterday that a student was sent home on an ”emergency removal” for inappropriate actions. Schnurr insisted that his removal was a minor, precautionary action.

”It’s not a disciplinary action,” Schnurr said yesterday, adding the allegation will not be placed in the student’s permanent record. ”We don’t want to put something in the permanent record of a youngster who may not understand what they did wrong.

”He admitted to what he was being accused of,” Schnurr said, unable to give specifics but said they were ”inappropriate” in nature.

However, the student’s mother said the school assumed her son touched the girl because he had written her a love letter a few weeks ago.

”Apparently, they had to treat it as sexual harassment,” Barth said, adding the girl has been friends with her son for a long time. ”And then he was given a day off of school because of passing notes that say ‘I love you.”’

To quote Gwen Stefani, “The shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S.”


Florida: We’re Not Gonna Take It Anymore

Yesterday, we brought you the story a the St. Petersburg man who blew out the tires of someone who more than deserved it. Today’s good news comes from Florida, as well. Check out this report from West Palm Beach:

Ralph Thomas picked the wrong place to break into early Friday morning.

That’s because parishioners have taken turns sleeping inside the Church of the Nazarene at 5312 Broadway in West Palm Beach to keep burglars at bay since their church was hit about two months ago.

So while Thomas, 47, climbed up on the roof about 1 a.m. and eyed a second story window, Juan Delfin was wide awake, listening and looking for any signs of prowlers.

“It just happened to be my night,” said Delfin, who covered the 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. shift. “The guys called us from downstairs from a cell phone and told us that they saw two men trying to break in.”

Delfin, 26, woke the other two men on his floor, Esteban Mendoza and Aristeo Paxtor. They got baseball bats and broomsticks and waited. “That was the plan,” said Delfin, who could hear Thomas talk to another man and called police.

Thomas broke a window on the north side of the building that led to a room with a desk and a computer. He climbed through the window and made his way to the door, police said.

“We were ready,” Mendoza, 24, said. “When he opened the door and walked out, one of our friends hit him with a bat.”

Perhaps I’ll spend my next vacation in Florida, as opposed to Texas.


Politics and Fashion

According to this article, cleavage is in with the new spring fashions:

Get your doughy upper arms and shoulders out of their winter hibernation, because this spring and summer halters will be everywhere — tops, dresses and swimsuits. Come to think of it, if you’re bigger than a B-cup, you’d better make sure you wear the right bra.

Bust support was the only thing models in Thursday’s Spring Preview fashion show by Nordstrom didn’t have to worry about as they strutted in this season’s trends, which included many, many dresses in cotton, chiffon, jersey, lace and crochet.

Yes, dresses. The dress gets a bad rap as a foofy, useless item of girlie clothing, evocative of uncomfortable things our mothers crammed us into as children, usually in preparation for horrifically dull events. But spring lines are filled with unstuffy, even edgy dresses that can be worn and worn again as one-stop dressing or layered and accessorized to fit any occasion.

If partially bared boobs are to continue to be the style trend, it might help this libertarian candidate get a few more votes in November.

( -)-(- )Comments Off on Politics and Fashion

Drinking for Texans: Friday Night Open Thread

In the spirit of our founding fathers and in remembrance of lost freedoms in Texas, I’ll be drinking beer tonight — but neither Shiner Bock nor Lone Star. I’m not sure if the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission gets a cut from beers brewed or bottled in Texas or not. Until I know for sure, I’ll not support those thugs — but will probably drink Sam Adams instead.

BTW, the Sam Adams Brewery has one of their advertisements available online which celebrates the values of independence and freedom, values once held by Texas politicians. From the commercial:

You can’t change the course of history with watery beer.

Of course, the neocons and their neoprohibitionist cronies wish to stifle revolution. In the meantime, Michelle Shingal and I are considering making a batch of T-shirts in support of the bar owners suffering financially and people who wish to just go grab a few beers. We need a witty theme for them, though. The first ideas included these captions:

“Just say no, don’t blow”.

“Hell no, we won’t blow”.

“Friends don’t let friends blow drunk”

The problem’s that they’re not requiring breathlizer evidence to bust people drinking in Texas. Your witty T-shirt concepts would be appreciated.

In the mean time, it’s Friday night. Watch the Sam Adams video, grab your favorite brew, and post a few T-shirt ideas or other commentary. I’m going out, and will probably CUI (Comment Under the Influence) upon my return. It’s a safe bet I’ll be plotting some sort of revolutionary scheme once I get a few Sam Adams under my belt.


Save St. Petersburg’s Vigilante Hero

A great story swiped from Sploid:

A St. Petersburg man is lucky to be alive today after attempting one of the most ill-fated car thefts ever.

Randy H. Colby, 44, sped off in a white Chevy pick up stolen from the lot of an auto shop. As he approached a red light, he rear-ended the Nissan truck ahead him, necessitating yet another getaway.

Unluckily for Colby, that Nissan was driven by William McArthur Sams, 27, a man with a short temper and a semiautomatic handgun.

Sams gave chase, catching up with Colby at a traffic light. This time Colby backed into Sams before taking off.

At the next light Sams grabbed his gun and ran after Colby.

“Mr. Sams beat on the side of the pickup and then fired one round at one of the driver’s side tires, deflating the tire,” a report said.

An officer on the scene pulled her gun and order Sams to put down his gun. Before dropping his weapon Sams squeezed off another round, deflating the other front tire.

A desperate Colby made a sad effort to get away with two flat tires. It was only a matter of time before he was caught.

Colby is in jail facing charges of auto theft and aggravated assault with a motor vehicle.

Sams has not yet been charged with anything, though an investigation is underway.

While it’s a good chance Sams may get off the hook, he may in fact be charged with discharging a firearm or some other stupid charge. In an effort to kill that possibility in the crib and give a big thanks to our neighborhood vigilante heroes, how about calling the St. Petersburg Police Department and asking that Sams be let go: 727-893-7780

Or alternately, St Petersburg’s Mayor’s office at 727-893-7201


Badnarik Site Temporarily Down

The Badnarik for Congress site has been up and down for a few hours. Allen Hacker asked me to advise you that they’re aware of the problem and working diligently on it. I’ve been chatting with Hacker, Brad Spangler and with their server company — so I know they are doing everything possible at this moment. Hopefully, it will be back up in quickly.


Neoprohibitionist Update: Preemptive War Continues in Texas

As most of you are aware by now, they’re busting people inside of bars in Texas for drinking. That’s pretty much the same as arresting people at Wal-Mart for shopping or busting people at church for worshipping. The Houston Chronical gives us the up-to-date count:

More than 2,200 people have been arrested in Texas bars in the six months since the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission announced a crackdown on public intoxication, primarily targeting bars.

Quite a few people are calling this a preemptive war against drunk drivers. Radley Balko calls it “The March to Neoprohibition.” George W. Bush, the former governor of Texas, has certainly set the stage, as Jon Swift details:

Recently, President Bush reaffirmed his doctrine of “preemptive war.” The President’s rationale for preemptive war is a simple one: Prevent terrorist attacks before they happen by invading countries that might possibly be loosely linked to potential suspected terrorists. Already his ideas are having far-reaching effects in unexpected ways. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has decided to follow the President’s lead by launching preemptive assaults against would-be drunk drivers in order to stop drunk driving accidents before they happen. Their unique and ingenious solution: Arrest people in bars for being drunk.

see more…


John Stossel Defends “Stupid in America”

John Stossel recently created a special ABC News report called “Stupid in America” — which can be viewed at one of the links provided here in case you missed it.

Since then, it seems he’s been under fire from almost every left-leaning organization in the country. He’s written his own defense, providing evidence and explanations which refute their innacurate claims. Here’s but one (of many) gems:

MediaMatters, a liberal media watchdog group, claimed we fudged per-pupil spending numbers when we said per-pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, has doubled to “more than $10,000 per pupil per year.” They point to the “most recent” 2003 U.S. Census figure of $8,019 per pupil as a “gotcha.” In fact, the estimates for 2004-05 from the U.S. Department of Education are well over $10,000 per pupil. Even using MediaMatters’ own number, it is irrefutable that per-pupil spending has doubled over the last 30 years.

The National Education Association stooped to personal attacks, which backfired as well:

The NEA also claimed I’m not objective because I make speeches for money. I do, but I donate the money to charities. For example, I give money to Student Sponsor Partners, an organization that pays for poor kids to go to private school. You might say I put my money where my mouth is — unlike the teachers’ organizations, which often put their mouths where the money is.

Keep up the good work, John. We’re rooting for you here at HoT.



TABC Board: Stupid Is as Stupid Does

The other day, Michelle Shinghal broke a news story from her neck of the woods which provides that law enforcement officials are going inside bars to arrest people for public intoxication in the Dallas area. Now it seems pretty clear this is a statewide campaign in Texas.

First of all, the Texas bureaucrats with badges admit to it:

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission’s Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkeness, Beck said.

Then they defend their actions:

“There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car,” Beck said. “People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.”

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

According to one report, TABC is not concerned with individual rights:

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.

If one decides to take a cab, hire a limo, or have a designated driver they still have no rights under this new practice. The proprieter of the establishment loses his rights, too. That’s stupid. If they’re concerned about people jumping off their balconies into their pools, it seems that one’s own house may soon be defined as public property. That’s really stupid.

We’ve all done stupid things when drinking, as the former governor of the state, his twin daughters and even other family members can surely attest. My trangressions range from slurring my speech to flirting with women with jealous husbands to telling really lame jokes. I’m sure most will agree that arresting someone for drinking inside a bar is about the most stupid thing man can imagine.

I wonder if the TABC be setting up a large barbed-wire concentration camp styled facility to handle all the business immediately following the first home football game in Austin.

One thing we can do is keep the TABC buffoons too damned busy to engage in these ludicrous raids. You can e-mail their complaint line, call their complaint line at 888-843-8222, or call the TABC executive department at 512-206-3221.


Out With the Old, In With the…Old

Amid the certainty that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and his ilk, the US government, after weeks of thumb-twiddling, thought it important to oust them. After teaming with the “freedom fighting” Northern Alliance, Administration officials heaped large piles of praise on themselves for opposing the Taliban regime on moral issues, as well.

While suddenly unaware of the gross mistreatment of women throughout the Arab world, GOP mouthpieces and their trained parrots in the media feigned horror at the treatment of women in Afghanistan and hailed our military as a messianic liberation force akin to those who landed at Normandy and Omaha. The Taliban, admittedly a pack of thugs whose collective back begs for the lash, were doubtless a repressive lot who gave aid and comfort to the crazed zealots of Islam who murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11 in addition to having ruled their male and female subjects alike with an iron fist.

Stories of Taliban oppression are everywhere. A simple web search will span the gamut from truth to exaggeration to a bewildering personification of evil itself. And while there is little reason to doubt the tales of flogging, jailing and insane degrees of sex-segregation attributed to these criminals, the “liberation” stopped well short of any real change within the framework of the new and improved Afghan government.

It is apparently impossible to slip in a human rights suggestion between dictating our expectations on border policy and demanding a reduction in poppy growth. Our priorities are again right in line with logic.

The AP continues the horrifying tale of an Afghani man the state shamelessly wants executed for converting to Christianity. The following demonstrates the nature of the kinder, gentler Afghanistan we brought to power at considerable financial and human cost:

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to “pull him into pieces.”

In the allegedly free, post-Taliban Afghanistan that has received billions in US “foreign aid,” a country in which it was vital to wrestle control away from the fanatics, the government murders its citizens as punishment for their private spiritual beliefs. As the AP reported Wednesday, this man’s only defense is insanity.

“We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn’t talk like a normal person,” prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari told The Associated Press.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

To recap: government officials of allegedly sound mind will only fail to murder one of their citizens for subscribing to different religious beliefs than they do if it can be proven that he is the crazy one.

Thank God Allah we ran the pro-terrorists out of Kabul.

When asked about the situation, President Bush began his statement with an admission we have long anticipated, confessing that he is “deeply troubled.” In an obvious attempt to lighten the mood after such a bombshell, he mentioned the “principle of freedom,” a concept he is completely ignorant of. His final remarks couldn’t be heard over the laughter.


Alabama Governor’s Race: The Roy Moore Argument for Execution of Homosexuals

“The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this [homosexual] lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.”

The quotation above is not from Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps, but from Alabama Republican gubernatoral candidate Roy Moore. The context is Ex parte H.H., where the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice tackled the issue of whether homosexual parents have the same rights as their straight former partners. I added the emphasis.

In this case, Moore cited biblical passages as part of his concurrence:

Homosexuality is strongly condemned in the common law because it violates both natural and revealed law. The author of Genesis writes: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 1:27, 2:24 (King James). The law of the Old Testament enforced this distinction between the genders by stating that “[i]f a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 (King James).

From the passage in Leviticus 20:13, the early western legal tradition garnered its laws on homosexuality. The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. “It is Justinian’s collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English).” (9) The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris:

“‘Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,’ and [is] translated in a footnote as ‘Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.’ At common law ‘sodomy’ and the phrase ‘infamous crime against nature’ were often used interchangeably.”

In case any of you aren’t familiar with the passage Moore used, here’s the entire verse Moore quoted (NIV and emphasis added). It exposes the part of “early western legal tradition” that Moore purposefully omitted.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

As it’s an election year, one might expect Moore to waffle a bit on this one. It’s been reported that he’s done so in the past. There may be some argument over translation of the Leviticus verse (which is why I used a link which provides multiple translations) in question. There can be no argument that Moore also used this non-biblical argument to support his call for execution, though (emphasis added):

Sodomy was codified by statute as a serious crime early in England. “The earliest English secular legislation on the subject dates from 1533, when Parliament under Henry VIII classified buggery (by now a euphemism for same-sex activity, bestiality, and anal intercourse) as a felony. Penalties included death, losses of goods, and loss of lands.”

That Moore finds homosexuality abominable is Moore’s personal right. That Moore would write that the state has and “must use” the power of the sword to protect children from the influence of homosexuals clearly indicates that he’s not suitable to hold any public office — no matter your political party, philosophical ponderings or personal preferences.

If executing gay people isn’t bad enough, the situation could become even scarier if Moore is elected. To defend his position in this case, Moore wrote:

Lest there be any doubt, the Legislature made it clear that its definition of “deviate sexual intercourse” in § 13A-6-65(a)(3) “[made] all homosexual conduct criminal.” Commentary to § 13A-6-65 (emphasis added). (5)

Footnote (5) provides:

5. Section 13A-6-60 defines “deviate sexual intercourse” as “[a]ny act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.

In other words, he’ll likely stick it to heterosexuals, too. According to Alabama code (pertinent definitions here), it’s a crime for a 15 year and 11 month old teenager to receive oral sex from a 16 year and 1 month old. It’s also a crime, under any circumstances, for any person to give or recieve oral sex outside of the marital bedroom.

Some form of the word “moral” appears 32 times in a document supposedly about a decision based on the law, and not on Moore’s religious beliefs. Additionally, he finds no problems with laws dealing with “moral turpitude” and wrote that common law arguments from centuries ago (unless a state law has been passed which directly addresses the issue at hand) should be the basis for determining criminal responsibility in such cases.

Based on his own words, we now know that Moore would execute homosexuals if state law allowed for it. We don’t yet know how far he’d take it if our teenagers get caught engaged in some heavy petting or if an unmarried couple is exposed for having oral sex. I don’t wish to ever have to find out, either.

Earlier today, I outlined the key choices for Governor of Alabama. If you support killing fags, there’s but one choice for Governor. There are a variety of choices for the rest of you, though.

If you’re socially liberal, you can vote for Nall or perhaps Siegelman. If you’re economically liberal, vote for one of the three tax and spenders: Riley, Baxley or Siegelman. If you’re a true economic conservative who deplores the moral position taken by Roy Moore, Nall is the only choice available. What ever you do, please cast your vote (or your support, if you live outside of Alabama) against Moore.



Alabama’s Race for Governor from the 50 Yard Line

Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

Of all the gubernatoral elections to be held this upcoming November, perhaps Alabama happens to have the most colorful contest. Even The New York Times ran this headline yesterday: “In Race to Lead Alabama, It’s Politics as Unusual”. The following key contenders showed at the starting gate:

  • Former Governor “the Don” Siegelman, currently under indictment for what may be politically based charges, seeks the Democratic nod. Despite a trial date of May 1, the criminal allegations may not impact the Don at the ballot box, as indictments and gubernatoral politics go hand in hand in the Heart of Dixie. His key platform item is the establishment of a state lottery.
  • Incumbent Governor “Billion Dollar Bob” Riley, the Republican who tried to significantly raise taxes in the name of Jesus. Riley is trying to overcome his stinging loss on that bill by taking credit for a budget surplus which he predicted would be a deficit — the very basis for his call for the largest tax increase in state history. Riley has Abramoff problems, but seems to have the state GOP Chairman, Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh, on his side. Twinkle once opposed the Riley tax plan, then changed sides as she went to work for the governor as his appointments secretary and then deputy chief of staff. She left the governor’s office to chair the Alabama Republican Party just in time for the big GOP showdown in the state. She’s also under fire for taking special interest money.
  • Libertarian activist Loretta “No Panties” Nall, a key player in state, national, and international drug war and prison reform issues. Recently in the news because of her boobs and lack of undergarments, Nall is trying to overcome the public perception of being a single issue candidate (she isn’t) and knock down the barrier of egregious ballot access laws.
  • Current Lt. Governor “I Love Lucy” Baxley, a Democrat who ducked the issues by running on a platform of “We [heart symbol] Lucy” last election cycle. She started with the same platform this time, but has been under fire for copping out on the issues. It seems she may be trying to bury this reputation along with this website banner.
  • Former Judge Roy “Ten Commandments” Moore, who just squashed rumors of an independent or third-party bid and will run against Riley for the GOP nod. Moore is running in opposition to the former Riley tax increase plan (as opposed to the tax decrease plan Riley recently proposed — coincidentally while running for office, go figure). However, during the 2003 tax increase showdown, Moore remained conspiculously silent on the tax issue, instead focusing his efforts (and needed media attention) on an expensive rock at the state Supreme Court building.
  • I’m not actively working for any of these campaigns, but have contacts in all of them. It’s already been a lot of fun to watch this race from the sidelines, and I expect the last three quarters of the game to become even more exciting.


    R for Revolution

    A guest column by Jon Airheart

    “Remember, Remember (the 5th of November)” is the battle cry of a masked man known only as V in the film V for Vendetta. The date serves as a historic anniversary of an act of civil disobedience in which freedom conquered tyranny — for a moment, anyway.

    The date has lost all significance some hundreds of years later. It has all but been removed from history texts, in fact. It quickly becomes apparent that tyranny is alive and well in a futuristic England that is not all that futuristic at all thanks to its totalitarian government.

    V is an eccentric enigma, clothed in all black, hell-bent on revenge and, ultimately, revolution. It turns out to be neither quick nor easy. But with a detailed plan and an unmatched determination, anything is possible.

    The film refers to the United States as the former United States. We are alluded to as a 3rd world country in shambles.

    I tried to play a song by America on my iPod recently and it couldn’t read it. It would just go to the next song. For some strange reason it didn’t recognize America.

    I can relate.

    If Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay aren’t grabbing scandalous headlines, the president is by defending warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens or allowing foreign countries to manage our seaports. We pay some farmers not to grow crops, and arrest sick people for growing illegal ones. The Supreme Court thinks it’s okay to take your home and give it to a business to increase the tax base. In many cases people not only lose their homes to eminent domain abuse but they literally pay for it through corporate subsidies. The entire country used to be a free speech zone, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now it’s a 15-square foot fenced in cage open from noon to four, Monday through Friday, that you need 2 forms of ID to get into. Then there’s the Patriot Act — unconstitutional legislation voted on by a Congress that didn’t even read it — and it was just renewed. And the economy? The Senate just voted to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion. Every man, woman and child in America now owes $30,000 apiece. Is it a debt ceiling or a debt sunroof?

    Back to my iPod story, it wound up getting worse. Where once was bountiful, beautiful music and easy to read digital data, there was now only weird sounds and frown faces. I tried to comprehend how and why it happened, to no avail. The initial experience put me in less than a good mood, needless to say. But the disparaging feeling did not last long at all. I remembered I had a warranty. One of two things will happen when I make the time to call Apple. It will either be fixed or I will get a new one.

    America, the country, is not that different. We, too, have a warranty: The Constitution and its Bill of Rights. We just have to make the time to call our representatives and remember to vote. Two things can happen once again. Either our current members of Congress will shape up or they will be ridden out of town.

    Two different characters mention in the film more than once that they do not believe in coincidence. The movie opened to audiences on March 17, the eve of the 3rd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The whole movie revolves around the past, present and future of a date in early November. This year, elections will be held across the nation on the 7th of November.

    In the film, there is a shipping company called BFC that delivers items that help accelerate the tipping point of V’s revolution. In District 10 of Texas there is a political campaign called Badnarik for Congress that has the best chance this year to send a shock wave through the American political system, the likes of which haven’t been seen in decades.

    Remember, remember – the 7th of November! This is the new battle cry of hope. Of change. Of freedom, not fear.


    Libertarians Blinded to Corporate Eminent Domain Abuse?

    Generally, the writers from the Ludwig von Mises Institute make good economic sense. They do until they start talking about Wal-Mart, at least. At this point, they seem to don blinders which shield them from seeing the eminent domain abuse and corporate welfare that provides Wally World with unfair economic advantages.

    The latest article from the Ludwig von Mises Institute begins this way:

    The attack on Wal-Mart essentially comes down this: opposition to economic progress, defined as greater availability of goods and services people want at ever lower prices that indicate an ever wiser use of resources in the service of society.

    The writer could not be more wrong. This is an attack on Wal-Mart, as is this, this, this and this. In each of these cases, Wal-Mart is being challenged for sucking the public teat or acquiring property through the use of eminent domain.

    If the bright and generally accurate people writing at mises.org ignored Wal-Mart’s use of tax dollars or land seizing habits once, I’d simply let the matter drop. However, they keep singing free market praises for Wal-Mart again and again — while challenging those of us who oppose local government providing Wal-Mart with tens of millions of dollars of tax abatements and outright financial gifts. I never thought I’d see the day when a libertarian institution criticized me for being in opposition to the use of eminent domain which serves some corporate interest.

    Hey Lew, would you mind enlightening your colleagues about the elephant sitting in the living room?


    Rats Fleeing the Sinking Ship?

    Once can be a fluke. Twice may be coincidence. This looks like a trend:

    Peggy Noonan: “Back to Mr. Bush in 2000. I believe it is fair to say most Republicans did not think George W. Bush was motivated to run for the presidency for the primary reason of cutting or controlling spending. But it is also fair to say that they did not think he was Lyndon B. Johnson. And that’s what he’s turned into.

    Andrew Sullivan: “We have learned a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis and several thousand killed and injured American soldiers than for a few humiliated pundits.”

    George Will: “Three years ago the administration had a theory: Democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable culture, they can also create such a culture. That theory has been a casualty of the war that began three years ago today.”

    Chuck Hagel: “I think we have had a low-grade civil war going on in Iraq, certainly the last six months, maybe the last year. Our own generals have told me that privately.”

    William F. Buckley: “One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . . And the administration has, now, to cope with failure.”

    Wanna see the proposed conservative solution?

    Cal Thomas: “Maybe it’s time for a strong third party, or failing that, another revolution.”


    Pic of the Day (or last three years, even)

    People rag on me daily for my position on the U.S. military engagement in Iraq and for covering South Park related issues. Here’s (finally) absolute proof that the South Park message significantly impacts the American political scene — as well as soldiers on the firing line.

    It’s also proof that the designation “South Park Republican” is absolute oxymoronic bullshit.

    Props to Daniel via Xeni.


    My Lai Type Massacre in Iraq?

    “Fortunately, history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack. History is a bigger picture, and it takes some time and perspective to measure accurately.” — Donald Rumsfeld in Sunday’s WaPo

    Time may have unearthed another bombshell pertaining to the Iraq war. In this exclusive article, they allege that Marines indiscriminately shot up several families in apparant retaliation for a roadside bomb fatality. From the article:

    …a Marine communiqué from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi reported that Terrazas and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the blast and that “gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire,” prompting the Marines to return fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding one other. […]

    But the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. […]

    According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military’s initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. […]

    But the military’s own reconstruction of events and the accounts of town residents interviewed by TIME–including six whose family members were killed that day–paint a picture of a devastatingly violent response by a group of U.S. troops who had lost one of their own to a deadly insurgent attack and believed they were under fire. TIME obtained a videotape that purports to show the aftermath of the Marines’ assault and provides graphic documentation of its human toll. […]

    When the Marines entered the house, they were shouting in English. “First, they went into my father’s room, where he was reading the Koran,” she claims, “and we heard shots.” According to Eman, the Marines then entered the living room. “I couldn’t see their faces very well–only their guns sticking into the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny.” She claims the troops started firing toward the corner of the room where she and her younger brother Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding; the other adults shielded the children from the bullets but died in the process. Eman says her leg was hit by a piece of metal and Abdul Rahman was shot near his shoulder. “We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting ‘Why did you do this to our family?’ And one Iraqi soldier tells me, ‘We didn’t do it. The Americans did.'” […]

    According to military officials, the Marines say they then started taking fire from the direction of a second house, prompting them to break down the door of that house and throw in a grenade, blowing up a propane tank in the kitchen. The Marines then began firing, killing eight residents–including the owner, his wife, the owner’s sister, a 2-year-old son and three young daughters. […]

    The Marines raided a third house, which belongs to a man named Ahmed Ayed. One of Ahmed’s five sons, Yousif, who lived in a house next door, told TIME that after hearing a prolonged burst of gunfire from his father’s house, he rushed over. Iraqi soldiers keeping watch in the garden prevented him from going in. “They told me, ‘There’s nothing you can do. Don’t come closer, or the Americans will kill you too.’ The Americans didn’t let anybody into the house until 6:30 the next morning.” Ayed says that by then the bodies were gone; all the dead had been zipped into U.S. body bags and taken by Marines to a local hospital morgue. “But we could tell from the blood tracks across the floor what happened,” Ayed claims. “The Americans gathered my four brothers and took them inside my father’s bedroom, to a closet. They killed them inside the closet.”

    Time provides that the military version of events is not the same as what I just posted. This said, the military has not told a consistent story and seems to be trying to cover up. I provided what I’d guess to be the more likely of the two scenarios. I’d also like to view the video mentioned in the article, but haven’t found it on the Internet, yet.

    Back to Rummy. We’ve had time to look at the historical picture of the My Lai massacre and almost universally condemn what happened there. If this story from Iraq ends up being truthful, the only positive thing about it is that it may help strengthen U.S. resolve to withdraw from Iraq immediately.


    Pax Americana Applies to Both Wars

    First of all, the Marc Emery story just hit WaPo:

    Then came the DEA.

    Emery figured something was up when a strange young woman pestered him to buy 10 pounds of pot. He refused. She bought some seeds at his store, asked for tips about how to hide them to go to the States, and left.

    Eight days later, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents and Vancouver police tromped into his store, ordered the customers out, taped paper over the windows and began hauling out computers and files. Emery, on the other side of Canada to speak near Halifax at the Atlantic Hemp Festival, was grabbed by six plainclothes policemen as he left a restaurant.

    Emery is “one of the attorney general’s most wanted international drug trafficking targets,” the DEA in Washington crowed on July 29, 2005, announcing an extradition request for Emery and two employees. Emery’s bust, the DEA said, was “a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade but also to the marijuana legalization movement.”

    And he thought trying to change the law was legal, Emery muses.

    So did lots of other Canadians, it turned out. Emery’s arrest for extradition on U.S. “drug kingpin” charges, carrying a minimum sentence of 10 years to life in prison, outraged many in Canada. They resented the long reach of America’s law and what they saw as the United States’ fevered preoccupation with pot.

    “They need to leave our country alone,” complained a letter to the editor in the London (Ontario) Free Press. “If we wanted to prosecute Emery we would, but it is not worth our time and money.”

    “Marc’s business was known to police and every level of government,” intoned a columnist in the Vancouver Province. To arrest him now “is petty and dishonest.”

    Additionally, Steve Kubby is back in jail — this time for going to Canada to try to stay alive. In both cases, Canada is tested with having the cajones to be a sovereign county. In Kubby’s case, they already failed. With Emery, the verdict is still out — but not hopeful at this moment.

    The obvious question is whether domestic U.S. law should dictate the actions of those who live abroad. According to INS, the answer is “yes”. Check out this story from the Philippines:

    Many Filipinos consulted with me regarding the same problem: their visa was denied by the US Embassy because they admitted to the doctors at St. Luke’s that they had, years ago, smoked marijuana or used some other drug. At their visa interview, they are shocked to find that their visa is being refused, with the annotation “you have admitted to committing acts which constitute a controlled substance violation – no waiver.”

    In one case, a 29-year-old nurse had been recruited for a job in a US hospital. During visa processing, she was asked a very routine question: “Have you smoked marijuana or taken any controlled substance?” The nurse said that she had “tasted” marijuana once during a party when she was 18 years old. It was just a harmless “try”, done out of curiosity. Her visa was denied, and she was banned for life.

    Another person was a middle-aged man, said he tried marijuana two or three times when he was a teenager. His visa application was likewise denied. This man, who was petitioned by his US citizen parents, had waited for more than 10 years for his priority date to be current. But now he was being told he would never go to the US.

    None of these people had ever been charged with, or convicted of, any drug-related crime. They merely admitted that they tried or tasted marijuana or other drug during their younger days.

    While we’re doing what we can on this side, Pax Americana will continue to be the order of the day until enough of you tell our leaders just where to shove it.



    Something Rotten in South Park?

    Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

    Yesterday, I ran an update on South Park, Tom Cruise and Scientology. In it I mentioned that Isaac Hayes, who provided the voice for Chef, had been reported to have left the program because creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone had poked a bit too much fun at Scientology. According to reports all over the MSM and the ‘net, Hayes is alleged to have said:

    “There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins”

    I awakened to an article at Fox News that stated that Hayes could not have possibly made that statement. From the mysterious Fox report:

    Isaac Hayes did not quit “South Park.” My sources say that someone quit it for him.

    I can tell you that Hayes is in no position to have quit anything. Contrary to news reports, the great writer, singer and musician suffered a stroke on Jan. 17. At the time it was said that he was hospitalized and suffering from exhaustion.

    Considering my general lack of trust of Fox News and the mystery source involved, I decided to wait a bit and see if additional confirmations of this report surfaced, but they didn’t. After seeing Nick Gillespie run the story, I decided to do likewise. Because my gut tells me that Hayes has been such a vital organ (or at least a reproductive one) of the program for years, this seems a bit out of character.

    Now comes this whammy from the Boston Herald:

    The 10th season of Comedy Central’s highest-rated series premieres tomorrow night with, of all things, “The Return of Chef.”

    Despite the fact that Isaac Hayes quit the show last week, his character takes center stage exhibiting “strange behavior” that prompts Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny to save Chef from causing more damage to South Park.

    Who replaces Hayes’ voice? And what happens to the veteran character?

    “Tune in Wednesday,” said Comedy Central spokesman Steve Albani. “We’re purposely keeping this a little mysterious.”

    While it’s possible that a succubus drained the life from Chef, it’s considerably more likely that Hayes did indeed suffer a stroke and then got Sarah Brady-ed by a brainwashed friend or family member. We may get some clues on the program when it airs tomorrow.

    Let’s just hope they don’t turn Chef into an overweight white woman with lunch-room-lady facial hair. After all, that’s what they did to Jim Brady.

    UPDATE: Another clue in da big mystery.

    Update by Stephen VanDyke: Boing Boing is tracking the story as well.


    Baring Boobs For Votes?

    Not really.

    I know the candidate well and she has worn lower cut tops for years. The fact that she’s healthfully endowed sent one key state political columnist into a fit of apoplexy, though. For an interesting take on a colorful LP candidate, check out this story at DailyKos. Here’s the Reader’s Digest version:

    Alabama columnist Bob Ingram recently mentioned third party gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall. […]

    Apart from the tax credits for home schoolers, Loretta Nall’s platform is as far from “traditional Alabama values” as you can get. “Traditional Alabama values” are wrapped up by former Chief Justice Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments Judge. Yeah, Nall is running against him. […]

    So Ingram opens this paper to read his own column and is appalled by the photo showing Nall in possession of what can best be called “breasts.” Ingram fired back in his next column:

    “In 55 years of political writing, that was a first for me—a picture in my column of a woman displaying cleavage. I can only hope that my mother…and I know for a fact where she ended in the after life…didn’t see that column. She wouldn’t have approved of that picture.”

    So while Ingram is certain of where his mom went after she died, Nall says she is certain that before she died, Ingram’s mom had cleavage. Anyhoo, Nall had a field day with this whole thing in her blog, “US Marijuana Party.”

    She sent a letter to Ingram and his editor (the one who picked that lovely photo). You can read the entire letter here, well worth it:

    “Now that you and the rest of Alabama have been introduced to the twins perhaps you would like to meet the rest of me. I’ll don my burka so y’all won’t be offended and then perhaps we can discuss the other planks in my platform since you only covered one.”

    I love this gal. She’s one of us. Definitely.

    And before you think that Loretta is simply a southern version of Mary Carey, she isn’t. I’m really impressed how she handled this columnist. She got him on the phone, explained her platform, got him to agree that she is more than a one-issue candidate and that he would contact her directly if he ever wrote about her again.

    Keep in mind, this is the same Loretta Nall who was kicked out of prison for not wearing panties. If you never caught that story, it’s a must read. I’ll simply recommend that those of you with weak bladders go to the bathroom first — or you might pee your pants from laughing so hard.

    UPDATE: Hit and Run’s covering this one, too.