Posted 9:14 PM by Gerald Klaas
permalink test

Posted 5:13 PM by Gerald Klaas
Doug asks what I think of the An Interesting Day web page. It seems to me that this page is lot of post game armchair quarterbacking. They ask a lot of questions that seem to imply there is some grand scheme afoot because of the inconsistencies in the stories reported. My first observation is that they use a lot of media reports and references to make their point. Since when is the media reliable? My experience from when I ran for office taught me that what I read in the newspaper is mostly very different than what I see in person. Most of the time I'd need to verify time, date and location to make sure I was at the same place. For my interpretation of the "interesting day", I only wonder what I think I would do if I were president, and I honestly believe that if I were scheduled to read to a second grade class, I would have gone through with it, just as Bush did. These guys can second guess him all they want, I think I'd have done the same. Later they make an issue about him "skedaddling" all over the country "like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare". By this time of the day, it was clear we were under attack. He has a duty to protect our military command structure, and yes as commander-in-chief, that means he should be taking advice from his security team for his own safety. Quite frankly, if he had boogied on back to the White House just then, I would have thought he was nuts. At that time in my household we were drawing up a list of places we were going to be staying away from, including the California State Capitol here in Sacramento and the TransAmerica building in San Francisco. I still worry about crossing the Golden Gate bridge. At this point, I've seen enough. I think they're off base twice in a row, I don't need to see more to know I'm not interested in buying whatever they're selling, and I don't need to waste my time going any further.

Now if you want to know what I think is an interesting web page on 9/11, you should look at the Hunt the Boeing page.

Posted 8:08 AM by Gerald Klaas
Jack Cashill has been following the story of TWA 800 since the event happened. In today's column he asks a lot of questions, mostly centered on motivations and abilities to keep people silent and out of the general media. My favorite in the list, is the one I first noticed as the event transpired, "Why was the FBI allowed to take over the investigation? The move was patently illegal, and everyone knew it. " It seemed to me at the time, and it seems to me still, that the FBI had no basis for heading an investigation that rightly belongs to the NTSB. I know I'm not the only one to be suspicious of the FBI during the Clinton Administration. Even the DOJ investigated the FBI for allegations of misconduct in the laboratory. If they wanted something buried, putting the FBI in charge was the way to do it. At the time, I thought the reason was because the Navy accidentally shot the plane down during excercises. It wasn't until 9/11 that I realized that Cashill is probably on the money. America accepts that the WTC was attacked in 1993. If it's true that the never identified John Doe number 2 of the Oklahoma City Bombing was an Islamic terrorist, and we now certainly know that 9/11 was Islamic terrorists, then why would it be so hard to believe that TWA 800 was also Islamic terrorists?


To step back in time a bit, it was understandable that in 1995 the Clinton administration would want to scuttle any connection of OKC to Islamic terrorists. First, America was still naive enough to think we were immune to such attacks, and thinking about international terrorism didn't fit well with the mantra "it's the economy stupid". Can you imagine the economic hit if OKC had been associated to international terrorism at the time? 1996 would have been a different election, and we may never have added Monica Lewinsky to our list of famous Americans. The other issue is that there is no easy solution to international terrorism, bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan and an empty camp ground in Afganistan just ain't gonna do it. If Clinton were to stay president, Americans had to keep our heads in the sand. Of course that took a great deal of effort, and it compromised our law enforcement in ways we'll never know. The worst part is that it was a terrible strategic move in a deadly game that caused the other side to up the ante. If we could deny them their credit for a truck bomb, then they needed to go bigger. We then denied them credit for tagging a passenger airliner with a Stinger. How could we deny them credit for a coordinated attack of 4 airliner missiles? All of this just so we could continue to say, "it's the economy stupid". Well, it ain't the economy stupid, it's our lives.

Posted 10:24 PM by Gerald Klaas
When I ran for the California State Senate in 1998, we were using a blanket primary system. It meant that voters could cross party lines in choosing a candidate. It also meant that I debated two democrats and three republicans during the primary even though as the only Libertarian I was guarranteed to make it through the primary. The Supreme Court later ruled the blanket primary (passed overwhelmingly by California voters) to be unconstitutional, because of 1st Amendment freedom of association issues. Personally, I never understood the reasoning. It seems to me that if it's a freedom of association issue, then the political parties can hold their own convention and choose their candidate separate from a taxpayer paid election. If the democrats (or republicans) only put one candidate on the primary ballot then so be it. On a publicly financed ballot, it seems to me that you should play by the rules the public wants, not the political parties. In my opinion, the good thing about the blanket primary is that it tends to favor more moderate candidates while the separate primaries tend to favor the more polar candidates. Well, now two of the more moderate California politicians are resurrecting the blanket primary idea. They haven't announced yet their ideas for addressing the constitutional issue, I'm looking forward to seeing their plan.

Posted 7:57 PM by Gerald Klaas
Doug has wondered aloud why Allen Hacker hasn't yet commented on Dave Champion's scoop on the possibility that Bob Schulz and Richard Standring, may have received Grand Jury "target letters", indicating they may both be under a federal Grand Jury investigation . I listened to the first hour of Dave's July 12th show, and hear that this is unconfirmed. He's repeating info from an e-mail. If the e-mail is true, then Dave Champion is correct, this is exactly how the former Soviet Union worked, "disagree with the government, they'll put you in jail." Personally, I will reserve comment or judgement until I see something from Bob Schulz confirming or denying the "target letters". Until then, I'll save my ammo for another battle. (Note to any DOT lurkers: "ammo" is merely a figure of speech, it is not intended to imply that I own, or do not own, or possess any firearms or other defensive weapons, which I would be forced to use if my person, domicile or vehicle were ever violated contrary to my fourth amendment rights. "Battle" is also used purely as a figure of speech, it is not intended to imply that I would follow in the footsteps of constitutional activist and militia memberRick Stanley and advertise my intention to use my considerable arsenal of defensive weapons against jack-booted thugs operating under color of law while violating my God given and Constitutionally protected rights. "Jack-booted thugs" is not intended to be a derogatory term, but rather a historical reference to law enforcement or military officers operating contrary to their conscience and Natural Law with the lame and legally non-binding excuse that they are "following orders".)

Posted 7:55 PM by Gerald Klaas
Wound up on a plane to Phoenix today. 'Twas 113 degrees when I got off the plane. Headed back tomorrow, back at bloggin' tomorrow eve.
Trying to keep cool..... G.

Posted 10:42 PM by Gerald Klaas
If anyone has any doubt about where our police state is headed, you can look at today's raid on the Narragansett Indian Tribe. I can't imagine a clearer case of the state operating outside its jurisdiction. To hell with the rule of law, and those nasty jurisdiction issues, there's tax revenue at stake!

The state police were reportedly asked to show papers as they entered the lot but no papers were shown. The troopers, according to reports, then continued to charge across the parking lot to enter the tax-free shop.

Does anyone beside me see the similarity to the federal attitude on jurisdiction relative to states?

Posted 10:30 PM by Gerald Klaas
I want to thank Dave Toney for having a link to Frederick Bastiat's The Law (1850) on his blog. The Law is a 75 page pamphlet discussing Bastiat's view of France's move toward socialism. It has turned out to be a timeless essay on how liberty is spoiled by socialism. Bastiat observes that government is created "to protect persons, liberties, and properties", just as our Constitution proclaims our government was created to do. Bastiat observes in 19th century France how the government then (just as our government does today) had "been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy." Through this perversion, the government, i.e., "The Law", is "used to destroy its own objective", i.e., it is used to violate persons, liberties and properties in what Bastiat terms "lawful plunder". In a magnificent observation, he defines lawful plunder by the observation, "if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong." Socialism is the implementation of lawful plunder. The problem is that socialism and liberty are opposed,

"Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves."

So what of our government that was created to preserve our liberty? Every step toward socialism is not only a step away from liberty, it is a direct affront to it. How many federal programs distribute tax money to persons, corporations, or groups? Where did the money come from? Lawful plunder. Bastiat hit it on the head.

Special note to Doug:
1. I am very pleased that you have decided to rethink your position on music piracy.
2. I have to point out that Joseph Almond sent me an e-mail
pointing to the USA Today for the blog article. I didn't happen on it totally on my own.
3. I kind of doubt that Andrew Sullivan would follow WTP, taxes doesn't seem to be one of his favored topics. I guess it's worth trying to suggest it to him.
4. I agree that the IRS should allow you to authorize use of unsecure communications for your private account information. I don't think they ever will allow it, "Big Daddy" government knows best what's good for you, dontcha know?

Posted 3:13 PM by Gerald Klaas
An article in USA Today says that Andrew Sullivan is the former editor of The New Republic magazine. Apparently he is an openly gay, Roman Catholic with a consistent conservative streak and a definite love for his opined columns. He has classified his writing into the broad categories, homosexuality, faith, politics, culture, people and The War. I've looked around a bit, so far I haven't found a thing I'd argue about with the guy. To me he seems much more libertarian than republican.

An aside to Doug: I bought the Savage Garden debut album today on CD. Sure, I already have the music I like from the album downloaded and burned onto a CD, but if I'm going to be consistent in my love for our Constitution, I'm honor-bound to give them their due. I'm not the least bit concerned about any enforcement agency coming after me for copyright enfringement, I just need to "stay good with" my conscience. I like the music, I plan to listen to it in the future, buying a copy of the album is the right thing to do.