The Legend of Creepy Hollow

Almost as hollow as the real thing.

Ignoring the Constitution

Barack Obama and John McCain have no respect for the Constitution. While they may claim to recognize its importance, they refuse to honor it as the supreme law of the land.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, in a column for the Wall Street Journal, writes:

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

Unfortunately, "we, the people," aren't much better. After all, we're the ones sending these criminals to Washington. Napolitano sums up:

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we really want change, we need to quit supporting the status quo.

Will I Vote for McCain?

No. And neither will my friend Dave Black: "Only if I believed in the myth of the Redeemer Nation -- the fusion of political and religious missions into a vision that America is the last and best chance offered by God to a fallen world -- would I vote for John McCain on Nov. 4."

The Torch Has Been Passed

The Global Warming Lie Refuted

This documentary, Doomsday Called Off, uses real science to refute the lie that man-made CO₂ emissions are warming the planet:

Obama the Socialist

Brack Obama, in a January 18, 2001, interview on Chicago public radio, explained how best to pursue the redistribution of wealth:

The full interview in Real Audio format is available here.

The Course of Empire

The Course of Empire (1834-1836) by Thomas Cole

The Savage State


The Arcadian or Pastoral State


The Consummation of Empire


The Destruction of Empire


Desolation

The Kind of Freedom We're Fighting for in Afghanistan

This is what religious freedom looks like in post-Taliban, U.S.-occupied Afghanistan:

In a case that has illustrated Afghanistan's drift toward a more radically conservative brand of Islam as well as the fragility of its legal system, an appeals court Tuesday overturned a death sentence for a student convicted of blasphemy but sentenced him to 20 years in prison.

The student, Parwez Kambakhsh, 24, ran afoul of Afghan authorities last year when he circulated an article about women's rights under Islam after downloading it from the Internet. He was studying at the time in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, where he also worked as a part-time journalist for local newspapers.

Arrested by security police and initially held without charges, he was eventually tried on blasphemy charges, convicted and sentenced to death.

Tuesday's ruling by a three-judge appeals court panel was a blow to human rights groups and advocates of press freedom who have championed Kambakhsh's cause.

International organizations, including New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the case pointed to a troubling lack of respect for freedom of speech and individual liberties in Afghanistan, nearly seven years after a U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban fundamentalist Islamic movement.

Socialist = Black?

According to Kansas City Star columnist Lewis Diuguid, John McCain and Sarah Palin should be ashamed of themselves for implying that Barack Obama is a socialist. He writes, "McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare."

So, if "socialist" really is code for "black," then I guess Obama is only half socialist. Would that be more appropriate?

Come on, Mr. Diuguid. You're a smart guy. Your readers deserve better than this. Get over yourself.

Now Showing at Liberty Theater

2A, a 23-minute film on the Second Amendment produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

FDR's Policies Prolonged the Depression

From the UCLA Newsroom:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

Well, duh. True free market economists have have been saying this since the 1930s. But to have economists at a liberal university come around after only seven decades is certainly noteworthy.

Passports Required for Cell Phones (U.K.)

Our neighbors across the pond are now being told they will need a passport in order to purchase a cell phone. From TimesOnline:

Everyone who buys a mobile telephone will be forced to register their identity on a national database under government plans to extend massively the powers of state surveillance.

Phone buyers would have to present a passport or other official form of identification at the point of purchase. Privacy campaigners fear it marks the latest government move to create a surveillance society.

A compulsory national register for the owners of all 72m mobile phones in Britain would be part of a much bigger database to combat terrorism and crime. Whitehall officials have raised the idea of a register containing the names and addresses of everyone who buys a phone in recent talks with Vodafone and other telephone companies, insiders say.

Don't worry. I'm sure the thugs at Homeland Security are taking notes.

Freedom in Iraq: Gun Confiscation

Iraqi and U.S. troops are now searching private homes in Baghdad for the sole purpose of disarming the citizenry. Could such a thing happen here? It already has, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that what's happening in Iraq now is anything more than a training exercise.

Barack Obama Supports Black Genocide

Sound outrageous? Well, considering his strong support for Planned Parenthood, and the fact that Planned Parenthood hasn't deviated one bit from its racist roots, I think the charge is quite fitting:

Genocide, infanticide, call it what you will. It's still evil.

Good for Small Banks!

From the Washington Post:

Community banking executives around the country responded with anger yesterday to the Bush administration's strategy of investing $250 billion in financial firms, saying they don't need the money, resent the intrusion and feel it's unfair to rescue companies from their own mistakes. ...

... Peter Fitzgerald, chairman of Chain Bridge Bank in McLean, said he was "much chagrined that we will be punished for behaving prudently by now having to face reckless competitors who all of a sudden are subsidized by the federal government."

At Evergreen Federal Bank in Grants Pass, Ore., chief executive Brady Adams said he has more than 2,000 loans outstanding and only three borrowers behind on payments. "We don't need a bailout, and if other banks had run their banks like we ran our bank, they wouldn't have needed a bailout, either," Adams said.

It's good to see some people haven't lost their common sense. There may yet be hope for the economy.

Education for Liberty

From Campaign for Liberty:

An educated public is an essential ingredient of a free society. Ambitious governments would have far greater difficulty implementing schemes that undermine liberty and prosperity were they faced with an informed and vigilant population.

In that spirit, we have assembled these resources to help you learn more about some of the pressing issues of our time. The resources you'll find here include books (many of which we link to in free online versions) and articles, as well as audio and video available online and for free download. We receive many requests from people wondering what they should read to learn more about free societies. These resources, to which we intend to add periodically, will go a long way toward satisfying this demand.

You can access these invaluable resources at CampaignForLiberty.com.

Obama Wants to Send Your Daughters Off to War

Yes, that's an option he's keeping on the table:

Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn't think women should have to register.

Also, Mr. Obama would consider officially opening combat positions to women. Mr. McCain would not.

"Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground," said Wendy Morigi, Mr. Obama's national security spokeswoman. "Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain." ...

... Mr. Obama has said repeatedly that he will draw down the U.S. military presence in Iraq if he becomes president, but he has also said he would increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, where Taliban forces have seen a resurgence in recent years.

During a CNN/YouTube debate for Democratic presidential candidates last year, he said he doesn't "agree" with the draft.

But he did say women should be expected to register with the Selective Service, comparing the role of women to black soldiers and airmen who served during World War II, when the armed forces were still segregated.

Is that the kind of "change" America needs?

The Lesser of Two Goods

Laurence Vance on Chuck Baldwin:

I can say without exaggeration that Baldwin is miles ahead of Obama, McCain, McKinney, and Nader when it comes to practically any issue, and especially when it comes to foreign policy. He is close to Barr on most issues, but trumps him when it comes to integrity. Does he have the slightest chance of winning? Unfortunately not, but if someone wanted to vote for the lesser of two goods instead of wasting his vote on the lesser of two evils, then Baldwin would certainly fit into that category.

A Vote for John McCain a Wasted Vote?

As one who has voted for the Constitution Party candidate in the last two presidential elections, I have been told countless times that I was just wasting my vote: "A vote for anyone other than George W. bush is just a vote for the Democrats." Well, Bush won in 2000 and again in 2004. He didn't need my vote. The Republicans prevailed -- and we still ended up losing.

Under the leadership of the GOP, government has only grown bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive. If I had voted for Bush, I would have only become part of the problem. So, why should I listen to anyone saying that a vote for a third party candidate this time around is wasted?

I was (and still am) a big supporter of Ron Paul, but since he has officially dropped out of the presidential race, I plan on casting my vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I tend to agree with libertarian Karl Hess, who said, "Your vote isn't a bet on who's going to win the election. It's a statement of who you are."

Besides, one could argue that a vote for a major party candidate who has no chance of winning is just as wasted as any other. Chuck Baldwin writes:

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

A vote for a third party candidate will at least send the message that we are fed up with the status quo. We simply cannot continue doing the same thing we've always done and expect a different result. That really is the definition of insanity.

Accounting According to Congress and the Federal Reserve

If I Were Moderating the Presidential Debates...

The Global Consensus Against Iraq Was So Great...

...that all the pro-war speeches started to sound the same. Check it out:

This blatant example of plagiarism is just more proof of government incompetence.

The GOP Is Not the "Lesser of Two Evils"

This bailout could not have passed without the enthusiastic support of Republicans in Congress. Anyone who still thinks there is a difference between the two major parties is living in a fantasy world. I agree wholeheartedly with Vox Day's conclusion: "One benefit of this bailout is that it has ended 'the lesser evil' argument once and for all."

He expounds on that thought in today's WND column:

It would be a massive mistake for conservatives, libertarians and capitalists to continue supporting Republicans when there is clearly nothing conservative, libertarian or capitalist about the Republican Party. The Republican Party does not value freedom, it does not value capitalism, it does not abide by its republican principles and it does not honor the Constitution. Regardless of whether you vote Libertarian, Constitution Party or do not vote at all, you can be sure that your vote will not be wasted -- because, as events have proven time and time again over the last eight years, the only wasted vote is the vote that is cast for a Republican politician.

Wachovia Purchase Temporarily Blocked

Well, what do you know. There's been a temporary injunction filed on behalf of Citigroup (who is in bed with Washington) to block Wells Fargo's purchase of Wachovia -- and once again the American taxpayer is the only one who stands to lose anything as a result. From the AP:

Wachovia spokeswoman Christy Phillips-Brown said in a statement the company believes its agreement with Wells Fargo is "proper, valid and ... in the best interest of shareholders, employees and the American taxpayers."

She said Citigroup is free to make a better offer to Wachovia under that agreement.

The FDIC said Friday that it "stands behind its previously announced agreement with Citigroup." It also said it would review all proposals and work with regulators of all three institutions to resolve the tug-of-war.

Citigroup says it has an exclusivity agreement that bars Wachovia from talking with other potential buyers. Its shares fell sharply after the surprise announcement of the Wells Fargo-Wachovia agreement.

As I pointed out yesterday, Americans just can't be allowed to believe that they make it without the help of the federal government.

Free Market: Down, but Not Out

Contrary to what the power-mad bureaucrats in Washington would have you believe, the free market works. It was not malfunctioning. The economic downturn was simply the market's way of correcting years of government interfenece and manipulation.

Thankfully, some businesses are choosing not to rely on the feds. From the Wall Street Journal:

Citigroup Inc.'s takeover of Wachovia Corp. was torpedoed on Friday when San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $15.4 billion to buy Wachovia.

Wells Fargo's offer upended the government's hastily arranged effort last weekend to match New York-based Citigroup with Wachovia of Charlotte, N.C. -- a federal effort to prevent the bank from joining the growing ranks of failed financial institutions.

Wells Fargo's deal on Friday marked a stunning turn of fortunes for Wachovia, the nation's fourth-largest bank in market value as recently as last year. Wells Fargo had been among the leading suitors for Wachovia during a tense period of negotiations last weekend that ended, in the wee hours Monday morning, with a government deal to sell most of Wachovia to Citigroup.

The Citigroup deal, which included a provision for the government to possibly absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in future Wachovia losses, was warmly received by Citigroup shareholders but nearly wiped out Wachovia's. Now, in forcing Wachovia back into play, Wells Fargo sets the stage for one of the most dramatic takeover battles in recent memory, pitting against each other the No. 3 and No. 4 U.S. banks in terms of stock-market value.

The Wells Fargo offer provides a glimmer of support for the fundamental value of troubled U.S. banks: It signals that there is still a market, albeit limited, for private takeovers of these institutions, one that does not place taxpayer dollars at risk. It is also significant because the new buyer, unlike Citigroup, asks for no government assistance.

This deal will probably be challenged in court. Americans believing that they make it without government assistance poses a threat to the political establishment. But it is rather encouraging to see that a few people still believe in free enterprise.

Ron Paul's Statement on the Bailout

As you can imagine, he wasn't happy:

Madame Speaker, only in Washington could a bill demonstrably worse than its predecessor be brought back for another vote and actually expect to gain votes. That this bailout was initially defeated was a welcome surprise, but the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street could not allow that defeat to be permanent. It was most unfortunate that this monstrosity of a bill, loaded up with even more pork, was able to pass.

The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into US and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails.

One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the federal government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place.

With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption.

The money for this bailout does not just materialize out of thin air. The entire burden will be borne by the taxpayers, not now, because that is politically unacceptable, but in the future. This bailout will be paid for through the issuance of debt which we can only hope will be purchased by foreign creditors. The interest payments on that debt, which already take up a sizeable portion of federal expenditures, will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes in order to pay that increased debt.

As usual, Congress has shown itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed.

Bailout Bill Passes (Yeah, Big Surprise)

Well, we all knew it was only a matter of time before the bailout bill was passed:

With the economy on the brink and elections looming, Congress approved an unprecedented $700 billion government bailout of the battered financial industry on Friday and sent it to President Bush for his certain signature.

The final vote, 263-171 in the House, a comfortable margin that was 58 more votes than it garnered on Monday. The vote capped two weeks of tumult in Congress and on Wall Street, punctuated by daily warnings that the country confronted the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression if lawmakers failed to act.

Oh, suck it up, America. Quit your whining. Don't pretend to care about the economy now. You voted for these idiots, and you'll most likely vote for them again in November -- unless you happen to be someone who learns from his or her mistakes.

Senate Bailout Bill Unconstitutional

Article I, Section 7, of the U.S. Constitution states, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

HR 3997 was killed, voted down in the House. Case closed, right?

Wrong. Remember, this is America. Since when have constitutional barriers meant anything to the ruling elite?

The Senate simply decided to include the $700 billion bailout as an "amendment" to existing bill HR 1424. Voila! This idiotic bailout plan remains alive, and Washington's socialist agenda has scored another victory.

More Proof There Is No Difference Between the Two Major Parties

John McCain and Barack Obama joined forces in supporting the economic bailout bill in the Senate. If this doesn't convince people that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, I don't know what will.

The debates are a joke. The entire presidential election will be a sham. Voters will be expected to choose between two men who obviously have only the interests of the state in mind and then pat themselves on the back for having done their "civic duty." Give me a break.

The Inevitable Collapse of the Dollar

It's a question of when, not if.

America, Prepare to Be Invaded...

...by your very own troops. From the Army Times:

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

The article goes on to say that these soldiers "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

Great. When catastrophe strikes, and you think things couldn't get any worse, along comes the federal government.

1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier could hardly contain his excitement. He said, "I don't know what America's overall plan is -- I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they're called. It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home." Cloutier strikes me as the kind of uber-patriot who has that ridiculous Lee Greenwood song as a running soundtrack in his head.

Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, thinks deploying U.S. troops at home is a bad idea. He writes:

One of America's most sacred principles has always been that the U.S. military was never to be used for domestic law enforcement. The fear of standing armies ran very deep in the hearts and minds of America's founders. The tyranny and misery inflicted upon the colonies by British troops weighed heavily upon those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their minds, the American people would never again be subjected to the heavy weight of army boots. Furthermore, they insisted that America would have a civilian -- not military -- government.

I don't know about you, but the move to militarize and nationalize law enforcement in this country makes me a little uncomfortable.

It's a Great Time to Invest