Traitorous Ex-Smoker Drug Warrior Bastards

My friend Tristan Tucker and I have had several conversations about the staggering numbers of politicians who smoke marijuana, then claim to quit, and then start locking up their fellow weed consumers by the tens of thousands.  

Tristan and I were both invited to speak at the recent DFW/NORML Regional Conference.  I bet Tristan that I could use the phrase "Traitorous Ex-Smoker Drug Warrior Bastards" in my speech more than he could in his speech.   

Tristan took me up on the wager. 

I lost.  I lost badly. 

Here's Tristan's speech, along with a few pics of the Traitorous Ex-Smoker Drug Warrior Bastards. 

Wow, what an honor it is to be speaking in front of people that I have looked up to for years. Keith (Stroup).. You founded NORML. Without you, none of us would be here right now.

 Judge Jim Gray… You and Gary Johnson had my vote. My generation appreciates men with principles and decency, you are one of my intellectual heroes.

Joy Strickland… when I first met you, your story motivated me to not give this fight up. The work you do with Mothers Against Teen Violence is incredible and has not fallen on deaf ears or blind eyes. Together, we are making the world a much safer, better place…and, the only government intervention we need is literally one fell swoop of a pen.

Thank you all, everyone, for being here, for being a part of a revolution and for taking the lead role in your freedom. I am Tristan Tucker, the executive director of the University of North Texas Chapter of NORML. I served in the US Navy for six years and I can honestly say that since I got out of the navy I have done more for my country, in terms of actually fighting for freedom, than I ever did while I was on active duty. I believe that my oath of enlistment and re-enlistment last for life. The words that I faithfully said, “I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign and domestic..” are the words that ring out the loudest. I can see objectively who the enemy is now and the enemy isn’t in some far away land, they are here… in our own backyard. Our enemy is any law that allows for someone to be forcibly put in a cage for possessing a harmless plant and especially the people that support and defend such laws. I will not digress, I will not rest, I will not be silenced until we win this drug war. And we will win.

Ghandi is quoted as saying “If all the mice in the world held a conference together and resolved that they would no more fear the cat but instead, all run into her mouth, all the mice would live.” Well, mice, this is our conference and I want to be the first to scoff at the cat and tell her that “I am free. I was born to know no fear. I want you all to be fearless against the traitorous ex-smoker drug warrior bastards, the faceless persecutor that is always looking around our corners. I want you all to take these words from this conference and be empowered and develop a newfound passion for your activism because what we are doing doesn’t only effect DFW, or Texas – we are impacting the entire world. Every day when you talk about NORML, the drug war or even just about cannabis, I want you to remember just who exactly you are helping. We are helping our youth be relatively drug free. We are helping our troops, who came home like I did with newfound mental disorders or with chronic pain or missing limbs. We are fighting for the patients, like Cash Hyde, who, without us – many wouldn’t have a voice. We are fighting for liberty, for freedom and these United States of America.

As the director of UNTNORML I have come to realize and appreciate the necessity to have college-based organizations like Students For Sensible Drug Policy, Students for Liberty and NORML. Through my tenure at UNT I have definitely seen massive amounts of ignorance related to the topics of drug prohibition and the effects of cannabis. It is my profound belief that due to programs like DARE, the traitorous ex-smoker drug warrior bastards are still ruining our youth’s ability to use critical thinking skills to question this treacherous type of authority.

I have several goals for UNTNORML and want to brag a little about the efficacy we have had on campus. First, we were the first university in Texas to change dorm policies in regard to possession and paraphernalia. Before NORML’s campus-wide campaign, the school would evict students from the dorm, report to the police and place the student on probation while requiring them to pay a $1000 fine and attend a drug awareness class. Now, the school just forces the student to change dorms.

My main goal with UNTNORML is to get a college chapter at every university in the state of Texas. I believe that by placing intelligent, tactful leaders at universities across the state, we will combat the ill-effects of prohibition based propaganda like DARE. Additionally, I plan to make cannabis a topic that university administration will willingly talk about. I have gotten professors to discuss the topic but currently, the administration refuses to actually debate the topic or the university’s policies publicly. All of my requests have so far fallen on deaf ears. With that in mind, we have received overwhelming support from a plethora of students and student organizations. We are always well received on the campus’ “Free Speech Corner”… man I despise that name.

When I was on active duty, I was one of the ex-smoker drug warrior bastards. I was a neo-conservative military member that wouldn’t even associate with people that used or talked about cannabis. I participated in anti-drug operations off the eastern seaboard of South and Central America, as a 25mm gunner on the aft mount of an amphibious assault ship. For me, it took a mental health diagnosis and subsequent research into treatments and therapies to really discover the truth about marijuana. I am proud to publicly tell you all that the day I received my separation paperwork, I drove off base joint in mouth. I have sed cannabis medicinally now for three years and have weaned myself off of fourteen different medicines thanks to this wonderful plant. My quality of life is the best its been in years and, in my opinion, that is all that matters.

My first position I held with DFWNORML was the veteran outreach coordinator. Unfortunately, it had to fall to the wayside when I took over at UNTNORML, but I still reach out to every veteran I meet and know to spread the good word of unity, family, cannabis and love. With those tenets of inclusivity I believe we have really touched many veterans One of the most difficult parts of my transition out of the military was not having the close bond of brotherhood and I really try to bring that to both UNT and DFWNORML. I believe that veterans find that trait important and inviting and thus, flock to our organization.

Our veterans are battle trained leaders and continuing to reach out to them is imperative. Our veterans are already used to the type of pressure it takes to effectively communicate with our representatives. Our veteran members also provide a very unique viewpoint, particularly when discussing medicinal marijuana. Medical grade marijuana has proven to have incredible results when treating post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, chronic pain and a whole host of other ailments our warriors are coming home with. We owe it to our veterans to continue to fight for them, since I know for a fact they would keep fighting for us.

As a team all of the Texas NORML chapters are planning comprehensive lobbying strategies for our next legislative session. Cheyanne Weldon has began coordinating our efforts via facebook already, less than a month after the end of our legislative session. Let me assure you that our representatives know who we are and what we seek to do in this state. Every time I have talked to my representatives or their staff about an action alert item, they explain ludicrous amounts of feedback and positive response from our supporters. We need to work on getting that type of commitment from members on a monthly or weekly basis.

Forming programs such as signed from letters, targeted mailing lists, positive recruitment strategies and continued public presence will win this drug war.

There is an old war movie, The Americanization of Emily from 1964, James Garner, who played commander Charles Madison said the following:

“War isn't hell at all. It's man at his best, the highest morality he's capable of. It's not war that's insane, you see. It's the morality of it. It's not greed or ambition that makes war: it's goodness. Wars are always fought for the best of reasons - for liberation or manifest destiny. Always against tyranny and always in the interest of humanity. So far this war, we've managed to butcher some ten million humans in the interest of humanity. Next war it seems we'll have to destroy all of man in order to preserve his damn dignity. It's not war that's unnatural to us, it's virtue. As long as valor remains a virtue, we shall have soldiers. So, I preach cowardice. Through cowardice, we shall all be saved.”

When we think about the drug war, we see ourselves, rightfully, as the victim, but the important thing to note is that we have turned it around on our aggressors. When the drug war was officially initiated by President Dick Nixon and his regime of traitorous ex-smoke drug warrior bastards, we were made to look like the modern Taliban. We were the scourge of the country, us dopers. Through the decades, as science and morality has progressed, we have come to take the upper hand in this drug war. We are showing Americans that compassionate care via a plant is possible from stories like Cash Hyde’s and by way of documentaries like American Drug War, Square Grouper and The Union: The Business Behind Getting High. Americans are starting to realize that too much government intervention into our lives is a bad thing and that we would like to be able to close our metaphorical blinds for a change.

What we do damages nobody and heals everybody. This plant has brought communities together, brought addicts back from the brink of death, stopped pain, treated cancer, helped calm irrational minds and has the capacity to heal our nation – the nation that I was promised as a child. Cannabis can heal our economic hole, can help mend our moral degradation, will help improve our air quality and has potential to slow global warming.

In closing, I want to thank you all tremendously for the work you do for NORML, for coming to this conference and supporting our freedoms and for everything that you do out of the kindness of your hearts and with the dollars in your wallets.

Won’t you help us end our nation’s drug problem? Let’s legalize cannabis.

For a near-definitive list of politicians who have smoked weed, go here.  Not all of them (see: Gary Johnson) are traitorous bastards. 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

Call me paranoid, but....

We've learned that IRS employees have declined to approve the tax-exempt status of Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations.   Democrats are generally fond of the IRS and taxing and wasting - much more so than Tea Party groups and Libertarians.  Something like 95% of IRS lawyers consider themselves Democrats.

If you're going to have an IRS with lots of power, you gotta be prepared for them to abuse it.  That's what people do with raw, unaccountable power. 

I can't stop shopping with the IRS and start shopping with a competitor, in the way that I fired Long John Silver's seafood restaurants and started eating at Captain D's (after a bad, bad fish sandwich episode). 

The IRS has a monopoly. If I had a choice, I would treat them like Long John Silver's seafood restaurants, and not give the IRS another dime.

This action on the part of the IRS just may have been enough to give the state of Ohio to Obama in the last election.  The IRS was everything it could, legal or illegal to support their candidate.  There's nothing I can do about it.  I can't fire them. 

Call me paranoid, but....

We've recently learned that the NSA has been accumulating records of our calls and emails.  If I had a choice, I'd de-fund the bastards immediately.  They would join Long John Silver's, Wal-Mart's produce department, AT&T's telephones, General Motors, and a host of other companies that I've fired. 

If the NSA wasn't using this phone/email/wiretap info to help Obama, I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse steps and give you 30 minutes beforehand to draw a crowd to witness the event.  I can't fire them either. 

Call me paranoid, but....

I use Google's free Blogger/Blogspot website hosting program for this website.  I've always liked it.  It's free.  Easy to use.  Google puts ads on it and I get some of the revenue anytime you good folks click on the ads.  Google gets money anytime you click on them too.   

I can't prove this, but it seems that the great majority of political sites that use Blogger/Blogspot are either economically conservative, socially conservative, or small-l libertarian.  (Yeah, I know they cater the searches to your track record.)  But it seems that there are a lot more anti-Democrat bloggers than there are pro-Democrat bloggers.  Hell, the Dems already have almost every newspaper in the U.S. except for the Washington Times and maybe the NY Post.  Who needs the drunken ramblings of a Democrat Precinct Captain when you've already got the New York Times??? 

Google supports the Dems in general and Obama in particular. 

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--Few Silicon Valley companies have ever embraced a political party as passionately as Google has. Its executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, has been described as a "kind of guru" to President Obama's campaign manager, and Google employees emerged as the No. 2 donor to the Democratic National Committee in the last election.....

....Google's affection for Democrats, especially the president, is long-standing. Schmidt stumped for Obama and joined other company executives in chipping in for the inaugural celebration. Employees and the company's political action committee gave $1.6 million to Democrats in the last presidential election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, but only $300,000 to GOP candidates. In 2008, Google's climate director, Dan Reicher, exhorted an audience at the Democratic National Convention to "get out the vote and let's get Barack Obama elected in November!"

Google has been hassled by the FTC about sending traffic to their own "products" instead of those of competitors.  That's nobody's business but Google's, in my arrogant opinion.  They shoulda told the FTC to go have sexual relations with themselves.   

But....If I were a high-ranking exec at Google, and I wanted to do my part to help The Obamessiah, I'd start by steering readers away from those anti-Obama websites.  Even if it meant steering a few readers away from the pro-Obama sites that I also "owned".  That, too, is nobody' business but Google's.  If you don't like Google, you can fire them with the click of a mouse. 

A LOT of my traffic used to come from Google.  No more. 

I like to think that I've served up high-quality rants in an entertaining manner several times a week since 2007.  I don't think that the quality has gone down.  There's probably been some competition from Facebook, where everyone I know is now a blogger.  And perhaps Google was correct not to keep sending me a ridiculous amount of traffic based on one picture of Macaulay Culkin. 

This is what the daily hits for this site have looked like from the beginning.  (BTW, I'm now grateful for the new search engine called Bing.  They're now sending me almost as much traffic as Google does, and are going to become my desktop's new home page as soon as I finish writing this rant.) 

A lot of you folks have been reading my stuff for a long, long time. 
Did I suddenly descend into drunkenness and become tiresome after December 2010 ? 
Did Google ignore their "Don't Be Evil" mission statement and roll over for the FTC and start spreading their search results around to more competitor sites? 
Or is my paranoia justified, and Google made a conscious decision to de-emphasize its Blogger/Blogspot program, the one that has all those anti-Obama guys typing away in their pajamas? 

What it comes down to is this....  Should I continue typing crap for Google and letting them make money (however small the amount) from my efforts?  Should I fire Google and get my own domain? 

Call me paranoid, but....

It would be a lot easier to decide what to do if those black helicopters that follow me all day didn't keep blowing away my tinfoil hat. 

The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer

A confused man named Michael Lind posted something in Slate a few days ago called "The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer."  (Note to readers in the U.K. and its satellites: Libertarians are often called Liberals on your side of the pond.) 

The question goes something like this....

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.

But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

You could also ask "If women hate rape so much, why do they let it happen?"

You could also respond that "even with the curse of slavery and the lack of universal suffrage, the USA, at its founding, was the smallest, most libertarian government ever conceived.  Too bad that things didn't work well for us, and we weren't able to become the richest country with the most influence on earth."  End of rant.  Michael Lind, you're a dumbass. 

Or, you could rephrase Michael Lind's question as follows: "If your philosophy that takes power away from centralized government and entrenched special interests is so great, why haven't any centralized governments or entrenched special interests tried it?"

Or we could assume that Michael Lind is one of the self-righteous little leftie pricks, and say "If gay marriage is so desirable, why are there not many gays in this country who are legally married?" And then remind him that The Teleprompter Jesus himself only finished "evolving" on the issue a few months ago.  Overcoming the Statists is never, ever easy. 

Or, there's this imaginary conversation.....

Libertarian: Hey I've got this new flying car I made, do you wan-"
Reactionary Statist: "why haven't people made a flying car before?"
Libertarian: "uh, well, cause I'm the first person to do it."
Reactionary Statist: " But if it's so great why hasn't anyone done it before?"
Libertarian: "Because this is a new, and in the places where parts of it have been tried, it's been great!..."
Reactionary Statist: "okay crazy. I'm just going to ride my horse."

So let me get this straight.  Michael Lind says that the proof Libertarianism will never work is that we've never tried it???  Hell, now I'm curious if there were people who decried the Magna Carta because there was never any society that wasn't tyrannically ruled by God-Kings before.

And then there's this factor....

 But the best of the bunch is this one, from my drinking buddy Stefan Molyneaux.
Make time to listen to all fifteen minutes of this.  It's pure, undiluted greatness. 


Somewhere on this Internet Machine is a picture of me drinking a cold one with Stefan Molyneaux at our State Convention.  Couldn't find it.  But it happened. 

All of that answers Michael Lind's question quite nicely, don't you think? 

Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Trusting Goverment"

Words to live by from Andrew Napolitano:

Repeat after me: Government is power. Government is not to be trusted. Ever. Even if you believe that some government is and will always be necessary, that ‘necessary’ piece of government should always be regarded as a prudent lion tamer regards the big carnivorous cats that are ‘necessary’ for him to make a living. To imagine that seemingly subdued purring lions can be trusted to be dealt with in any ways that do not include the use of strong cages, leashes, ceaseless and deep suspicion, and escape hatches is the height of romantic absurdity – wishful thinking of the most extreme and inexcusable sort. Government is by its very nature a dangerous, untrustworthy, dishonest, arrogant, slippery entity – characteristics that are by no means reduced anywhere near to insignificance by a wide franchise, regular elections, and sturdy ink-on-parchment documents called “constitutions.”


Unless you are a high-ranking government official, government - no government – is ever “Us.” It is always “Them.” And They are not to be trusted. Ever.

The Tax Implications Of The X-Men Being Human Or Not Human

The X-Men are not human.  The courts have said so. 

Why would the courts care?

To enjoy this particular situation, one must be aware of the following:

1) Politicians are elected by selling exemptions to the tax code.  Sometimes these exemptions are in the form of exceptions to tariff and quota rules.  Sometimes a rule is put in place to punish a competitor.  

2) This is why our tax code is four million words long, and growing by the day.    

3) Efficiency is good.  Inefficiency is bad.  If all merchandise came into the United States at the same tax/tariff rate, we could eliminate tens of thousands of government jobs and the godawful pensions that go with them. 

4) These wasteful "jobs" will never be eliminated.  There will always be an organized groups for exemptions in their medical device / green energy / children with cooties / American flag / Bibles For The Troops / javelin / coffin handle / Scrabble tile-manufacturing industries.  These groups are more organized than you.  They'll get their exemption, and you'll be taxed to supply enough bureaucrats, lawyers and courts to keep the rules sorted out. 

Now that my preliminary throat-clearing is out of the way, here goes:  

 Toy Biz v. United States was a 2003 decision in the United States Court of International Trade that determined that for purposes of tariffs, Toy Biz's action figures were toys, not dolls, because they represented "nonhuman creatures." This decision effectively reduced the tariff rate by a factor of two.


U.S. law distinguishes between two types of action figures for determining tariffs: dolls, which are defined to include human figures, and toys, which include "nonhuman creatures". Because duties on dolls were higher than on toys, Marvel Comics subsidiary Toy Biz argued before the U.S. Court of International Trade, that their action figures (including the X-Men and Fantastic Four) represented "nonhuman creatures" and were subject to the lower tariff rates for toys instead of the higher ones for dolls. On January 3, 2003, after examining more than 60 action figures, Judge Judith Barzilay ruled in their favor, granting Toy Biz reimbursement for import taxes on previous toys.

To summarize, the taxes on imported (human) dolls are lower than the taxes on imported (non-human) toys.  There's no reason for this distinction, and it would take a dozen Library Of Congress employees to figure out which politician put the distinction in place.  The donor he did it for is probably long-dead. 

It took almost ten years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in expenses to make this toy vs. doll distinction.

Here's just part of one logic behind one of the official rulings.  Go here for the whole thing.  If you can read this without praying for a nuclear strike on D.C., you're not part of the 49% who pay taxes.  

It is Customs position that the intent of the committees in reaching this conclusion is to deny the doll classification to those figures which possess non-human characteristics that are immediately apparent to the casual observer. Where the non-human feature(s) can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate. The phrase "close examination" may encompass the need to look closely, the need to remove the clothes of the figure, or perhaps even the need of the observer to guess as to whether a feature that appears to be non-human is, in actuality, such a feature. Most angels and devils possess readily apparent non-human features, i.e., halos, large wings, visible horns, pointed tails, etc. -6-


However, if a figure is marketed as an angel or devil, and yet appears human to the casual observer, then, again, the doll classification may be appropriate.

In HRLs 081201 and 089895, issued October 3, 1988 and November 4, 1991, respectively, we classified certain troll figures that were described, in pertinent part, as being pot- bellied, flesh-colored, erect-standing figures, having flat heads with virtually no foreheads, pointed ears, and large, upturned snouts. We noted the guidance provided by the EN, that dolls should "represent" human beings, and cited Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961), which defines "represent" as meaning "to portray by pictorial, plastic, or musical art: delineate, depict...to serve as the counterpart or image of: typify." In each case, we held that, while certain troll figures may have "resembled" human beings to some extent, it was immediately apparent to the casual observer that the subject figures did not "represent" humans, but rather represented widely recognized non-human creatures, i.e., trolls.

In HRL 085855, issued August 9, 1990, this office affirmed the doll classification of a "Beetlejuice" figure, which represented the ghost character from a popular movie and television show. The doll featured characteristics claimed to be non-human, but which could only be discovered by close examination. We stated that "[i]n order not to be classified as dolls, figures representing...other creatures, must possess appendages and features which immediately, at first glance, identify them as non-human."

Looking to the figures that have been classified as dolls in this case, we note that in most instances, the patent distortions essentially consist of such features as odd skin color, intricate headgear, capes which bear resemblance to wings, weaponry that is uniquely attached to, but is not an integral part of, the body, etc. As noted above, when a figure's non-human features can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.  Come quickly. 

This brings us to the related case of Kamar Int’l v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 658 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986).

That case dealt with whether E.T. the Extraterrestrial dolls represented an “animate” object, which would result in a lower tax rate than for toys in general (the customs classifications have changed a lot over the years, apparently). The Court of International Trade agreed with the plaintiff, despite the United States’ arguments that E.T. was a fictional alien and thus not an animate object. The Court cited as precedent the classification of Star Wars toys as toy figures of animate objects because “as depicted in the movie Star Wars they are living beings endowed with animal life.” Kamar, 10 C.I.T. at 661.

I don't believe that the E.T. case should have been argued as Dolls vs. Toys. 
Dolls vs. some other type of toy woulda been the appropriate discussion. 

They Hate Us For Our Freedoms? Well, no. They don't.

"They hate us for our freedoms."
Well, no, they don't. 

I've been plowing through Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy.  IMHO, this is where you should go to learn "why they hate us". 

Here's Johnson's summary of the first volume, "Blowback". 

"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept "Blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes – as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 – the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia – the area of my academic training – than on the Middle East."

And the second book, "Sorrows Of Empire":

"The Sorrows of Empire was written during the American preparations for and launching of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.  I began to study our continuous military buildup since World War II and the 737 military bases we currently maintain in other people's countries. This empire of bases is the concrete manifestation of our global hegemony and many of the blowback-inducing wars we have conducted had as their true purpose the sustaining and expanding of this network. We do not think of these overseas deployments as a form of empire; in fact, most Americans do not give them any thought at all until something truly shocking, such as the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay brings them to our attention. But the people living next door to these bases and dealing with the swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape their women certainly think of them as imperial enclaves, just as the people of ancient Iberia or nineteenth-century India knew that they were victims of foreign colonization."

And finally, "Nemesis":

“In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation.”

Not everyone is a total geek like me.  Not everyone is willing to plow through three fairly technical and occasionally repetitive books about our disastrous foreign policy decisions, just to hold an informed opinion. 

So as a public service, here's all you need to know about "Blowback", what causes it , and how we're perceived elsewhere in the world. 

For further info, you can still check out Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy". 

2007 Obama debates 2013 Obama on Civil Liberties !!

Here's an interesting video of what Obama's 2007 teleprompter told him to say vs. the same machine in 2013. 


This document still matters, you know....

Why Marijuana Users Tend To Be Economic Libertarians

I just spent a pleasant weekend at the DFW/NORML Regional Conference in downtown Fort Worth. 
Video will shortly follow, I'm sure, since Director Shaun McAlister rarely even eats breakfast without rolling tape. 

After my rant (in which I also had the honor of introducing the Libertarian Party's Vice-Presidential candidate Judge Jim Gray to the crowd), we spent a lot of time at our booth handing out LP literature, and encouraging a large crowd of marijuana consumers to take the Nolan Quiz. 

Here are Tarrant County LP Executive Committee members Jeff Lippincott and Michael Coyne with Judge Gray at our propaganda table. 

The stereotype would be for most of the marijuana consumers to be Left/Liberal.  Wrong!  That turns out to be a false impression leftover from growing up in the 1960's and 1970's.  As Jeff put it to me, "That test is gold." 

If you've never taken the Nolan Quiz before, go here.  It's just ten questions, and gives you a snapshot of your political leanings on a chart that looks like this:

Perhaps 80% of the attendees tested out as Libertarian.  Amazing.  (Yeah, the test is ever so slightly biased.  We wouldn't hand it out otherwise.) 
But it amazed me that the crowd of old tokers and Generation X activists tested out as LARGE FREAKIN' "L" LIBERTARIAN on economic issues.   

Here's a theory....

For the most part, marijuana users believe in the "I own me/You own you" concept.  They don't care how many of The Sheeple and The Shepherds get together and vote and make motions and condemn their consumption of a plant.  If marijuana is around, and they're in the mood, they're going to spark up. 

They believe that they own their own bodies. 

Once someone has internalized that core belief, it's not much of a jump to realize that you should also own the fruits of your own labor.  Working for someone else - like the taxman, at gunpoint, for the five months out of the year shouldn't be part of the bargain.  Or, "I own my labor/You own your labor".  You have no right to my body, or to a percentage of my labor and effort.  Yeah, we'll help each other, but we don't need to use force to make it happen.  As I heard someone at the conference say "Contract?  Social Contract?  I didn't sign no stinkin' contract !!"

It's even less of a leap for marijuana users to adapt the Libertarian Party's position on Foreign Policy issues.  Just as marijuana consumption is none of Bush or Barack's business, the oil reserves owned by Muslim countries are none of Bush or Barack's business.  "I own me.  You own the oil.  Give me enough oil to light my bong, and I'll let you have a hit, and we'll both be happier.  Free trade.  Herb's The Word." 

Or something like that. 

It was a great weekend.  I've had several requests for my charts and graphs showing debt level, spending levels, etc.  Will post them all later. 

And seeing this up on the screen at the marijuana legalization conference was a fine, fine moment. 

Nice collection of NSA posters, memes, cartoons and stuff

Libertarian Reddit has been having a great time with Barack's NSA/Domestic Spying scandal. 
(For those living overseas, it seems that some of Barack's Boyz have been tracking phone calls, looking at emails, and doing other stuff contrary to the letter and spirit of our 4th Amendment.)

This will be out of date by the time some of you read it, but you can go here to read some of the in-depth links and articles.  Good stuff.  And gloriously ironic when you consider that The Teleprompter Jesus supposedly taught Constitutional Law. 

This one does make you wonder which enemies they're tracking, doesn't it??

Yeah.  Turn over all your emails. 

For the remaining few loyalists who still think there's little difference between GWB and BHO....

Heh....

My online buddy Dan McCall came up with this parody of the NSA logo, and it's a good one. 

AND THEN HE GOT A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER FROM NSA ATTORNEYS!!  The dumbasses don't know that parodies are a legally protected form of speech. 

Amazing.  Truly amazing. 
If you care about liberty, freedom of speech, and privacy, you'll post this thing on Facebook, your website, or print off copies to give out at work.  Lord have mercy, what a bunch of tone-deaf, bureaucratic, statist munchkins. 

 

I need some help finding an Al Gore video

I need some help finding an Al Gore video. 
Back in December of 2008, The Goracle claimed that the polar ice caps will probably be gone in five years.  It was captured on video. 
I had the video posted here. 
Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That, had the video posted here. 

The Telegraph covered it here.....

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.

Steve Goddard copied it here:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.


In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

And you can go to the Center For Environmental Journalism where they call him out on it.  They, too, had the video, but it has since disappeared. 

The only video I've seen was recorded from German television.  We can all have a good time ridiculing this scam artist based on the online accounts of his prediction, but it's better to have video. 
Honest to God, I don't think most of his constitutents can read very well. 
Video is better. 

If you can find it, please email a link to dapfortworth@aol.com  I'll mail you a dachshund in return.