Email idiocy

People tend to email the most idiotic things. I got this twice today; it's supposed to be a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, and in the subject line it read: "good quote". It says:

"No man who refuses to bear arms can give sound reason why he should be allowed to live in a free country"

First, "free country" is an oxymoron. Where there is government there is no freedom.

Second, if there's freedom, then why must one "bear arms"? Now while I'm all for people carrying guns and keeping them in their homes, why must someone "bear arms"?

And what about the phrase "be allowed"? Is that consistent with a free society?

I wish there was a program to block stupid emails from coming through.

More Bush Propaganda

Two things appear impossible:

1. Real questions from a reporter to a politician; and
2. A responsive answer from a politician.

This is an exchange from a press conference held this week by George "I'm the decider" Bush:

Reporter: "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

George Bush: “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think -- that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

The reporter never calls the decider on his non-responsive answer and I've seen nothing in the media calling attention to it.

The reporter's question was regarding "a flawed strategy" and the decider, instead of addressing the "strategy", decided to be non-responsive and said, “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic..." That clearly wasn't the question and the reporter does not call him on it; none of the reporters do. They permit him to equate a "strategy" with the "American people" as if they are they same thing.

It's more of the same tactics always used by politicians. Politicians always equate the government with the people they control. Therefore, questioning the government is questioning yourself. If government does something evil, we're all evil because we are the government.

The technical term for this BS is non sequitur.

Labor Day - What a Joke

Sorry to sound cynical, but the purpose behind this "holiday" is to "celebrate the economic and social achievements of workers." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Day.

Seems to me the best way to celebrate workers (or anyone for that matter) is to leave them alone. What do I mean?

A real celebration would be to stop continually robbing and controlling workers in the name of "taxation" and "regulation."

It's amazing any productive work is done at all with all the "taxes" and "regulations" to comply with. I found out the other day Wells Fargo Bank receives THOUSANDS of "tax subpoenas" a day. That's right, a day, every single day. There's a whole division of the bank dedicated to just compliance with these so-called "subpoenas." And Wells Fargo is just one bank. My those anti-social accountants at the IRS have been busy.

And that's only one example.

Maybe that's the real reason behind "Labor Day", the fact that despite all that robbery and control (i.e., government), we are still productive.

Sean Hannity - Sheer lunacy

Well, to be more accurate, anything coming from Fox News is scripted lunacy.

This week, Sean Hannity said one of the things worth dying for is ensuring Nancy Pelosi does not become speaker of the house of representatives.

Let's hope Sean meant it.

But of course, Sean is an actor, paid to play a role; something his audience may never accept. Sean is no different than a lawyer who is paid to "zealously" defend a position he may not agree with for the sole purpose of getting paid and paid very well.

Now I have nothing against getting paid well for services rendered; however, most people know lawyers don't believe the nonsense they spew forth. Judging from the size of his audience, most don't know Sean is just a paid shill, ready to defend his money masters regardless of his personal beliefs.

While I don't participate in politics, and see government as a cancer on the world, it would be great for Nancy Pelosi become the next speaker of the house.

Tax Obligation? Show Me the Facts

I hate this time of the year. The dreaded "tax day". The day when millions of scared people desparately try to comply with the masters' demands: Pay us or get shot!

Most have heard the line: "What if they had a war and no one showed up?"

Well, how about: "What if tax day came and no one filed?" I like what Hopper said in A Bug's Life:

"You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back!" (emphasis mine)

What is the basis for the alleged "power to tax"? It's the so-called "constitution." The "constitution" is four unsigned pieces of paper. If there is an alleged "obligation", then it must be based on the "constitution." What facts are there to prove those four pieces of paper created this alleged "obligation"? If you think there are facts to prove an "obligation" to pay "taxes" exists, then please email me at marcstevens@adventuresinlegalland.com, I'd love to see them.

In ten years not one "tax agent" or "tax" attorney has been able to produce one shred of evidence. It is impossible to prove a "tax obligation" exists using just facts. Again, anyone who disagrees is free to come to the plate and provide the facts. And don't respond by saying my "argument" is "frivolous." I'm asking for facts, not presenting an "argument."

And if you cannot provide the facts, then why do you file? Oh, that's right, you don't want to get shot. Stop deluding yourself, you do not pay for protection, there is no duty to protect you.

What will those anti-social parasites (politicians & bureaucrats) do when millions of people just decide not to file anymore? When millions of people start working for themselves and refuse to aid in the robbery of their fellow man's money by acting as "withholding agents"? Imagine millions of people refusing to help rape and plunder their fellow man by "issuing" those stupid 1099's.

An example I give in my book is where hundreds of thousands take that asinine "tax" plate off their cars.

Is it possible? Of course, look at the millions who followed Ghandi's example: and he didn't have the internet. Consider how the cops would do their "job" if people did not cooperate in the rape? I am not talking about violent resistance here. This is non-violent, non-cooperation. As I've said before, if someone cannot ask for my permission, then he should not expect my help.

The day is not far off when enough people just refuse to cooperate and those acting as "government" will be helpless to stop it.

For those who think "governments" are "necessary", let me ask this question, it's a yes or no answer only:

Should a service or product be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Unless you're a psychopath, the answer is no. And that is how "governments" operate. Instead of bringing their talents and services to the market like normal people, they provide them on a violent "pay or get shot" basis.

Trust a politician?

This is a gem. I came across this story this morning posted at http://rense.com, you can get it at http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4761664. It's titled: Scalia says he's proud he didn't recuse himself in Cheney case.

This black-robed super lawyer is quoted as saying, "For Pete's sake, if you can't trust your Supreme Court justice more than that, get a life,".

I guess that overrides the federal law requiring a "judge" to recuse himself if there is the "appearance" of bias. When will people wake up and realize the "law" only applies to those being murdered, tortured, spied on, plundered and deceived? However, let's examine, as objectively as possible, if it's reasonable to trust a "Supreme Court justice" at all.

It is undeniable a so-called "Supreme Court justice" is just a lawyer. Do the lawyers pretending to be a "Supreme Court" provide their services on a voluntary basis? Of course not; if you don't pay their salary you are shot and have your property stolen.

Now, is it reasonable to trust someone who thinks you should be shot for not paying a lawyer you never hired? I would think even the most loyal Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity fans would agree; no, it's not reasonable.

I agree with this lawyer though. We should all "get a life," one that does not include calling violent, anti-social lawyers "honorable" or "justice". We should "get a life" that does not include politicians, "states" and so-called "citizens."

Sick Irony

I don't have much to say about this, I think it speaks for itself:

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4536948&nav=3YeX

Below is the full text of the article:

Officer charged with drunk driving

"(Hamden-WTNH, Feb. 22, 2006 12:45 PM) _ A Hamden police sergeant is under arrest on charges of driving drunk, crashing his truck and then lying to police about who was behind the wheel.

"Sgt. Keith Benway allegedly told police another man was driving his truck and overturned it in the woods in North Branford.

"Investigators say the 37-year-old Benway was the driver.

"Sgt. Benway, who has been with the department for almost 20 years, received law enforcement awards in 2003 and 2004 from Mothers Against Drunk Driving."

The emphasis on the last sentence is mine. Guess MADD won't be giving him too many more awards.