Google Custom Search

Saturday, October 14, 2006

UPDATE ON KATHERINE HARRIS--Abolishing the IRS

Congresswoman Katherine Harris, R-Fla., of the U.S. House of Representatives recently has been hinting at favoring a national sales tax and abolishing the IRS as she continues with her campaign to unseat Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fla. Harris stated that there are many qualities in a national sales tax that make it preferable to the present mixed-up and confused system of taxation as levied by the IRS. She further stated that she would support steps to abolish the IRS given that no such agency would be needed if a national sales tax were implemented.

The Congresswoman is now starting to talk my language!

For years I have been calling for an end to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS operates as its own quasi-government, complete with its own collections agency, police force, detective agency--all with the power to place citizens under arrest or to dog them relentlessly, before it is actually proved that they intentionally broke a law. According to IRS protocol, you are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent if one of their tax collectors happens to think you tried to weasel your way out of paying a few hundred bucks. In other words, rather than the burden of proof being on the IRS to show you broke a law, the burden is on YOU, the taxpayer, to prove your good faith intentions to complete your tax return truthfully. Such a heavy-handed tactic is like pitting David against Goliath. The IRS has to prove nothing. They accuse. YOU are the one who is charged with the ominous task of proving that you did not cheat.

Such bullying led the U.S. Congress several years ago to hold hearings about the matter. The result was that the IRS received a reprimand from Congress and instructed to change tactics. Although this was a wonderful step in the right direction, clearly it was not enough.

The U.S. Tax Code is a labyrinthine maze of confusing, contradictory, and often unintelligible gibberish that even most lawyers have trouble navigating. Try getting IRS help with some of the more difficult questions about contradictory tax laws. It is common to get three different answers from three different IRS personnel, only to discover that you are in deep trouble because you took the advice given by one of them. To be fair, even the IRS does not fully comprehend the tax laws which are handed to them by Congress. And thus, the IRS is not fully to blame.

A sound national tax policy should include the following ingredients--simplicity, fairness, equitable application across the board to all citizens in all income levels--including corporations--and ease of payment and collection. A national sales tax fulfills all of these provisions, particularly if we exclude food and medicine from taxation. The plan is simple--it is collected each time you make a purchase. It is fair--high ticket items bought by upper income bracket individuals would pay much more than those at the lower end whose purchases tend to be low ticket items. The national sales tax is applied equitably across the board to all income groups, who pay a percentage of purchased items, just as they do local and state sales taxes. Corporations would receive no discounts but required to pay their fair share as well, thus ending corporate welfare. And the plan is easy--the businesses where items are bought would collect the tax and send it to the Department of the Treasury. Bye-bye IRS!

Normally I am not a single-issue voter or advocate. But in the case of the Florida Senate race, this single issue is of such vital importance that this alone is enough to cast a vote for Katherine Harris. Her opponent, Bill Nelson, has made it abundantly clear that he intends to end the Bush tax cuts, and thus raise our taxes. And thus, he has no intention of reigning in the IRS or even considering a different, fairer system of taxation.

The Harris campaign, in my opinion, has a winner with the tax issue.

The Florida Boys--Gospel Quartet Singing at Its Best

Having spent the last two days or so covering the Katherine Harris campaign in Florida, I am constantly reminded of the charm of the South. My time spent writing about the Nall campaign for Governor of Alabama and other issues related to that state, plus being here in Florida following the campaign trail from afar, has given me a new appreciation for the culture, manners, speech, and preferences of the great citizens who live here.

For this reason I will depart briefly from my usual fare on this blog. I wish to turn my attention to a phenomenon that was born and bred in the South and has spread throughout the nation and to other parts of the world. It is affectionately known here as 'quartet music,' or 'Gospel quartet singing,' or as aficionados prefer to call it today, 'Southern Gospel Music.'

On any given weekend, usually Thursday through Sunday, one can find numerous Southern Gospel groups criss-crossing the land performing at large paid concerts as well as smaller church concerts. One of the groups at the forefront of this cultural phenomenon is The Florida Boys from Pensacola, Florida. My short stay here in Florida has introduced me to the large following that these Gospel troubadours have garnered through the years. They are practically household names both here and across the country.

The Florida Boys trace their beginnings back to 1948 when they were known as the 'Gospel Melody Quartet.' But because of promoters who introduced them to the stage as 'those boys from Florida with sand in their shoes and a song in their hearts,' they changed their name to 'The Florida Boys Quartet' in the early 1950s. From there their popularity simply went up, up, and up.

This quartet was one of the very first Gospel groups to appear on television when the medium was still in its infancy. They produced and hosted a weekly TV program called, 'The Gospel Song Shop,' which was seen in many markets all over the South. Then, in 1964 their big break came when a national sponsor tapped the Florida Boys to host its Gospel Music showcase called 'The Gospel Singing Jubilee.' For 18 years each Sunday morning the Jubilee could be seen on every single major television market in the United States, giving the Florida Boys instant national recognition.

That recognition paid off, for the group appeared in the very first Gospel concert held at New York City's Carnegie Hall in the early 60s.

While the personnel has changed somewhat through the years, the Florida Boys still consist of three members whose tenure with the group dates back to the 1950s. Les Beasley, manager, and Glen Allred, baritone vocalist, have been together in the group for 53 years--a record in the Southern Gospel field. Derrell Stewart, pianist, has been with the group for nearly 50 years. Rounding out the group today are Gene McDonald, bass vocalist, who is touted as the best in the business, Josh Garner, lead vocalist, who is viewed by industry insiders as one of the greatest leads ever, and tenor Harold Reed, who is one of the best high tenors singing Gospel music today.

The Florida Boys sing at roughly 250 personal appearances each year, from the largest arenas in the country to the smallest churches in the most rural parts of the South. The reason for their popularity is not far to find. They are good...very good. Those who are not familiar with professional, four-part male harmony would do well to listen to this group to see how it's done. These guys are real pros in every sense of the word.

But the Florida Boys are not the only Southern Gospel group out there creating excitement. Countless other groups, both pro and semi-pro, hit the road each week doing the same thing. Some of the biggest names are the Gold City Quartet, the Dove Brothers, Signature Sound Quartet, the Gaither Vocal Band, the Isaacs, the Kingsmen, Brian Free and Assurance, the Hoppers, and the Inspirations. Each of these groups follow in the grand tradition started by groups such as Hovie Lister and the Statesmen, the Blackwood Brothers, the Cathedral Quartet, and many other groups that are no longer with us.

The Southern Gospel Music business is supported by a rather large network of publications, Internet sites, record companies, talent agencies, radio promotions, and the like. Some of the more popular names include The Singing News, Southern Gospel News, U.S. Gospel News, all of which have publications and websites geared toward Southern Gospel fans. Southern Gospel Music even has its own radio airplay charts, complete with the latest hits from the top groups as they are played on radio stations that feature this form of music.

Part of the charm of the South is this form of music, which one cannot find anywhere else in the world. It was born and bred right here in the Deep South. This is part of Americana at its very finest.

By the way, if you are interested in news about the Florida Boys, their itinerary, and their CDs, DVDs, videos, and the like, you can visit their website at www.floridaboys.com. In addition, their music can be found at sites such as Amazon.com.

You may not necessarily be a fan of Christian music, but any music lover won't be disappointed in listening to a uniquely American art form as performed by the very best--The Florida Boys.

NOTICE! This edited post contains a correction to the earlier website address for the Florida Boys, which was in error. The correct web address is www.floridaboys.com.

UPDATED POST--Nall Says Republicans are Mean

This post is the corrected version to the earlier post by this title, which contains a factual error. Due apologies extended.


Alabama gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall stated today that Republicans are mean. This was the response of the Libertarian candidate toward a group of Auburn University student Republicans who fought to exclude Libertarians from the campus debate. The Republicans insisted that the debate should consist of the two major parties only, which of course meant that college Libertarians would not gain a hearing. Nall complains that the campus Republicans used heavy-handed tactics to make sure the Libertarians would not be part of the debate.

Nall goes further to state that the campus Democrats were gracious, accepting, inviting, and easy to work with, expressing no opposition to Libertarians being included in the debate. Her feeling is that Auburn student Democrats represent much hope for the Party in the future.

Let's hope she's right.

The problem is that I am going to have to see a lot more from Democrats that would move me to vote for one of their candidates. Perhaps I have been around too long and seen too much. I have a long memory. Democrats have never been friends of Libertarian principles, at least not since the days of John F. Kennedy, the last Democrat President to propose tax cuts and to proudly proclaim his membership in the NRA. Since that time Democrats have succeeded in creating a mammoth, monolithic government that is raging out of control, and proceeded to raise taxes to support it.

I honestly and sincerely believe from the bottom of my heart that Democrats never saw a tax they didn't like. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to oppose them.

But it doesn't stop there. The most restrictive gun control laws in the country were proposed and implemented by Democrats. Many of them do not even believe the Bill of Rights guarantees any citizen personal rights, i.e., their contention that the 2nd Amendment does not protect a citizen's right to own and bear firearms.

In addition, Democrats by and large believe that it is ok for a woman to take an unborn infant's life. I cannot in good conscience support such a thing. This is not legislating morality and religion any more than having laws to prevent murder, rape, and robbery are legislating morality. Civil societies have laws to prevent acts of barbarism, and abortion is one of those acts, particularly in light of what we have learned about prenatal development over the past 10 years.

One more nail in the Democrats' coffin in my view is their complicity in the 9/11 debacle. The Clinton Administration had significant opportunity to put into place a program that would have prevented such an act of terrorism on our shores, given their intelligence that indicated an attack was imminent. Those who voiced those concerns within the Administration were silenced. Bin Laden was allowed to escape on three separate occasions when he was within reach, but the President claimed, 'I didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest stick.' For heaven's sake, how much more evidence did the President need?

This, along with the North Korean debacle which also can be laid directly at the feet of the Democrat administration, adds up to one big bumbling mess.

Thus, as for voting for Democrats at this point in time, no thanks....

However, I will admit that the campus Democrats at Auburn are to be commended for their graciousness toward Loretta Nall and the campus Libertarians.

posted by D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan | 4:56 PM

Friday, October 13, 2006

Nall Says Republicans Are Mean

Alabama gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall stated today that Republicans are mean. This was the response of the Libertarian candidate toward a group of Auburn University student Republicans who fought to exclude her from the campus debate. The Republicans insisted that the debate should consist of the two major parties only, which of course meant that Nall would not gain a hearing. Nall complains that the campus Republicans used heavy-handed tactics to make sure she would not be part of the debate.

Nall goes further to state that the campus Democrats were gracious, accepting, inviting, and easy to work with, expressing no opposition to her being included in the debate. Her feeling is that Auburn student Democrats represent much hope for the Party in the future.

Let's hope she's right.

The problem is that I am going to have to see a lot more from Democrats that would move me to vote for one of their candidates. Perhaps I have been around too long and seen too much. I have a long memory. Democrats have never been friends of Libertarian principles, at least not since the days of John F. Kennedy, the last Democrat President to propose tax cuts and to proudly proclaim his membership in the NRA. Since that time Democrats have succeeded in creating a mammoth, monolithic government that is raging out of control, and proceeded to raise taxes to support it.

I honestly and sincerely believe from the bottom of my heart that Democrats never saw a tax they didn't like. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to oppose them.

But it doesn't stop there. The most restrictive gun control laws in the country were proposed and implemented by Democrats. Many of them do not even believe the Bill of Rights guarantees any citizen personal rights, i.e., their contention that the 2nd Amendment does not protect a citizen's right to own and bear firearms.

In addition, Democrats by and large believe that it is ok for a woman to take an unborn infant's life. I cannot in good conscience support such a thing. This is not legislating morality and religion any more than having laws to prevent murder, rape, and robbery are legislating morality. Civil societies have laws to prevent acts of barbarism, and abortion is one of those acts, particularly in light of what we have learned about prenatal development over the past 10 years.

One more nail in the Democrats' coffin in my view is their complicity in the 9/11 debacle. The Clinton Administration had significant opportunity to put into place a program that would have prevented such an act of terrorism on our shores, given their intelligence that indicated an attack was imminent. Those who voiced those concerns within the Administration were silenced. Bin Laden was allowed to escape on three separate occasions when he was within reach, but the President claimed, 'I didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest stick.' For heaven's sake, how much more evidence did the President need?

This, along with the North Korean debacle which also can be laid directly at the feet of the Democrat administration, adds up to one big bumbling mess.

Thus, as for voting for Democrats at this point in time, no thanks....

However, I will admit that the campus Democrats at Auburn are to be commended for their graciousness toward Loretta Nall.

Embedded With the Harris Campaign--the Tax Issue

One of the more interesting political races this year is that between U.S. Representative Katherine Harris, R-Fla., and Democrat Bill Nelson. Having embedded myself with the Harris campaign over the last couple of days has revealed an interesting perspective on Congresswoman Harris with regard to U.S. tax policy. Harris believes in a complete overhaul of the U.S. tax code while her opponent would repeal the Bush tax cuts of 2002 and 2003 and continue with the tax-and-spend attitude that most Democrats exhibit.

Katherine Harris' rise to political prominence is quite an intriguing story. She holds a Master's Degree in Public Policy from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Upon completing her education she returned to her home state of Florida and embarked upon her political career which took her first to the State Senate where she served until being elected as Florida's Secretary of State. From there she went on the run for the U.S. House of Representatives, easily defeating her opponent, and serving the 13th Congressional district with distinction. She hopes that her next stop will be the U.S. Senate.

Harris' campaign has been plagued from the start by troubled waters. Neither President Bush nor Governor Bush believed that she could overcome the popularity of Bill Nelson. The conventional wisdom was that Harris could not win, and thus, the Republican Party supported Harris' opponent in the Republican primary. Harris defeated her opponent and became the Republican standard-bearer for the U.S. Senate seat for which she is now campaigning. Early polls showed her lagging behind Bill Nelson, however, recent polls show the race tightening significantly. Harris is no slouch on the campaign trail. And with her steadfast views on tax cuts and the overhaul of the tax code, she may well garner enough support to win this race.

There is no doubt that the Bush tax cuts have helped the U.S. economy. These cuts have spurred long-term growth similar to the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s. A strong case can be made that the economic boom of the 90s was the direct result of the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s. Short-term deficits usually pale in comparison to the longterm economic growth created by easing the tax burden on American citizens. This is why Harris supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. These cuts are due to expire in 2010. Bill Nelson is on record for supporting the end to those cuts. Harris would make them permanent, which is the only prudent course.

Obviously, though, this is not enough. Harris recognizes the need for a longterm solution to the overwhelming burden of the present U.S. Tax Code, which is fraught with confusing, contradictory, and unfair provisions for which our citizens pay dearly. The Congresswoman would call for a complete overhaul of the U.S. Tax Code in addition to making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

As I have been saying all along, America is long overdue a complete, massive change in our system of taxation. Harris agrees. She has not at this point indicated which plan she supports, however. There are many good choices, such as a national sales tax, a flat tax, or the 'fair tax.' My view is that the Income Tax needs to be abolished. Harris has stopped short of calling for such a thing, yet her belief in a complete overhaul of the present tax system is a major step in the right direction.

Florida voters have a clear choice to make. Bill Nelson has made it clear he is just another big government, tax-and-spend Democrat who never met a tax he didn't like, regardless of how 'likeable' he may be as a person. Katherine Harris, on the other hand, recognizes the heavy-handedness of the IRS and the present tax code and would take prudent steps to change it.

The state of Florida and the nation as a whole will be much better off with Katherine Harris in the U.S. Senate.

Rosie O'Donald Says Gun Owners Should be Jailed!

Now that Rosie O'Donald has joined the cast of the ABC daytime program, 'The View,' we can look forward to being treated to her diatribes about various and sundry Leftist pet peeves, in addition to a good dose or two of Christian-bashing and debunking the values most Americans hold dear. Within a two week period she compared Christians to Islamic Jihadists and proceeded to engage in an argument with a fellow cast member about 2nd Amendment rights.

This takes us back to the year 2002. At that time Rosie was doing her now-cancelled talk show. She broached the subject of gun rights on one of her shows and proceeded to exclaim, 'Anybody who owns a firearm should be thrown into jail, period!'

Those of us who value and hold sacred the rights guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution have never forgotten those shocking words. It is estimated that upwards of 80 million Americans own some sort of firearm. Rosie obviously believes that all 80 million of us should be rounded up and thrown into prison. How would we accomplish such a task? Prison camps? Imagine several million Guantanimos scattered all over the country just to house us hardened, dangerous, subversive gun owners!

Rosie stopped short of repeating her call for the imprisonment of gun owners on 'The View,' but strongly reasserted her opinion that gun ownership should be outlawed. This prompted a lively, heated exchange with one of the co-hosts of the show, the end of which came when this co-host stated, 'This is a guaranteed right stated in the U.S. Constitution.' Rosie looked as if she would explode but held her peace.

The day is coming when the powers that be at ABC, as well as the cast of 'The View,' are going to get their fill of this bellowing bag of hot air.

Anyone who believes that owning a gun should be grounds for imprisonment does not deserve a national platform on which to spout these blatantly unAmerican views. Rosie is certainly entitled to her opinion and to state that opinion. She is NOT entitled a national audience in front of which to advocate for the revoking of the basic rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

NEWS FLASH! UPDATE ON MASONIC PROTEST IN BIRMINGHAM

http://scottishritefacts.blogspot.com/

The website link you see above is place where you can find the complete story on the Masonic Protest Rally in Birmingham, Alabama yesterday afternoon. The blog writer is one of the participants in the protest, and he was kind enough to send me the link to his blog and update me on the latest news concerning the protest.

Ten brave souls in the middle of the Deep South dared to challenge some of the most powerful people in Alabama as they boldly but respectfully protested the racist exclusion of 'Prince Hall Masons' from the ranks of the Grand Lodge of Alabama. As I have reported to you before, this practice is rare among Masons. The U.S. Grand Lodge has no such exclusionary policy and fully recognizes and accepts their black counterparts in the Prince Hall Lodges. The problem is that in the South there are a few orders of the Grand Lodge that still exclude blacks from their ranks. The Grand Lodge of Alabama is one of them. Alabama Governor Bob Riley is a member of that Lodge.

Remember that most of those who are protesting the Grand Lodge are themselves Masons. This is NOT an anti-Mason movement.

As you will note in the story found on the scottishritefacts blog, the protest was peaceful. However, some of the members of the Grand Lodge obviously felt threatened by the presence of protesters, although they were not standing on Lodge property, so the police were summoned to the scene. Four police cruisers were dispatched to the scene to monitor the movements of a mere TEN peaceful protesters who broke no laws.

Be sure to pay a visit to the website provided at the beginning of this post. This is the tip of the iceberg.

Streisand Comes Unglued at Concert

I admit that I have always loved Barbra Streisand's music. From the time I first heard her sing in the early 60s until today she has never disappointed the vocal critic in me. Very few singers of popular music have had the stamina, longevity, and vocal quality that Streisand exhibits. The only others that could be added to that elite group would be Perry Como, Bing Crosby, and Tony Bennett.

At a recent concert on her present tour she was being heckled by a member of the audience who was disgusted by her political skit during which an actor plays a bumbling George W. Bush--who, of course, comes across as a complete idiot--while Streisand peppers the skit with the usual anti-Bush rhetoric. A flustered Streisand then exclaimed, 'Shut the F*** up, if you can't take a joke.' No matter that people pay good money, big bucks in fact, to hear Streisand SING rather than use the stage as a platform to spout political rhetoric, ala the Dixie Chics. The fans be damned.

Talent aside, I have always loathed Streisand's politics. As an unabashed Leftist she has made no attempt to hide her affinity for socialistic programs, gun control, the need for big government to patrol and watch over our lives. Her present outright hatred for George W. Bush is curious given her long-standing support of the growth of big government...as long as big government does what SHE feels is right.

And this brings us to the heart of the matter. So-called 'civil libertarians' or 'libertarian democrats' do not really oppose big government. They oppose it only when someone takes it in a direction they don't want to go. For example, it is perfectly OK for big government to take away your gun rights, but it is not OK for that big government to declare a war on terror. It is quite politically correct for big government to squelch the free speech of Christian fundamentalists, but it is not OK for that government to wage war on Islamic Jihadists who wish to annihilate the West.

Thus, the hypocrisy of so-called 'libertarian democrats' is made clear. Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, has its foundation in the belief that big government is a danger to free people everywhere, including its own citizens. Small government is the ideal. However, today we are witnessing a very dangerous trend among those who claim the name of 'libertarian.' Streisand, for example, would be among the first to claim that she believes in liberty, personal freedom, civil rights, and all the appropriate catch-phrases that one associates with the Libertarian movement. But her philosophy is far from a belief in small government. Press her further, and one is sure to find severe limits in her support for 'personal rights.' As her how she feels about the 2nd Amendment, for example.

The crux of the matter is that we cannot allow Leftists to usurp the principles upon which Libertarianism is based. Many, many people, such as Streisand, talk a good game, but look deeper and you will find a big brother socialist.

Jefferson said it best, 'That government which governs best governs LEAST.' And this is the Libertarian ideal.

Overhauling the U.S. Tax Code

The time is long overdue to overhaul the U.S. Tax Code. Admittedly, great strides have been made to reign in the government's hold on the citizens through taxation under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. These tax cuts are commendable and have done much to bolster the economy and end the pervasive oppression of the IRS. However, these improvements are not enough.

I would like to suggest that we end the Income Tax entirely and abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

These proposals have been made before by Libertarians, Conservative/Libertarian Republicans, and others who are aware of the problems inherent in the present tax code. However, rarely in the history of this Republic have so many voices been raised concerning the problem of taxation, and rarely have there been so many viable alternatives proposed to replace the current system. The time is ripe for change.

The Income Tax and the Internal Revenue Service were not envisioned by the Founders of this Republic. These things were added much later in our history. They are not sacred institutions. However, an entire culture and industry has arisen out of the advent of both. Accountants, attorneys, law enforcement officials, investigators, and a slew of other taxation professionals depend on the present system for their livelihood. Homeowners depend on the tax deductions. Those who support various and sundry non-profit, religious and charitable organizations depend on the tax breaks they get for their donations. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Overhauling the current system would be a mammoth task that would essentially change the culture.

Yet such a change is worth pursuing. Several proposals have been put forth that hold promise. One proposal is the 'fair tax.' Another is the national sales tax. Yet another is the 'flat tax,' meaning that each citizen owes a certain percentage of their income across the board. Some of the states have implemented a policy of taxation that excludes food and medicine from being taxed.

At present I favor a national sales tax that would exclude food and medicine from the equation. Several major think-tanks are doing research on the various proposals to ascertain which would be the most feasible and cause the least disruption to the culture and economy.

What would be the benefits of such a massive change? Fairness is the major benefit. Individuals and corporations alike would owe their fair share, bar none. This would prevent corporate welfare and stop individuals who never pay income tax at all due to their income level from receiving refunds on taxes they never paid. In addition, a new system would in all likelihood lead to smaller government, one of those Libertarian ideals that always seems to get buried somewhere beneath the present talk of dubious liaisons with tax-and-spend liberals. The government would be forced to live within its means. If we cannot afford certain things due to the lower tax burden on the citizens, then so be it. Certain programs would have to go. This is a good thing.

The Founding Fathers never wished for a system of taxation that would burden the citizens to the point of rage. Many are at that point and have been at that point for years. The IRS essentially operates as a quasi-government unto itself with very little accountability to anyone in elected office. It has used bullying tactics on the citizens of this nation, often driving persons to bankruptcy or worse, imprisonment. There is a much better way.

The IRS should be abolished and replaced with a Department of Federal Collections that is accountable directly to the President. If this means creating a Cabinet post, then so be it. An agency with the power of the IRS has no business operating under the assumption that it has a free reign with no accountability to elected officials. If the Director of this new Department of Federal Collections cannot maintain adequate accountability, then he/she can be immediately fired and replaced by the President. Of course, with a national sales tax or a flat tax, there would be little or no room for fraud or tax evasion. Thus, the need for the bullying tactics of the IRS would immediately cease.

I continue to be intrigued by the various proposals that have been offered with regard to our system of taxation. I am gratified by the fact that so much time and energy is now being devoted to the concept. I offer my proposal as one more to add to the mix with the hope that in the end, Americans will be free from the present system of overburdensome taxation.

If Liberty Means We Are Free, Then What?

Dangerous trends are rampant in American society that hold up to question our commitment to liberty. It goes without saying that a free people should be truly free. But is that what we are? Are we truly free? What is the status of liberty in America today?

The news, frankly, is not good. On many fronts our basic liberties and rights are being eroded away.

In the famous Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton and other Founders spelled out in precise detail what freedom means with regard to our basic rights as citizens. The Bill of Rights need no 'interpretation' if one honestly considers the principles delineated in the Federalist Papers. Liberty means we are free. That being the case, then what?

Take the Second Amendment, for example. Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, and company stated clearly that an armed citizenry was the thing that would keep us free. There is no indication here of any notion that the Second Amendment referred exclusively to a state militia. If this were the case, then the very men who wrote the Constitution would not have asserted unequivocally that citizens who are armed would protect themselves from government tyranny, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL TYRANNY OF THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT!

Yet there are powerful voices in America today that contend that the Second Amendment guarantees no such personal rights. And year by year, little by little, they have succeeded in chopping away at the Second Amendment, utilizing state law and the courts, in order to render the amendment meaningless, except for their own blatantly false 'interpretation.'

Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own and carry firearms when the Founders make it clear this is what they had in mind for the citizens of this Republic?

In addition, the assault on smoking, eating fat, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, and the like, are additional examples of government's intrusion into our private lives and whittling away at our basic liberties. It is not the government's business to make sure I stop smoking. My choice to eat fatty foods is just that--a personal choice. If I drive a motorcycle without a helmet, I made my decision, albeit a stupid one. But government's role was never to prevent its citizens from making stupid decisions. If I smoke, eat fat, refuse to wear a helmet, etc, etc., I will probably suffer some adverse consequence. My government is not charged with saving me from myself.

Other rights that are under assault are freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religious expression, and freedom of the press. These First Amendment rights were held sacred and inviolate for nearly two centuries. The latter half of the 20th century, however, saw a chilling attempt to limit these rights as well. Examples of these violations of personal liberties are too numerous to mention in one short article, but you know as well as I do that they are there.

For years Americans were asleep as these things happened. However, I sense a growing alarm in many sectors of our society that leads me to believe that sooner or later Americans are going to put their foot down and say, 'Enough is enough.'

I hope that what we are awakening is a giant in the cause of liberty.

State Helicopter Harasses Alabama Trailer Park

Like a saga on an invasion by government storm-troopers, an Alabama trailer park was recently subjected to harassment by a state helicopter that was apparently dispatched to the area to 'look for illegal drugs.' The incident took place at a small trailer park near the town of Alexander City, Alabama.

Reports indicate that the helicopter was doing typical maneuvers indicative of an intimidation-and-search mission charged with finding illegal drugs. The chopper was alternating between hovering, diving, ascending, descending, and then hovering again over the trailer park.

An eyewitness to the entire episode was Alabama gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who is running on the Libertarian ticket. As she was driving home one afternoon Nall spotted the chopper and noticed the odd maneuvers. What she saw was eerily reminiscent of the nightmarish run-in she had with state police officers concerning an alleged drug charge. Nall had the very same experience with the state helicopter doing these maneuvers over her home just prior to her arrest in 2002 on a marijuana possession charge, to which she has plead not guilty.

Nall's full story, including the recounting of the helicopter incident over the trailer park, can be found on her website at www.nallforgovernor.com.

The point in bringing up this story is to highlight our nation's failed 'war on drugs' and the millions of dollars spent and the countless hours of manpower expended on something that is not going away. That money and that manpower could be put to much better use in chasing the hardened criminals, such as those who have perpetrated over 70 murders in Birmingham alone so far this year.

To use the state's resources to harass the residents of a trailer park, which, by the way, is right next door to the Alabama Department of Transportation, is irrational at best. Surely there are better uses for the state's helicopters, like, hunting down dangerous murderers, rapists, and child molesters.

Several years ago a group of anti-government subversives described such state-sponsored harassment as being the work of 'hooded, jackbooted government thugs.' While I am loathe to refer to our government officials in such derogatory terms (I do believe there are many honorable people who work for our government), it makes one wonder if such programs as the 'war on drugs' and the methods used to fight it are based upon the tactics of totalitarian regimes who utilize storm-troopers to browbeat the people into marching in lockstep.

Surely we can do better as Americans.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

News Blackout on Masonic Protest Rally in Alabama

Today--Wednesday, October 11, 2006, was the day that a protest rally was to be held outside the local Grand Lodge of Alabama, Scottish Rite, in order for Masons to register their discontent with the policy of the Grand Lodge to exclude 'Prince Hall Masons,' who are Black. However, to watch the local news broadcasts today one would never know such a rally took place.

It is quite obvious that there was a concerted news blackout of the event.

As you probably know by now, the controversy was sparked by news reports that Alabama Governor Bob Riley is a member of this particular order of Masons. Radio personalities Russ and Dee Fine discussed the issue on the air, which led to the Associated Press picking up the story. A few weeks later Russ and Dee were fired. In the ensuing weeks various Masonic bloggers have kept the story alive, mainly because as Masons they are disgusted that the Grand Lodge continues to hold such a racist policy, in spite of the fact that the U.S. Grand Lodge--the national organization of the Scottish Rite, has long since recognized and accepted Prince Hall Masons. You will not find this story on any of the major news outlets in Alabama, however.

During the past few weeks since the firing of Russ and Dee this story has been squelched. Someone, somewhere has succeeded in putting the lid on this embarrassing episode for the local Grand Lodge and for Governor Riley, who is running for re-election. In fact, one can safely say there is a total news blackout of the story.

It takes some powerful people in some high places to succeed in keeping this story from public view. But that, as they say, is Alabama politics.

I would like to know what happened at the rally today. But I won't be getting it from the traditional news media. I suppose I will have to depend of my fellow bloggers for updates...

News Blackout on Masonic Protest Rally in Birmingham

Today--Wednesday, October 11, 2006, was the day that a protest rally was to be held outside the local Grand Lodge of Alabama, Scottish Rite, in order for Masons to register their discontent with the policy of the Grand Lodge to exclude 'Prince Hall Masons,' who are Black. However, to watch the local news broadcasts today one would never know such a rally took place.

It is quite obvious that there was a concerted news blackout of the event.

As you probably know by now, the controversy was sparked by news reports that Alabama Governor Bob Riley is a member of this particular order of Masons. Radio personalities Russ and Dee Fine discussed the issue on the air, which led to the Associated Press picking up the story. A few weeks later Russ and Dee were fired. In the ensuing weeks various Masonic bloggers have kept the story alive, mainly because as Masons they are disgusted that the Grand Lodge continues to hold such a racist policy, in spite of the fact that the U.S. Grand Lodge--the national organization of the Scottish Rite, has long since recognized and accepted Prince Hall Masons. You will not find this story on any of the major news outlets in Alabama, however.

During the past few weeks since the firing of Russ and Dee this story has been squelched. Someone, somewhere has succeeded in putting the lid on this embarrassing episode for the local Grand Lodge and for Governor Riley, who is running for re-election. In fact, one can safely say there is a total news blackout of the story.

It takes some powerful people in some high places to succeed in keeping this story from public view. But that, as they say, is Alabama politics.

I would like to know what happened at the rally today. But I won't be getting it from the traditional news media. I suppose I will have to depend of my fellow bloggers for updates...

McCain Blasts Clinton on North Korea

Making headline news today all over the country, Senator John McCain came out swinging on North Korea, laying the blame squarely at the feet of former President Bill Clinton. Citing numerous failures in judgment, including sheer lack of due diligence, McCain says that there is no doubt that the policies of the Clinton Administration were a complete failure, leading us to this point today where the reclusive regime is on the brink of becoming a major nuclear power.

The series of missteps and blunders by the former Administration leads us back to 1994. This was the year that Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea in which the North Koreans 'promised' not to use nuclear energy to develop weapons. Clinton, along with the help of ex-President Jimmy Carter, promised that the U.S. would provide North Korea with the means by which to develop nuclear energy, supposedly as a humanitarian effort to bolster the regime's ability to provide its people with adequate energy resources.

As we all know by now, North Korea did not live up to its end of the bargain. Thus, the U.S. essentially provided the regime with all the materials necessary to make nuclear bombs, which they proceeded to develop. All the while the Clinton Administration blindly continued funneling the materials to North Korea on the assumption that these materials were being used to develop a stronger energy policy. No diligence was exercised to make sure the North Koreans were keeping their word. No monitoring of North Korean movement by our intelligence sources was conducted. No proof was required of the North Korean regime to account for its use of the materials we were providing them.

All the while, throughout the remainder of the 1990s, North Korea was conducting its research and preparing to build its nuclear arsenal, eventually admitting in 2002 that it had duped the Clinton Administration. Clinton, Gore, Albright, Carter and company were thus implicated in one of the most glaring mistakes ever made by an Administration.

We actually enabled North Korea to develop nuclear weapons by blindly providing them with the means to do so.

How could such a thing happen? In a word, ineptitude. One of the worst mistakes an Administration can make is assuming that every regime in the world is as kind-hearted, honest, and full of good-will as the U.S. Democrats are famous for such ineptitude. Clinton, Carter, Albright, Gore, Kennedy, and company operate with a naive assumption that if we show good-will to other nations, they will return the favor.

This terribly short-sighted notion has been debunked time and time again by various regimes around the world, particularly Communist regimes. Communists are not known for keeping treaties or abiding by the terms of their agreements. To expect them to do so is sheer lunacy. Yet this was precisely the expectation of the Clinton Administration, Democrats in Congress, and former President Jimmy Carter. It makes one wonder how such inept individuals made their way into the top echelons of government.

And here, on the brink of mid-term elections in a few short weeks, we are being told that we should entrust the Congress to Democrats, the very same ones who led us to the North Korean debacle. Yes, there are some new faces here and there, but the Party leadership is basically the same. John Kerry even suggested that we would not be in this situation with North Korea if President Bush had followed the 'successful bilateral diplomacy of the Clinton Administration.'

Excuse me, Senator, but that so-called successful bilateral diplomacy of the Clinton Administration led to North Korea making fools of the former Administration and developing nuclear weapons right under their noses. Yet this is the Democrat response to the crisis.

The question is, why would Americans want to put inept buffoons back in power in Congress?

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Russ and Dee Fine, Bob Riley, and the Masonic Scandal

As I have reported to you already, popular Birmingham, Alabama talk-show hosts Russ and Dee Fine were fired by Crawford Broadcasting after reporting on the air that Governor Bob Riley, who is running for re-election, is a member of the Grand Lodge of Alabama--a Masonic group that does not recognize 'Prince Hall Masons,' a Masonic order made up primarily of Blacks. This is an update to their story.

A letter by Russ and Dee Fine appears on a blog entitled, 'The Modern FreeMasonic Journal,' and the blogger is Darren Simpson. He has done an incredible job in keeping us updated on this shocking story. You can visit his blog at www.the-modern-freemasonic-journal.blogspot.com. The specific article is entitled, 'Jim Crow Strikes Back (Russ and Dee Fine's Answer to Critics). I strongly encourage you to visit this website and read the entire article.

For your convenience, I have provided a few excerpts here from Russ and Dee's letter:

As reported on Mason Gary Dryfoos' website, http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/, which bills itself as the oldest Mason website having been around since 1994, the last time an Alabama Mason proposed that the Alabama Grand Lodge recognize the Prince Hall lodges, Alex Harris was not only out-voted, he was out shouted and finally, gaveled into silence before he could read his entire proposal:

"I attempted to give an address on the issue and two sentences into it the brethren became unruly. . . The Grand Master asked the brethren to behave like Masons and I continued. Then, about a third of the way into the speech the brethren became so unruly that the Grand Master asked how much more time I needed. I responded that I had about a page and a half more and the brethren literally erupted. At that time I informed the Grand Master that I understood the position he was in and would take my seat. It was obvious that the Grand Master did not wish to gavel me down but if I had not stopped the meeting would have become more unruly."

Before he was silenced Alex Harris said this to his fellow Alabama Masons:

"Is not part of being a Mason having the courage to stand up for what is just and right, regardless of the consequences? Didn't we learn that from the Masonic founding fathers of our country? Of course, Alabama has been desegregated for over thirty years. We're ready. Brethren, this is 1999. The country has been integrated for a generation. The world has been integrated a lot longer than that. Masons in the rest of the world, and the United States for that matter, can't fathom our refusal to accept Prince Hall Masons."

In the part of the speech he never got to deliver, the brave Alex Harris related the threats and despicable racial slurs that he had heard since taking up the issue and then observed:

"I want to respond to a few of the statements you just heard. First and foremost... if, because I favor recognition, I would be in physical danger... then Masonry does not exist here anymore. Second... anyone who would leave Masonry, because Prince Hall Masonry is granted recognition, is a Mason in title only. Its lesson's are obviously not in their hearts. We may lose a large number of members if the resolution passes. So mote it be. Let them trade their aprons for white sheets with hoods. We are better off without them."

It was November 17, 1999 when Alex Harris was shouted down by his fellow Alabama Masons. It would be interesting to know if Bob Riley was in attendance at that meeting. But no newspaper we have spoken to has the gumption to ask him. Almost seven years have passed since that "unruly" event, and the Alabama Grand Lodge has not changed its opinion of segregation and African Americans. And Bob Riley is still a member, and in fact refuses to quit, even in this, the 21st Century.

It was pointing out the inappropriateness of a sworn public official having membership in a segregated organization that got us fired. "Let them trade their aprons for white sheets with hoods," said Alex Harris. It is apparent that Bob Riley and the Alabama Grand Lodge are happy to use the tactics of the old Klan as well. It is also apparent that like the Klan of old, the newspapers of this state and other media are cravenly hiding their eyes and stilling their tongues, lest the new Jim Crow, which is of course the same old Jim Crow, becomes cross with them and withdraws advertising revenue.

So Jim Crow struck back and we were fired. It is the same old story with new faces. We have not decided on whether we will return to the radio anytime soon and frankly, we don’t even know if we will have the opportunity. The power of the New Jim Crow, represented by our Governor and his slimy friends, may make that difficult. Clearly, it is in their interest to keep us bound and gagged. But we are not out of the fight. Heeding the advice of Winston Churchill, we will never, ever give up. And we urge all of our loyal listeners and the people who have no trouble distinguishing ‘right from wrong’ to stay in the fight, whatever form that takes in the future. The bad guys won this battle. Let's win the next battle, and the war.

Russ and Dee Fine.

posted by Darren Simpson @ 4:33 PM

Thanks again to Darren Simpson for this timely update.

Nall Campaign Needs Your Financial Support

Alabama Libertarian Loretta Nall, who is running a splendid campaign for Governor, needs your financial support. From now until the end of October she will be criss-crossing the state speaking at some key functions that will give her an important voice in the campaign.

As you know, Libertarian and other third party candidates have a tough time matching the funds raised by the two major parties. The Nall campaign is running on a shoe-string budget. However, it takes money to travel the highways of the state--money that is in short supply.

It is time to lend Loretta your financial support as she makes these personal appearances around the state. You can contribute by visiting her website at--www.nallforgovernor.com.

An Independent Libertarian

Libertarians stand in a unique position in the political landscape. We do not have the luxury of voting across the board for Libertarian candidates due to the simple fact that we do not have candidates in every single race in the country. Thus, we get to choose from the two major parties, and perhaps occasionally another third party or an Independent.

To my way of thinking, this is splendid. I can exercise my independence by voting for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. This is the only prudent course for one to take IF one is concerned about personal integrity.

Integrity goes out the window if I vote for a candidate in one of the two major parties 'just to punish the other side,' or to attain 'gridlock in government.' Such notions are totally untenable to those of us who are concerned about personal integrity and voting for the best candidate for the job.

This is why the present call by some in the 'Libertarian Democrat' movement to vote for Democrats in exchange for some nebulous tip of the hat toward Libertarians, or to create gridlock in Washington, is one of the most repulsive proposals to come down the pike in a very long time. Such a thing flies in the face of principle, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

As an Independent Libertarian I am free to vote for anyone, of any Party, who comes closest to embodying our ideals. Casting a vote for someone whose Party has created big government, sought to destroy 2nd Amendment rights, opposed almost every tax cut over the last 40 years, and looks with disdain on any movement that promotes private or homeschool education, is tantamount to betraying every single principle that Libertarians have stood for through the years.

Let's get our bearings about us again. Join me in casting your vote for the best candidate on the ticket. Use your head. Vote your conscience. Don't fall for ill-fated, underhanded schemes. Selling our birthright for a bowl of stew will come back to haunt us eventually.

Let's not make that mistake.

Monday, October 09, 2006

These Corrupt Henchmen

These corrupt henchmen have to go! Out with the dirty scoundrels! Throw the bums out! The scandal revolving around the Mark Foley case in Congress is ample evidence that powerful people knew about the whole thing and held onto the information.

By now you are probably thinking I am talking about the Republican leadership. Think again!

Word leaked out of Washington today that no less than A DOZEN House Democrats knew about Foley's shenanigans TWO YEARS AGO, but did NOTHING. Instead, they held onto the information until an 'opportune moment,' like, 5 weeks prior to the midterm Congressional elections. How convenient. How utterly corrupt.

Talk radio has been a-buzz with calls for mass resignations of ANYONE who knew about Foley's problem and did nothing about it. Does this mean, then, that the dirty dozen Democrats who knew about this and sat on it for two years should resign? Apparently it was much more important for these Democrat henchmen to benefit from scandal than it was for them to protect the underage pages who work for Congress.

Let's see if the righteously indignant put their money where their mouth is if this hits the Democrats the way the Washington whisperers say it will.

Hillary Mouths Off on North Korea

At a speaking engagement today, Hillary Clinton displayed her revisionist mindset in answer to a question from a reporter about North Korea and it's nuclear test. Wasting no time in making political hay of the situation, Hillary laid the blame for it all squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. No reporter followed up with a question about her husband's glaring failures for 8 solid years with regard to North Korea.

Thus, the Clinton/Media Establishment machine is busy at work in rewriting history. In 1994, Bill Clinton, with the aid of Jimmy Carter and others in the Democrat party, provided North Korea with the means by which to build its nuclear program. And then, for the next six years the Clinton Administration took North Korea's word for the fact that they supposedly were not working on nuclear weapons. The North Koreans admitted in 2002 that they had been working on nuclear weapons all along and had lied to the Clinton Administration.

Not only had Clinton and company provided North Korea with the material needed to build nuclear weapons in 1994, but for the next six years failed to make sure the regime was living up to its word. Who is to blame again?

Too bad for Hillary that too many of us have much better memories than she gives us credit for....

Sunday, October 08, 2006

It's a Trick! The 'Libertarian Democrat' Ruse

Wonders never cease. Libertarians in some cases are actually falling for the overtures some Democrats are making to get our votes. 'Who wudda thunk it?'

Since when have you known a Democrat to advocate small government, low taxes, free markets, gun rights, privatization of the educational system and Social Security, abolishing the income tax and gradually phasing out the IRS, or the many other principles one usually associates with the word 'libertarian'?

Apparently some in our ranks our falling for the flirtations of certain Democrats who talk a good game but have no facts to back up the talk. History is the proof. This is a trick of the basest sort. It is a scheme to get votes in order to first take back the Congress, and then to get back the White House in 2008.

Do you honestly think if they succeed they will support the core values of Libertarians? Cutting a deal with the Devil always results in somebody getting screwed. If we continue down this ill-fated path, it is going to be us.

We can't let our discontent with Republicans lead us to self-destruct by entering into dubious liaisons with those who wish to destroy everything we stand for.

Why Libertarians Should Not Support Democrats

Apparently many Libertarians have very short memories. In focusing upon what they dislike about George W. Bush and the Republicans they have forgotten what they DISDAIN about the Democrats. Perhaps I can jog your memory a bit.

The Democrats wrote the book on creating big government. Remember the New Deal? Remember the Great Society? And how did they pay for this growing monolith? Higher and higher taxes. It took Ronald Reagan to roll back the tax and spend bandwagon that the Democrats had advocated for decades.

What about the 2nd Amendment? John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were the last two national Democrat candidates to proudly claim their membership in the NRA. That era of the party's leadership is long gone. Today you can find them denouncing the NRA in the harshest terms. And let's not forget that Democrats are on record as supporting and implementing the strictest gun control measures in the country.

Hypocrisy is another reason why Democrats should not be supported. Their present righteous indignation over U.S. Representative Foley hides their support for the likes of Garry Studds, the gay Democrat who during the 80s had homosexual liaisons with House pages, and even took one on a European tour. Not only did Studds survive but he ran again and won!

Libertarian support for Democrats is simply asinine...