Why I'm Moving to New Hampshire

A lot of my California friends always ask "New Hampshire? What the fuck is in New Hampshire that you want to move there so badly?"

As soon as I utter these 3 words "Free State Project" The immediate reaction is "LAME!" "Shitty!" "Your moving because of politics? That's Retarded"

Retarded am I? I think NOT moving to New Hampshire is a stupid move. It's not because I like politics or anything like that. It's because I want to move to a state thats FREE.

Free? How so?

Funny you should ask! Here are a few examples:

• New Hampshire has NO state income tax, no sales tax, or capital gains tax.
• New Hampshire has open carry laws that allow citizens to openly carry firearms with out Mommy government's permission via permits
• New Hampshire has NO manditory seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws
• New Hampshire has a constitutionally protected right to violently overthrow the state government
• New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die" mostly because of it's culture of liberty
• New Hampshire is moving to reject the new RFID chipped National ID card (RealID)
• New Hampshire's state supreme court has said that the government CANNOT take land though eminent domain and was added to the state constitution.
  
• New Hampshire does NOT restrict smoking in bars or restaurants (unless of course the owner doesn't want you smoking)
• New Hampshire has the LOWEST CRIME RATE IN THE NATION!
  
• New Hampshire and it's towns/cities have been numeriously raked in Money Magazine's BEST PLACES TO LIVE.
  
• Third-healthiest state in the 2005 Overall America's Health Rankings by the United Health Foundation.
• #2 in 2005 Work Environment Index
• Best state for well-being of children.
  
• and so on
• and so on
• and so on

Now what is retarded? Living in a state, like say California, where you cannot allow smoking in your own business, are forced to recycle, pay extraordinary taxes, forced to wear a seat belt, not allowed to defend yourself with a gun with out concealed-carry permits, can have your house taken by government to build a freeway or a stadium, and have to live in one of the most highest crime rates in the nation.

Or

Moving to a state that doesn't have to wipe your ass and protect you from yourself?

Now.... Am I still retarded for moving to New Hampshire?

You can learn more about the Free State Project here:

This story was too good not to share.

Rudy Giuliani Vs. Ron Paul, and Reality

Wed May 16, 12:29 AM ET by John Nichols

The Nation -- Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.
The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.
Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of
Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President
Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.
Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the
Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
Paul argued that
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."
Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.
But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.
The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of
Israel.
The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists,
FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."
Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.
Michael Scheuer, the former
Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by
President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."
It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.
But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.
Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."
Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.
No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Does a city mayor have enough information to be President ? I don't think so !

First Post!

This is my first post on my new blog. I think a good introduction to me and some what this blog is going to be mostly about (although it lacks in my other interest in skepticism of paranormal and pesudo-science.)

The Betrayal of the Betrayal

OR

How I became Disenfranchised with the Liberal Punk Movement.

Back in 2000 I became politically charged after hearing a speech from Jello Biafra someone had sent me over the internet about marijuana laws (Grow More Pot) and began diving into his other works. I couldn't help myself agreeing with about 98% of what Jello said in most of them, and found myself to be a progressive like him. Mostly because of my ideology that any use of force is wrong and unjust and government should say out of peoples private lives. Both are values I still hold to this day. I became very involved with the local Green Party and helped Peter Camejo's campaign by volunteering both of his gubernatorial campaigns in California.

With all the problems plaguing us; war, poverty, invasion of privacy, gun violence, terrorism, corporate crime, and on and on it was only instinct that government should step up to the plate and fix these problem. Why? Well they're here to protect us. No other system could possibly eliminate these issues, right? Well I thought so, even before I heard Jello's comforting voice assuring that we follow his plan to salvation.

I couldn't help myself getting on the bandwagon, especially during the 2004 election and finding myself to be on the A.B.B. (Anybody But Bush) train to nowhere because after all Bush was evil. He was stupid! Bushisms were scattered all over my wall from a calender of bad Bush quotes. He was wrong and immoral! I mean to be anti-terrorism and to allow the assault weapons ban to expire.

This would be my first presidential election I would be participating in. in 2000 I was only a month shy of being 18. Otherwise I would have voted for Nader. Now that I know where I stand I know I made a huge error. I see now that neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor Nader, nor Cobb were the correct answer to the problems in America.

Living in Southern California in my whole youth I got to see the first hand failures of government "solutions" in play. I even used the term "good enough for government work" freely and with out thinking about my own personal politics. I seen my friends denied government assistance when it was most needed at a time that Old Dirty Bastard from The Wu-Tang Clan was collecting welfare checks at a time when he was a millionaire. I seen me and my own classmates struggling in public school. A teacher at a continuation high school deliberately throwing my homework and classwork away, getting caught, and resuming work as if nothing happened because of tenure. The gun violence in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The growing methamphetamine problems in the Riverside/San Bernardino areas. Riversides ban on cyber gaming cafes because of it attracted "gang and criminal activity." My grandmother fighting for almost every well deserved social security check. The government's inaction during the Enron scandal and the California energy "crisis." I could go on all day!

So how could a band that wrote such gems as "The Plan" write crap like "Franco Un-American" and allow it to be played on the radio? How could other bands who sang the praises of anarchism and minarchism stab the punk community in the back for economic slavery to pay for a nanny state, and why did I follow along? Simple answer to that: publik skoo.

The very system I was promoting was a center for socialist brainwashing. The reason the left shouts that the second amendment is too vague and the right shouts we need assault rifles to shoot deer is a direct product of 60 years of government indoctrination centers controlling the minds of the youth to become obedient mind slaves for big government. The founders wanted us to have guns to make the government fear us and to be ready for the next revolution against our own government. That and along with the bastard idea that America being a democracy when it was clearly expressed by our founders that it was indeed a constitutional republic and that democracies were the "tyranny of the majority." Also, like any government agency, is is doomed to fail. Take for example; me.

I was the kid while other kids were playing tag in the streets I was reading encyclopedias. Before I entered kindergarten, I had already devoured the 1958 Book of Knowledge with full comprehension. So why was it I had a 1.5 grade average in high school and had to weasel out with a G.E.D.? Not because I was stupid or lazy, but because the school was stupid and lazy. Even with the billions of dollars California pumps into this sinking titanic, it was only getting worse. Even to this day they are using health books from the 1970's.

Why not let people keep the money they spend on income and property taxes to send them to private schools that will compete for the best education at the lowest cost and have private charities help educate the less fortunate? Because people are selfish and greedy, therefor we need to hold guns to peoples and and force the money out of them to indoctrinate them into their style of thinking right? Because we all know, the IRS is very good at saying please and thank you.

But wait! That's capitalism! Capitalism is evil! It's leaves the poor and unfortunate people in the gutter and transfers wealth to the hands of a few. We can't have that! We need saftey nets and security blankets and mommy government to protect us from evil capitalistic swines here to rob us of our essential living supplies. YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO PRIVATISE WATER DO YOU?!

Sure why not? Why not end the water monopoly the government has for competition? If you have one water supply ran by the government the price will be set and you have no choice but to pay it. OR You can have 3 companies providing water to your area and they can compete for the cleanest and cheapest water. Also wouldn't have to wait years for the government bureaucrats to rubber stamp things like better filtration.

Sure we know what Bechtel did in Bolivia when it "privatized" it's water supply and the citizens rioted because of the insane amount per gallon it cost to buy it. What we fail to realize is this is not privatization. It's mercentilism which is government handing out government functions to 1 private company and funding it with tax money. As with government ran programs, it cannot work because of lack of incentives to provide the best service for the lowest price as would true privatization would in a completive free market with out government regulations or control.

Well what about the ecosystem? Surely we are killing our selfs with pollution that causes global warming and cutting down all the trees at an alarming rate, right?! Surely government can help in this area? Right?

WRONG!

If we were to assume that CO2 that cars and factories emit are the greenhouse gases that cause global warming we would learn that the vast majority of the problem comes from 2 main sources:

Volcanoes and governments including our own.

Yea, governments and natural occurrences are the prime evils to our world. So why hand them the power to stop it? Not to mention the fact that not all scientists are in agreement with the global warming debate. In fact, nearly half of scientists who study climate change contend that this is simply a natural progression of the earth's heat cycle and the main 2 contributors of the warmth we are seeing now is water vapor and sunlight. These people are also listed on some IPCC reports as supporters of these theories even after they requested to be removed from the list because they "didn't listen to their side." That didn't stop the IPCC from printing it anyways as if these guys really did support the global warming myth. Besides, I don't know if you all know that. You know that stuff we breathe out? That's CO2. You know that temperature Al Gore keeps saying will melt the polar ice caps and kill us all? That was exceeded by leaps and bounds in the middle ages yet Italy and England wasn't submerged. Rather England benefited from the warmth by higher crop yields and boosting their economy.

And while we can point that Republican dominated Texas with it's deregulated pollution standards made Huston one of the most polluted cities in America, we can show that the Inland Empire in California, with it's highest pollution regulations is the highest pollution rate.

It took me a year of self transition to realize that capitalism wasn't so bad, it was only muddied by the socialists and the cronie "capitalists" in Washington to make me think that big government was essential for a stable country. Yet the Left and the Right point the finger at the other and blame them for their own inadequacies, when they need to see that the problem was the the ass they seen in the mirror every morning.

Best I ask now that Jello Biafra finally released another spoken work album. I was much anticipating this album for quite sometime. In that time I found out how full of shit Karl Marx's ideas were and how they couldn't stop the capitalist behemoth that was fact. We can spit whine cry and moan how bad capitalism is; we can only see that as it is defined by the Austrian School of Economics is how money works. Period. It's not just an ideology. Even within socialism, communism and liberalism it is the only tool that had ever kept these systems alive more than 50 years.

I urge the liberal punk community to look at yourselves and your surroundings. Is this punk rawk? Is anarchy bloating government and stealing from you for what you can do in a free market or charities? Can you find a single government program that hasn't hurt the very people it's intended to help? Can you use force to achieve peace and piece of mind? Is anarchy trying to increase power to the very system you know to fail? What has happened to the punk community? How did this come to play? More importantly:

Did I betray the punk community, or did they betray me?