Mexico to Inspect OUR Detention Center

Dan Stein reports,

"A U-N spokesman says the Mexican national will visit the T. Don Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas, which typically houses about 400 non-criminal immigrants awaiting deportation or other outcomes to their immigration cases," KXAN reported. "He'll also examine two border areas where U-S officials have announced a crackdown on Mexicans illegally crossing the border. He'll discuss migrant issues with U-S government officials, campaign groups and immigrants during the mission, which includes a stop in Austin. Bustamante's findings will be presented to the 47-nation rights council at its next session in June."

What authority does Mexico, or the UN for that matter, have to inspect anything of ours? Were that my facility, I'd tell them to get lost. Sure, I'd go to UN jail, but it would be worth it.

What the f@#! is with Bush and immigration? He truly wants to get rid of the damn border entirely (the whole North American Union pact). Compassionate conservatism can go to hell.

What They're Fighting For

Bush Cutting Taxes

I saw on another Blog someone made the comment that Bush was a fool to "cut taxes" in the time of war. I am not sure how you can say that Bush has cut taxes. In fact the federal revenues for 2006 was about $500 billion more than in 2001. Drudge reports that the Government set a record this month for one day in revenue.

Bush did not cut taxes, he cut the rates. Its fair to argue that the government would have collected more taxes or the economy would have grown less but for the rate cuts. So Bush's policies were better than nothing.

Global Warming and Economics

I saw this in the commentaries at Althouse in a thread reagrding Gore and his Carbon Credit offset market. I thought it was worth repeating here:

It's hard to use an economic argument to create a crusade. Perhaps for that reason, Gore & Co. have tried to sell their cure-alls for global warming as a moral imperative. Thus, it's hardly surprising that they are now getting jabbed by their own rhetoric. As others note, there's nothing unusual about using market forces to solve an economic problem -- if you think of global warming as a problem in economics, then it's just a matter of structuring the market so that all relevant costs and benefits are taken into account, after which the market can arrive at an efficient allocation. But that frame of reference carries with it the downside of cost/benefit analysis; breezy "doom is coming" stuff won't do. Among other things, the manifest uncertainties in all of the projections of possible results many decades into the future make it difficult to frame a case for the kind of vast and hugely expensive present-day remedies Gore has proposed. By the same token, anything less than vast and radical remedies to slash the emission of heat-trapping gases have no impact, and thus no benefit to make them worth the (reduced) cost.Recasting the discussion as a moral issue is an effort to avoid all of that. It has the enormous political benefit of allowing one side to dismiss the other as evil ("deniers") who are probably in the pay of the devil. That's so much easier as a marketing technique. Unfortunately, a moral frame doesn't work even on its own terms -- no matter how you frame the discussion, there's no avoiding, or hiding, the huge costs and radical changes in lifestyles that the remedies Gore proposes would entail. The moral frame has the added consequence that it makes the proponents of those remedies (none of whom intends to give up the high-flying lifestyle) look and sound like hypocrites. In all, this sounds like just deserts.

No doubt!

This goes out to some of my favorite JAS Members

You have to see the rest of these Demotivational Posters. I just about choked on my green tea with some of them.

Those French

I was paging through the the book Year 1000, by Robert Lacey, and I came across the following quote. I wonder if the author was laughing his ass off as he wrote it:

Computer analysis if the English language as spoken today shows that the hundred most frequently used words are all of Anglo-Saxon origin: the, is, you -- the basic building blocks. When Winston Churchill wanted to rally the nation in 1940, it was to Anglo-Saxon that he turned: "We shall fight on the beaches; we shall fight on the landing grounds; we shall fight in the fields and the streets; we shall never surrender." All these stirring words came from Old English as spoken in the year 1000; with the exception of the last one, surrender, a French import from the Normans.

He was definitely laughing.

Outstanding

Here is an outstanding article... the great white lie.

My favorite:

the reason conservative politicians so often lose their nerve, why they back down in debate even when they’re clearly right. No one wants to be condemned as a brute—especially not conservatives, who still retain some vague memory of how worthy it is to be a lady or gentleman.

This article will make a liberal's blood boil... mostly because it is right.

Giving Moral Force to the Enemy

In my reading of Dodge's series on the Napoleonic wars I came across this little nugget. Dodge reprints a letter from Napoleon to his minister of war Henri Clarke regarding the behavior of his older brother Joseph, then acting King of Spain:

To Clarke, October 10, 1809: I desire you to write to the king of Spain to make him understand that nothing is more contrary to military rules than to make known the forces of his army, be it in the orders of the day and proclamations, be it in the gazette; that when one is induced to speak of his forces, one is to exaggerate them, and to present them as redoubtable by doubling and trebling the number; and that when one speaks of the enemy, one is to diminish his force by one half or one third; that in war everything is morale; that the King departed from this principle...that it is carrying discouragement to the French troops to present the number of the enemy as immense, and it is to give to the enemy a feeble opinion of the French in presenting them as few, that this is to proclaim in all Spain its feebleness; in a word, to give moral force to his enemy, and to take it from himself. That it is in the spirit of men to believe that in the end the lesser number must be beaten by the greater....The most experienced military men have difficulty on a day of battle to value the numbers of men which compose the enemy's army, and generally natural instinct leads one to judge the enemy that one sees more enormous than he actually is...

This maxim from Napoleon can still be applied today, especially in regard to public opinion in the U.S. In Iraq the enemy exaggerates its strength through the use of suicide bombings on civilians. At the same time we diminish our power through the rhetoric of defeat by the constant coverage of the losses in Iraq rather than the successes. We are giving moral force to the enemy and taking it from our self.

I know I depart from my many of my conservative brethren regarding this war. The war in Iraq is a liberal idea - a liberal idea, which has its roots in self defense. But, on a more fundamental level, it pains me to accept that many here believe that the United States, the greatest society that has ever existed in human history, should not aid those besieged by the forces of evil. If the enemy is so deranged that they will blow themselves up in the mist of public market places in order to gain power and subject peoples to tyranny, there is no force on earth but the United States that can stand up to such perverted barbarism. Of course, we should not police the world, but the terror campaign in Iraq is not about policing, it is a battle of good vs evil. America must always be in that battle no matter where it is waged.

Now we have some on the right allied with those on the left demanding that we give up the fight. I hope they do not succeed. For if they do, we will no longer be who we once were or who we ought to be. Not all of us are soldiers, but we will all reflect on the past and what we did. Let it not be that we stood down.

Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tonight on Lou Dobbs (CNN) 5 p.m.: Ron Paul discusses issues that affect the middle class.

Would someone tape this for me? For more reasons than I care to list, I don't take cable. YouTube video, DVD, 8 mm, any format will work.

(Cross-post from On Scribbler's Mind)

GOP Candidates on Civil Liberties

About.com has a section devoted to Civil Liberties. The ringmaster there, Tom Head, puts forth his ratings, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, of the Republican presidential candidates.

To preface his findings, my view is that the ACLU is approximately 50% correct in its assessment of civil liberties. They give a positive rating for Second Amendment support, despite being remarkably silent on the issue themselves. The rest of the Amendments they also view as mostly good, though seeming to make exceptions to the Tenth Amendment, falling down, for example, on issues of abortion (thinking a federal guarantee to however/whenever necessary instead of leaving it to the states) and gay marriage (opposing the Defense of Marriage Act which reiterates the state's role in marriage recognition).

The ACLU includes a couple other quirky categories in their ratings which skew the results: Homeless Rights, additional gay rights (supporting hate crime and "antidiscrimination" legislation), affirmative action. They also have a soft spot for immigration. But discussing the vice and virtue of their position on that issue is a whole 'nother blog post.

The ACLU's insistence on protection of the First Amendment, apparently the Second Amendment, and the more important, universal civil liberties makes their ratings worthwhile, if to be taken with a grain of salt on the sillier inclusions.

Tom Head's Civil Liberties ratings on the GOP presidential candidates may be found at The 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates on Civil Liberties.

Giuliani on Global Warming

Or is it now called "Climate Change" to encompass both cooling and warming, whichever cycle we find ourselves in?

From ballotbox2008.com, Where the Republicans Stand: Global Warming:

[Giuliani] said that he does believe that global warming is happening and that, "The big question has always been how much of it is happening because of natural climate changes and how much of it is happening because of human intervention." He has made clear that: "the overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause. He also has mentioned that the issue shouldn't be an issue simply because we should be dealing with pollution anyway.

Giuliani has praised the Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, for his environmental leadership, but stressed that he hasn't taken a look at the details of California's law to reduce emissions by 2010. "I generally agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger,'' he said. "He's a good friend and a progressive leader.'

You're talking about a lot of regulation and lot of resources confiscated (and you guys were shocked when Hilary wanted to confiscate oil profits). Y'all still want to elect this guy?

Global warming Scam

This column appeared in the National Post and was emailed to me by King Oliver. It's worthy of repeating.

National Post, Monday 9 Apr 2007, Page: A13, Section: Issues

"UN Report Proves Canada Must Act Now On Climate Change," trumpeted the headline of a Liberal party press release on Friday, timed to correspond with the release of yet another alarmist UN summary on climate change.

"Canada must act aggressively now to avert the destructive consequences of climate change," the Liberals insisted.

"Canada must be ready for a carbon-constrained future," said party leader Stephane Dion. "Human beings can't continue to use the atmosphere as an unlimited and free dump . It is within our power to prevent the worst of the effects of climate change."

This, of course, marks the second alarmist release by the UN this year, both coming before its own scientific report on global warming is even out.

Just why would the UN release these teaser summaries before its actual scientific findings are available? It could it be that the science is becoming less alarming as scientists learn more, so the UN wants to maximize the public hysteria before its catastrophic forecasts for the future can be checked against the more moderate scientific truth.

We already know that the coming report -- the fourth by the UN in 15 years -- will say that maximum projected temperatures over the next century will not be nearly as high as projected in the last report in 2001; that man has contributed less to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought; and that sea level rise will be only a few inches, rather than the several feet once thought.

Yet the so-called "summaries for policy makers" are becoming more shrill each time: Species will be wiped out, crime will rise, starvation will kill hundreds of millions, disease will become rampant, islands will disappear beneath the waves, deserts will consume entire continents.

Science goes down, UN hysteria goes up. Curious, isn't it, how that plays into the UN's desire to be at the centre of a global effort to plan human activity?

But let's look at just what the global-warming theory implies and at Mr. Dion's charge that humans, Canadians included, are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% -- about 1 ml.

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml -- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.

It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

Ginsberg on Abortion

A column in the LA Times today discusses Justice Ginsberg dissent in the recent partial birth abortion case. In her dissent Ginsberg argued that abortion was about equality and not about privacy.

It defies social reality to approach the abortion issue as a mere matter of privacy, as if it could really be divorced from questions of sex equality. Some proposed restrictions on abortion, such as requiring the consent of the father of the fetus, are plainly an effort to revive discredited notions about women's proper place, and they violate equality principles for that reason. True, men cannot become pregnant, and it is tempting to think that, for that reason, abortion restrictions cannot possibly create a problem of discrimination. But perhaps this argument has things backward. In our society, isn't there an equality problem if laws target only women's bodies and leave men's bodies alone?

It is interest comparing Justice Ginsberg's view on abortion and equality to Susan B. Anthony who opposed abortion on the same grounds:

She blamed men, laws and the "double standard" for driving women to abortion because they had no other options. ("When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869) She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women's rights.

If in Ginsberg's opinion that abortion is required to give women equality, doesn't that mean that men should also be allowed to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy? Because men are required by law to provide child support, the only way to maintain equality between men and women in this area is to either give men the right to terminate the pregnancy or to not require any financial assistance from men.

Maybe in her next case, Ginsberg will force the government to give free steroids to women so that they can have the opportunity to grow beards just like men.

Fighting back.

A minor skirmish has started over at The Corner. John Podhoretz is shocked that John Derbyshire wondered why anyone didn't fight back.

I agree with Derbyshire. I, of course, don't know how I would react in such a situation. Maybe I would cower like a bunny or cry like a little girl. But I know how I would want to. I hope I would fight. This was one man against scores. Yes, the scores were outgunned, but he was outnumbered.

There was a time when the thought of young men jumping out of windows while young women were getting shot would have been shameful for the men. They would fight back because that is what they thought was expected of them as men.

Men, think of this situation: Suppose Cho came into your house and started shooting, and say he already has hit a family member. You are unarmed (and can't reach for a gun) but you could get away. Would you get away, and let your family deal with him? After all, he has a gun! If you fight, he'll just kill you!

Of course you don't run, or at least, of course you hope you are not the type to run. You grab anything you have to throw at him, or just rush at him.

Part of this is also training. I've read the safest thing for soldiers to do when caught in an ambush is attack the ambushers. It puts them off guard and on the defensive. But soldiers have to be taught to do this. The first instinct is probably to run, which simply increases their probability of being killed. But soldiers can be trained to fight back. When ambushed, the training kicks in, they fight back and most of them live.

Our young men are no longer trained to protect the women around them. It simply doesn't enter their head that is what they are expected to do. And it has been this way for at least a generation. It certainly wouldn't have entered my head 25 years ago when I was in college. Knowing who I was back then, I think I would have jumped out a window. But I have a feeling my father, at that age, would have felt compelled to protect those around him, even at the cost of his life.

This is a change for the worse.

Are you in the game?

In his post below (Disgusting Profession), Saurus expresses justified outrage at the decision of NBC News to broadcast this nutcase/depraved killer's advertisement.

I think I understand the mindset of the press.

Recall when Mike Wallace jumped on Peter Jennings when Jennings said he would warn American troops about an ambush. Wallace said you have to be a reporter first, a disinterested observer and note (or video) taker. (See video here.)

The problem here is the press actually thinks it is possible for them to be "outside observers" or if they don't think this, they think they need to pretend it is possible to be outside observers. They willfully put on blindfolds to the fact that they are part of the game. People do things precisely because of the press coverage. The press can't simply observe events and report on them because the events themselves depend on the coverage.

Spree killers and coverage are but one example. The more prominent example is their coverage of the war. Most of the reason Al Qaida in Iraq does what it does is to get the press coverage.

Those in the press put on this blindfold because they don't like the implication that they are part of the game. They would prefer a world where they just report the facts and the facts don't change because they report them. So they adopt a morality for the world as they want it to be, not the world as it actually is. But this itself is immoral. We have a moral duty to operate in the world we are actually in.

Constitution Aborted

The WSJ OpinionJournal opines today that yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart was a step toward reversal of Roe v. Wade. They are wrong. And the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold a federal law that does not conform to the Tenth Amendment.

Hopes for reversal of Roe v. Wade should be pinned to states' rights, and yesterday's ruling was a step backwards in that respect. Abortion is simply not a matter for consideration of the federal government, its law or its courts, any more than your average homicide laws.

Conversely, the Nebraska partial birth abortion law overturned in Stenberg v. Carhart should have been deemed perfectly constitutional.

On a lighter note, also in OpinionJournal, Julia Gorin tells us why Embryos are Cooler than Kids.

Disgusting Profession

It has recently been reported that the mass murderer at Virginia Tech sent in a manifesto the media prior to his murders. Now the media is airing it for everyone to see. It shows his complaints and grievances to the world.

The media has gone too far on this one. There was a poll recently that said more young people wanted to be famous rather than rich in this country. The desire to be famous is the culture of this killer's generation... and the media is falling for it by publishing this guy's picture, by publishing his name, and now worst of all by airing this guy's manifesto. How is it that this individual has earned the right for millions maybe even hundreds of millions to see his picture, to know his name, and to listen to his complaints? Because he murdered 33 people. He figured that if he murdered people would listen to him, people would study him, people would try to understand him...and now he is right. There will be copycat murders. There will be more kids who see that you can become famous by committing horrid crimes and it will be the media's fault. They are no longer reporting the news, The media is aiding and abetting the evil that men do. The media has become the drug dealers of these fame seeking murderers. The media supplies them with the goods to get high, and the innocent suffer. They can't stop doing it because their ratings are tripling by airing his manifesto. The media is one of the most disgusting professions. It's sickening. We need a new rule. Members in the media need to be boycotted, they need to be criticized and ostracized for giving this murdered a stage in the same way Don Imus was..... Will anyone stand up?

Racism vs Free Speech

So much has been said over Don Imus and his nappy comments that I've tuned out the debate. But Ron Paul cuts through the hype and puts it clearly:

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

Ron Paul goes on to denouce the calls for curtailed free speech, citing the First Amendment, "which states unequivocally that, 'Congress shall make NO law.'" You may read the entire article, Government and Racism, here.

Truckers: Don't Tread on Me

When the truckers roll April 23, it will be within the speed limit, but barely. The minimum speed limit, that is. American truckers will be forming a "rolling blockade," stopping up traffic surrounding the Capitol, in protest of the Bush administration's plans to, within weeks, allow Mexican trucks to operate freely across the U.S., presumably operated by drivers unable to read English traffic signs.

The protest plans have been published widely across the internet, such as in The People's Media Company story, Breaker, Breaker, a "Truck Out" Planned Over Mexican Drivers Entering the USA.


Despite opposition by Congress, unions and even the US DOT, Bush has his teeth dug into this one. I'd guess he feels it a good first step toward the North American Union he's set on furthering. Of course, you all know he signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America pact last year with Mexico and Canada. Our new nation has it's official government website at www.spp.gov.

Was that a collective yawn? The United States is soooo Twentieth Century.

For more fun along these lines, I recommend reading about our new North American Legal System. Bye-bye, Bill of Rights (soooo Eighteenth Century).

This is a test post

This is a test post to see if new blogger works.

Roll Call

Surely JAS Members did not shirk their civic duty today, and all were at the tax rally among the other 5,000 - 7,000 good souls, right?

But I got around, as I was campaigning for Ron Paul -- handed out 900 pieces of lit and saw about half of those in attendance face to face -- and only ran into King Oliver, Festivus, and a newer member who has yet to establish his nom de plume. But I didn't get up onto the capitol steps where a quarter of the attendees were nestled. That must be where you all were.

So, to save face, go ahead and give us a "I was there," and we will rest the matter. Else, your protestations last Wednesday night that "Taxation is Coerced Charity" must be brushed off as so much rhetoric.

Quote for Today

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

~ G. K. Chesterton

(Found this on LewRockwell.com today, above a story on whimsical, state-enforced morality at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/plummer-a1.html. I know you all like a good Gilbert quote.)

The Great Scam - updates

That is of course "catastophic" global warming, being caused by humans. IN today's Wash Post there was an article about how Europe is committing suicide over this ficticious problem by regulating the the end of economic growth. The article is sick. You can feel freedom dripping away - drip, drip, drip. They should call themselves the UESR (Union of European Socialist Republics) rather than the EU. I pray this stuff never happens here.

In Belgium, they just passed a tax on grilling.

The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session. The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Can this be for real? A $25 tax for grilling? I can't wait for the thermal masking grill to come out. It's only a matter of time. Drip. Drip. Drip.

UPDATE: Belgium denies this story and says it is a April Fools joke. Whew...we have at least a few more years of unregulated grilling.

On the other hand a climatoligist at MIT who also thinks its a scam managed to get published in Newsweek. Apparently he did not get the message that global warming being caused by humans is "scientific consensus." The article is worth reading here. Note that he is the "Sloan Professor of Meteorolgy."

Debate Wednesday: Taxation is Coerced Charity

The John Adams Society

Roger L. Belfay, Chairman

John J. Pope, Secretary

Larry Colson, Chief Whip

Marianne Stebbins, Chancellor

April 2007

The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the cruelest delusions which has ever befuddled the human mind. -- Winston Churchill

GOVERNMENT IS A CHARITY CASE. An entire economy exists as a fiction of the tax code, shielded by threat of penalty and oppressive complexity. In one way or another, most people in the US are dependent on government. Some forty-seven million receive Social Security, most of whom also receive Medicare. Sixty million receive Medicaid, about half of whom are children, with most of the rest disabled adults and some seniors. The cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security makes up more than eight and one-half percent of Gross Domestic Product, about twice that of national defense. Roughly five million families receive welfare. Most children attend public schools. Most homes receive some publicly subsidized utility service. Nearly sixty million work for an entity of government or are supported by someone who does, and a good many others are employed by companies that have at least an indirect stake in furnishing the government on which Americans have come to depend. All in all, our system of tax and entitlement begets an electorate dependent on government.

Why lament? Submit – be happy. If you are a business, sell to the government. If you are an investor, buy assets attracting government credit. If you are a public servant, enrich your constituents with pork. Unionize as a state employee; the taxpayer is most accommodating. Start a charitable organization; get money in exchange for a story and a tax deduction. And when you tire, rest and collect welfare.

ON THE OTHER HAND, for what is charity but noble purpose? This purpose is best met by economies with minimalist tax systems, wherein tax deductions are generally considered unnecessary for giving. With a universally low and flat tax rate and a high personal exemption, true charities and true charities alone will be sustained, without government strings attached. That is, without the confusion of that three and one-half million-word Internal Revenue Code that keeps getting reshuffled and expanded with each and every new congress and president. As things are, donors overly mindful of tax deductions are disingenuousness and encourage dubious charities; and too much otherwise productive energy is spent fretting over tax obligations and the morally objectionable programs they may facilitate. In sum, our system of taxation is un-charitable in that it ultimately pits human nature against doing good for goodness sake.

The Chairman, trying to imagine a humble charity that takes money by force, calls for a debate:

RESOLVED: TAXATION IS COERCED CHARITY

The Debate will be held on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (651) 222-2782 or the Secretary at (952) 486-8059.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Correlation Curiosity

I am idly wondering if liquor sales increase in proximity to April 15 each year. How about admissions to the insane asylum? Any guesses as to what Scribbler is doing on this fine Easter Sunday? Paying for her sins, apparently.

(Oh, don't worry that I was Doing Taxes Under the Influence -- there's probably a law against that. There simply is no good wine pairing for Pain Flambe a la Chez IRS.)

What about your Swimming Pools!

Gore is starting to get heckled:

His presentation was halted at least twice as opponents to his agenda began to shout out.They called him a liar and a villain, and screamed, "What about your swimming pools?" in regards to recent allegations that the monthly electricity bill of Gore's estate rivalled a year's bill for the average American home.

I am not sure why people keep inviting him to speak.....what a loser.

Paul close 2nd in last week's PJ Poll

PJmedia was hard pressed to keep Ron Paul out of their presidential straw poll following Dr. No's growing percentage in Zogby. Dr Paul trailed Thompson 35% to 29% last week, and was leading the poll this week.

Vote and read more about the poll here.

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Read it Here. Can you believe this stuff is actually happening?