January 09, 2006

Why I Will Vote for the Evil Hillary Clinton
by Bob Wallace

Hmmmm, interesting concept, to forswear voting for people, but not on other issues, e.g., bond issues. Of course, all that's lacking are true patriots and constitutionalists for proper representation. Alas, are such electable in the face of our present dilemma? M. D.

I wonder if a concerted effort by the entire Freedom movement, to vote in the most unstable and reactive political candidates, might awaken the rest of our neighbors. What would they think of living in hell on earth? Would they even care? F. M.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government eventually corrupts everyone who gets involved in it. It doesn't matter who is elected or by whom. "Limited government" is simply not possible and our present dilemma is positive proof of that. MamaLiberty

The Mailbag by MamaLiberty

Re: Libertarian Commentary on the News reply by 'Jason'. ' "The federal effort continues, but at least local and state agencies didn't participate directly." I was under the impression that federal law enforcement agents needed to work with locals to have any jurisdiction at all ... but it wouldn't surprise me to hear they broke the law and got away with it. - Jason'

As I read the document, the US Constitution does not grant ANY law-enforcement powers to the Federal government. According to the document, the Federal government may contain three branches - the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. None of these three branches constitutes 'law-enforcement'; more to the point, if the drafters (and signers) of the Constitution had intended for the Federal government to be empowered with law-enforcement privileges, they would have stated so directly. On the contrary, they left law-enforcement powers to the state or local governments - which is where they belong, in my opinion. The whole purpose of the limitation of powers is ACCOUNTABILITY! If a local cop screws up, the local citizenry has the ability to do something about it; when 'Federal' law-enforcement officers screw up, more often than not they are congratulated, promoted, and/or given 'hero' status! So, the bottom line is that Federal law-enforcement agencies are blatantly unconstitutional; and therefore, by the provisions set forth in said Constitution, their efforts are UNENFORCEABLE under common law! This, in turn, invites a discussion of how The People are allowed (required) to act when faced with armed thugs attempting to illegally and unconstitutionally enforce 'the law' against them...but that is a discussion for another time. MJA

The Constitution doesn't give the federal government most of the power it has taken by force - but it did give the federal government access to the FORCE itself, so it was inevitable that force was used the way it has been from the beginning. You can't give someone else power over you and then expect him not to use it to your harm eventually. MamaLiberty

Libertarian Commentary on The News
By Nathan Barton, with MamaLiberty

Re: New Orleans: Police Chief Backs Shooting. "Can someone explain how big bad cops should be so afraid of a guy with a three-inch blade in broad daylight that they have to gun him down? Of course, what we've seen of NO police, they would probably have been unable to defend themselves without artillery to back them up." C'mon, Nate - don't you remember they hijacked four airplanes & killed over three thousand innocent people with nothing more than box-cutters? A three-inch blade is a WMD by comparison - no telling how many thousands of people he could have killed with it! MJA

The 17th Amendment: A Backhanded Acknowledgment of State’s Rights
by Jeff Adams

What is the outcome of this? Can you post an update? Edmond

Your comment has been sent to Jeff. I'll post any answer he sends. MamaLiberty

Free State Wyoming’s First Jamboree A Success
By Nathan Barton

I live in NE Wyoming, we don't need a bunch of gun toting whackos moving to this part of the state, or to Wyoming for that matter. You are not welcome here, your group is not welcome here, take your FREEMAN and go elsewhere. Stay outta WYO!

Lemme guess: an anonymous feedback, right? How anybody can read about the FSW and imagine that we're anything like the Freemen is beyond me. Those guys were actively defrauding unsuspecting merchants with their worthless paper "instruments"-- whereas all of us FSWers are on formal record for renouncing fraud.

Ridiculous.
Boston

Impeach the Liar-in-Chief
By Stephen Crockett & Al Lawrence

The generation of American leaders who fought the American Revolution and crafted the United States Constitution examined the most important issues of government. They considered (1) war and peace, (2 ) the limits to government power vs. individual liberties, (3) how officeholders should be controlled by the citizenry and (4) the raising and management of public money.

That generation devised impeachment to remove tyrants and corrupt officeholders from positions of public power based on their experience under the government of King George. Under the present circumstances, it is likely that they would vote to impeach and remove from office George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bush deserves to be known as Liar-in Chief because he has not been honest with the American public on the most important issues of public policy for the past 5 years of his government.

It is amazing that Republicans in Congress were willing to impeach President Bill Clinton over lying about an essentially personal issue over his sex life but are defenders of Bush when he is dishonest on the most important issues of government and public policy. Bush and Cheney were dishonest with the American voters when they pushed the American nation into the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They did not share the full information collected by our intelligence agencies on WMD’s with all the members of Congress or the voters. Cheney and Bush dishonestly tied Saddam Hussein with the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States to justify their unjustifiable war policy. The Bush Administration intentionally mislead the American public over the use of the excessive government powers granted the federal government by the falsely-named Patriot Act. They claimed that these powers would only be used to fight terrorism. It has mostly been used for matters unrelated to terrorism. It has almost never been used to fight terrorism.

Bush falsely stated that wiretaps under his government were only being conducted under authorization of the federal courts. This was false. Bush violated the law by not getting court authorization for his wiretapping of American citizens. This has not been done since the government of Richard Nixon. Nixon was driven from office based in large part because of this behavior. Bush broke the law passed in the aftermath of Watergate to prevent this kind of governmental abuse of power.

Carter and Clinton permitted wiretaps of a handful of foreigners who were agents of foreign governments. Bush wiretapped thousands of American citizens without proven connections to terrorism. Bush and Cheney have repeatedly lied to the American taxpayers over the impact of their program of excessive tax breaks to the Super Wealthy who have financed their political machine. During the 2000 Presidential Election, they promised tax breaks for the wealthy only because our government was in surplus because of the wise management of President Clinton. They stated that they would not support tax cuts if the government budget was in deficit. This was false. They promised a balanced budget but gave use the largest budget deficits in history. They have spent money in the most reckless manner of any American government in history with huge amounts going to their political supporters with(out) much accountability or plan to pay the bills.

These issues are certainly not the only issues of public policy where the Bush Administration has not been fully honest. Campaign finance, voting machines, media concentration, oil policy, disaster relief, environmental issues, judicial appointments and most other important issues have been things that were spun by the Bush Administration with little regard for being fully truthful with the American citizens.

Our Founding Fathers would not have approved of Bush concerning his honesty or his abuse of the powers of his office. They would have exercised their power of impeachment to remove both Bush and Cheney from office if they were serving in Congress today. Current members of Congress should act the same. Written by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence (hosts of Democratic Talk Radio ).

Unfortunately, you don't seem to recognize that every administration since George Washington has been guilty of one or more of the things you charge Bush with. He is no more or less guilty than almost any other politician that has ever run for office. He's simply been able to get away with a lot more than most of the rest of them - so far. Government - of ANY party - is not the answer. It is the problem.

The only answer is individual liberty and responsibility. No government is going to give us that - or even allow it. Thanks for writing anyway. MamaLiberty

The Chicken Chronicles - Whatever Happened To The U. S.?
by Carl Worden

Amazing, you mean my beloved Oregon still has some reasonable folks living there? I would love to return, if there's any hope left to save her society. I grew up in SweetHome, then joined the USAF in 1978. The rest of my story is on the website: http://www.rebelforgod.com. If there is a place for me, I'd love to know, so I could make plans to return.
F. M.

Read the rest of Carl's articles. There is big trouble in Oregon, but I'm sure the folks like Carl would be happy to have your help. Your comments have been sent to him. MamaLiberty

The Scott Peterson Trial Begins
by Carl Worden

I have just watched a TV program on this case. It tried to be as impartial as possible and in fact showed both sides of the case. There is not 1 piece of concrete evidence. I don't know how the jurors can sleep at night. I actually believe he could very well be guilty, but there is more than enough 'reasonable doubt' and NO evidence. K

A lot of people agree with you, for whatever good that does. The entire "justice" system is rotten to the core. MamaLiberty

Restraining Orders for Abusive Grandmas?
by Carey Roberts

You should get the whole story before you publish it Justin

Too bad you didn't tell us what you mean by that. Do you have more on this story? MamaLiberty

The 16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax-
By Robert Greenslade

I would certainly love to read more 'FACTS', as I am in a 'not so good' position with the I.R.S.; I have ABSOLUTELY no material assets--only my income; as a construction worker. I need more FACTS, I have a hearing coming up----sometime----with no representative; and I certainly think the limitation by the IRS as to who can be of counsel in this hearing is completely BELOW justice. If there is any help out there, I would greatly appreciate the info. Thank You Judy

Unfortunately, there is no "justice" involved with the IRS or any of its proceedings. We can't give you any kind of legal advice, of course. All we can do is wish you good luck. MamaLiberty

Thanks for your comments! I can't post everything here, but will choose The best of The comments each day. I'll make every attempt to answer questions and get responses from The writers. I hope you will enjoy this new feature. Please let me know! Your feedback is always welcome. See The form at The bottom of The page.

Thanks! MamaLiberty

Archive for The Mailbag. --

Click onto The date on The archive calendar to reach The front page for each day.