Stop Overfeeding Government
Latest News
Declaring Independence from the State income tax
Secretary of State announces 'more than enough' signatures likely collected for End the Income Tax ballot question
July 04, 2008
Get ready for the second shot heard round the world. It looks like the Cradle of Liberty is fixing to re-declare a bit of her independence in 2008. Watch the latest news on the End the Income Tax campaign here. And see how the politicians and lobbyists are sweating bullets. It is a beautiful thing to behold!
Should we stick it to smokers, or stick it to Big Government this November 4th?
Howie Carr has made his choice: Vote to End the Income Tax!
July 02, 2008
The big spenders on Beacon Hill have evidently convinced themselves that leveling confiscatory taxation against evil cigarette smokers is a politically safe way of keeping their gravy trains running on time. But the Boston Herald's Howie Carr has other ideas: Hey, all you smokers: Here is how you can get your money back - without having to cross the New Hampshire border, that is.
Simply vote Yes this November 4th to get back your average of $3600 in income taxes. Every year. That'll teach the bastards!
What's the real reason for no terror attacks since 2001?
Neocons credit Bush policies?!
July 02, 2008
One of the most puzzling aspects of the 2001 terror attacks is the fact that they stopped almost as soon as they began. We were told in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 that thousands of potential "sleeper cells" were living among us, just waiting for Osama bin Laden to give another signal to attack. The bogeyman was literally hiding under our beds!
But by mid-2002, this "intelligence" had about as much credibility as the brainiacs who'd been responsible for acting on pre-9-11 intelligence. With the exception of a few paranoid nutjobs who'd Saran Wrapped their homes, it had become obvious that no terrorists were lurking in our communities, as we were told. Otherwise, they would have killed again!
By the time the 2004 elections rolled around - still with no further attacks - the neocons began saying the reason "they" haven't attacked us again (yet!!) is because this particular brand of evildoer doesn't bother with small-time stuff like gunning down a few shoppers at a mall. No, instead they do only big-time 9-11-type attacks, which of course take substantial time to plan.
This explanation for no further attacks was rightly laughed at, given the small-time anthrax attacks that followed 9-11 (another unsolved crime, by the way) in which only a few people died. So by 2004 we already knew the evildoers (whoever they were) had no trouble with committing smaller-scale atrocities if they felt they could benefit from them. Moreover, true terrorism experts will tell us that Americans would actually be more "terrorized" by frequent small-time attacks - which might occur anywhere, anytime - than by the larger events that happen only once every 10 or 20 years.
Now that 2008 has arrived without any further attacks, the neocons are actually trying to claim that Bush/McCain's hard-ass policies are responsible for "keeping us safe." This argument is even more absurd than their earlier ones, considering that everyone knows Bush and McCain are among the biggest champions of encouraging "illegals" to cross into America from Mexico. Even our sea ports are just as vulnerable today as they were back in 2001. Heck, even the Taliban is still alive and kicking, and just waiitng for you-know-who to give them new marching orders. So nothing whatseover has changed since 2001 - unless of course you count all the freedoms and money we innocent Americans have been stripped of under Bush.
The bottom line is, the terrorists could easily have struck again by now if they'd wanted to. The question is: Why haven't they?
Given all the "successes" of the neocons' policies, one must consider alternative explanations for why no further attacks have taken place. Frankly, a far more plausible explanation than "Bush's competence" might simply be that the evildoers (whoever they are) somehow benefit from the fact that no further attacks have occurred. In that case the question then becomes: who is benefitting right now, in 2008, from the fact that no further attacks have occurred on U.S. soil? Who is attempting to dine out on that (dangerously devalued) dime? Here is a clue: It's not noninterventionist Ron Paul. It's not patriotic Americans who want to see their Constitution, civil liberties and habeas corpus restored. It's not antiwar activists. And it's definitely not all the innocent Iranians who are about to be sacrificed at the alter of U.S./Israeili aggression.
Former CIA Ray McGovern warns of new false flag attacks
Bush has secretly promised an attack on Iran before leaving office, and will do who-knows-what to justify it
July 01, 2008
Retired intelligence officer Ray McGovern gives a timely and critically important interview to Alex Jones. Highly recommended listening here.
Was Jesus right about the importance of forgiveness and loving your enemy?
Yes!
by Rich Aucoin
June 28, 2008
I'm no card-carrying Christian by any stretch. In fact, I tend to believe religions are divisive and should be abandoned in favor of reason. But it turns out my Catholic mother was right when she predicted that, someday, I would realize the importance of Jesus' teachings. Sorry, mom, I still can't sit here and claim to know that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Even the nuns you paid to instruct me would've been lying if they'd claimed to "know" that.
But the older I get, the more I realize that what really matters isn't so much whether Jesus was God, but whether his forgiveness teachings were supremely wise or not. Whether his famous sermon about the importance of loving our enemies provided us words to live by or words to shun in favor of some other words, such as the Old Testament's "eye for eye; tooth for tooth" vengeance mentality.
The answer by now should be obvious to all enlightened observers: the wise man forgives those who trespass against him; the fool holds grudges and seeks vengeance. Because in the end, where would we humans be without forgiveness? Every blessed one of us has desperately needed to be forgiven at one time or another in our lives. And the ironic part is, the refusal to forgive usually eats away at the withholder even more than the poor asker. The truth is, both parties need the healing power of forgiveness in order to move forward with peace in their hearts. So Jesus was right.
But even my late mom probably could never have imagined the level of evil facing our country today, and the level of forgiveness that would be needed. She never would have figured that rogue elements in her own government might someday take part in the murder of thousands of innocent Americans merely to justify the invasions of oil-rich Arab countries in a phony "war on terror." So living up to Jesus' teachings today is a challenge that even dear old mom might have found difficult. And I'm afraid that most Americans, once they figure out the full extent of the lies that brought them to war, might also have serious trouble forgiving.
It's paradoxical to me that the more difficult it is for us humans to forgive evil acts against us, the more imperative it is that we do so - and the more the most ardent forgivers among us will be accused of heresy for advocating life sentences for the guilty instead of the gallows.
In the case of the 9-11 mass murder, adhering to Jesus' teachings means first making ourselves safe from further such incidents, by locking up the culprits, whoever they turn out to be. And then it means forgiving them ASAP so we can move forward as a nation of peace. For while we may have a God-given right to defend ourselves and our families against war-crazed madmen, we must also remember to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
We must learn how to love and pray for the 9-11 criminals as Jesus would - after we have safely incarcerated them for life. There must be no death penalty for the guilty, because that level of judgement and condemnation is necessarily the prerogative and domain of a much higher power. So I say lock them up for good and let God sort out the rest. None of us will escape His judgement in the end.
Severin's Supreme Double Standard
Jay tries to have the Constitution both ways
by Rich Aucoin
June 26, 2008
Jay Severin is celebrating the Supreme Court's recent 2nd amendment decision, i.e, that individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms. But is this ruling really cause for gun owners to celebrate?
I say no.
While it's certainly a good thing that residents of D.C. are now free to apply for firearms permits, it comes at a terrible cost. That cost is what some call "state's rights," or "Home Rule;" the idea that true democracies require allowing lots and lots of local-government decision-making powers. The misnamed "bill of rights" which houses the 2nd amendment, was never designed by the Framers to "give rights" to anyone. It was written from the perspective of us citizens, in an attempt to strictly limit the central government's authority over our local lives. This is why the first five words in the Bill of Rights were: "Congress shall make no law..." As such, the Supreme Court's reason for existing was to ensure that the central government could never tread on local authority; its job was not to make sure that local authorities never treaded on individuals. Those local disputes were supposed to be dealt with through the appeals processes of local jurisdictions.
Notice that the D.C. gun ban was not a law passed down by the central government; it was a local ordinance. Therefore, the Supreme Court technically had no dog in that fight, and should have refused to hear the case.
A tale of two Court Rulings
With the Founding principle of local self-determination in mind, juxtapose Severin's gleeful celebrating of the Court's D.C. firearms ruling with his bitter disdain for the Court's death penalty decision earlier the same week, in which states were forbidden by the Court from imposing capital punishment in child rape cases. In that instance Severin was a staunch Home Rule advocate, saying that unless we live in those states, we have "no standing" and that our opinions on the matter are purely "masterbatory," because it should be up to those states to decide for themselves!!!
Right on, Jay! The Court overstepped its bounds, big time.
But why doesn't the same principle apply in D.C.? Why can't a majority of liberal nitwits down there elect a bunch of anti-gun nutjobs and prohibit firearms in their community (or butter knives for that matter!)? Is it really our business if they do? Besides, we gun advocates know full well that D.C. will eventually realize its blunder...i.e., as soon as their crime rates skyrocket like they always do in "gun-free" zones. And even if the dopes down in D.C. never figure out what dopes they are, would that really be our business all the way up here in Boston? Do the residents of D.C. really need (or deserve) nine robed justices, speaking in our name, protecting them from themselves? Hell no!
Freedom means local communities having a right to shoot themselves in the foot and learn painful lessons. And it means individuals being free to live in geographical areas where their brand of sanity prevails. (This is why I choose not to live in communist Cambridge, for example.)
Freedom should never mean having to sit on the edge of your seat every time the nine appointed ones decide to convene again, wondering whether, this time, they will "affirm" your God-given Rights, or instead ram some new, foreign way of life down your throat. That is not my America. I say let Kansas be Kansas. Let Nevada be Nevada. Let D.C. be D.C. And yes, let Cambridge be Cambridge. I will simply associate with whom I choose, and avoid the rest as best I can. I'm a big boy; nobody owes me anything. And the very last thing I need or want is to be told by people who don't even know me that I have a right to defend myself. That was supposed to be a Given!
So in a backdoor way, this condescending, paternalistic ruling is very bad news for independence-minded gun owners, and is a blessing in disguise for our big-government opponents. Because just as Roe vs. Wade (underhandedly) transformed a case of alleged murder (traditionally state jursidiction) into a federal political football - by improperly agreeing to hear the case! - the same has now been done to our Right of self-defense. Thanks to this Court, our precious RtKBA shall forever be subject to the whims of a few elitists, rather than remaining secure with We the People and our benevolent Creator.
So despite this so-called victory for firearms freedom, a new precedent has been sneakily put in place, which says nine appointed suckups will henceforth get to decide the gun issue for every geographical part of the USA. This means that, just as easily as they voted (barely) to "let" us keep our right of self-defense, they can now rescind it nationwide virtually any time they wish.
Consequently, we are now in the same leaky boat as all the pro-choicers who celebrated 'Roe.' back in 1973. Because just like them, we are now consigned to a lifetime of having to fear: How will the next president's Court appointments vote the next time this "federal" issue comes up?
Sorry, Jay, you'll have to celebrate this "victory" without me.
Don't you dare throw out the bathwater, or the baby's going to get hurt!
End the income tax opponents threaten voters
By Michael Cloud
June 25, 2008
"I'm against ending the Income Tax. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water." - Massachusetts Public School Teacher
"Ending the state income tax would mean laying off teachers, police and firefighters, closing schools and shutting down road projects," claims Senate President Therese Murray.
We mustn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, our opponents caution. The Massachusetts Teachers Union's whisper campaign is littered with fear-inciting language and images against our initiative: "devastation," "decimation," "gutting of public services," "massive layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters," "closings of police stations, fire stations, schools, and hospitals."
Don't You Dare Throw Out the Bathwater - or the Baby's Going to Get Hurt' - say the supporters of Beacon Hill's overspending.
Babies, Baths, and Bathwater
For hundreds of years, Western babies have been bathed in buckets, small barrels, or baby baths. This was safer - and it was easier to heat the water. After the baby was bathed, the mother emptied out the dirty bathwater. This common experience became an easily grasped figure of speech, a proverb: Do not throw out the good with the bad, nor the desirable with the undesirable. Do not throw out the necessary with the unnecessary, nor the essential with the waste. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Difference Between the Baby and the Bathwater
If a person can't tell the difference between a baby and dirty bathwater, he should not be put in charge of either. If she can't show you which is the baby and which is the bathwater, would you let her bathe or care for your baby? If he doesn't know the difference, if he can't show you the difference, why would you let him advise you on your baby and your bathwater?
Now let's consider the Massachusetts government budget baby - and the government budget bathwater. The Massachusetts state government statutory budget is $28 billion (FY 2009). The state government also spends an additional $6 billion to $14 billion OFF-BUDGET each year. (Undisclosed, undocumented, and unreported to YOU: the taxpayer.) Total state government spending for this year? $34 billion to $42 billion. Massachusetts towns and cities will collect and spend an additional $18 billion to $20 billion this year. Total Massachusetts local and state government taxes and spending for the next year? $52 billion to $62 billion.
Governor Deval Patrick, Massachusetts state legislators, Massachusetts state government officials, as well as local government officials: Show us the baby - and show us the bathwater.
Show us each government program baby - and each government program bathwater. Show us each government program's or service's cost baby - and each government program's or service's cost bathwater. Show Massachusetts taxpayers the bad, the undesirable, the unnecessary, and the waste in the government programs, services, and spending.
Taxpayers and voters are dead sure you're covering up and protecting massive amounts of government bathwater. "41 cents out of every tax dollar is wasted," said likely 2008 voters in an April, 2008 poll. But you just can't seem to put your finger on the budget bathwater. You hint or suggest or brazenly claim: there isn't any budget bathwater; there never was any bathwater; there ain't never going to be any budget bathwater. And anyone who disagrees is a baby hater.
We don't believe you. We don't trust you. Neither do the 3,000,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers that earn the money that you take, who pay the bills you make.
'Don't You Dare Throw Out the Bathwater - or the Baby's Going to Get Hurt' -- you and your allies tell taxpayers. The first time I heard that remark, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed you were counseling taxpayers to be careful. But now I'm wondering: Is it a warning - or a threat?
Did Bear Stearns fall or was it pushed?
How insider trading saved J.P. Morgan and looted taxpayers
By Ellen Brown
June 23, 2008
The mother of all insider trades was pulled off in 1815, when London financier Nathan Rothschild led British investers to believe that the Duke of Wellington had lost to Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. In a matter of hours, British government bond prices plummeted. Read full story.
C.S.I. 9/11
What energy source caused this physical behavior?
June 21
WTC #2 flows downard Pyroclastic flows at ground level
A warm and gooey mixture of concrete, office contents and human remains spilled through the streets of Manhattan, having just poured from above in a nearly liquid state at nearly freefall speed.
All three World Trade Center towers in fact never "pancaked" at all, as some still try to claim, but rather disintegrated as they fell and then flowed away from their bases in classic pyroclastic flows. Meanwhile, back at grownd zero, red-hot molten pools had formed beneath all three fallen towers and then burned until December.
Question:
What energy source pulverized the three buildings on their way down, while somehow also cancelling out nearly all of the resistance from the dozens of intact floors below, particularly in the cases of the Twin Towers?
Or, asked another way: Where was Newton's Third Law on 9-11-01?
And what energy source generated the super-stubborn molten pools that burned for months? We know this kind of energy couldn't have come from a gravity-driven collapse or by cool-buring jet kerosene.
What then?
The government claims it still doesn't have a good clue, and promises to get back to us if/when it ever finds one. In the meantime, physics professor Dr. Steven Jones does have a clue. And he's not waiting around to share it.
Youtube: Michael Graham vs. Ron Paul
What a spanking!
June 20, 2008
Michael Graham recently guest-hosted on CNN's Glen Beck Program and made the unfortunate mistake of taking on a much more knowledgable Congressman Ron Paul. See the spanking here.
Who, me??
Scott McLellen is still desperately trying to wash the blood from his complicit hands
June 20, 2008
Frankly, we thinks old Scotty dost protesteth too much. With all the whistleblowing he's been doing, he must be mighty nervous about something. Perhaps Congress ought to take his advice and subpeona Dick Cheney...and learn why administration insiders like Scott McClellan are currently shitting such enormous bricks.
FBI barred from testifying in 9-11 cases??
Government tries to have it both ways on 9-11
June 19, 2008
Even before the suspiciously stubborn fires beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center were doused, a victims family fund was set up by the politicians to avoid messy lawsuits which would have raised uncomfortable questions regarding who in the U.S. defense chain had dropped the ball that day. Consequently, not a single person in government was fired or even suspended for allowing the attacks to go down so easily. Not even so much as a reprimand. Heck, the guy who failed to defend the Pentagon (more than an hour after he knew the nation was under attack), General Richard Myers, was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff two days later.
Unfortunately, most of the victims' families had opted to take the taxpayer money in exchange for silence, effectively precluding proper accountability for the devastating defense failures that day. But a few families refused the payoff, insisting instead on accountability and making sure the incompetents would be identified and replaced. These precious few lawsuits are finally making progress in the courts, and are, naturally, being ignored by most of the government's media. But the AP did report today that the FBI is being blocked from testifying in the families' cases, due to - you guessed it - "national security concerns."
It seems the poor Bush administration is worried that their "ongoing 9-11 investigation" (as if!) might be "compromised" if FBI employees are permitted to speak.
Having 9-11 both ways
So, on one hand, when it's convenient for the neocons, Bush Co. will tell the American people that the crime of 9-11 is essentially "solved;" that all that's leftover to do is execute a few remaining "jihadists" who "we know" were responsible. No need for public hearings to determine why these people were kidnapped, detained and tortured by the U.S. government. No need to file actual charges against anyone. And no need for pesky habeas corpus, because, after all, "everyone knows" who the guilty are!
But, funny, as soon as the holdout families (finally) get their chance to ask a few questions in a court of law about how their loved ones died, there's suddenly "an ongoing 9-11 investigation" which necessitates another executive gag order on the FBI.
First the Bush administration tries to block the formation of the 9-11 Commission, then they rig it to fail after the victims' families publicly demand the investigation. And now they're actually gagging the fricken FBI?
How much more brazen do these war criminals need to become before Americans will finally revolt against them?
Severin: 'Barack Obama would even extend due process to bin Laden!'
Sadly, no he wouldn't
June 18, 2008
Jay Severin routinely refers to Gtmo's POWs as "Jihadists" and "terrorists," conveniently forgetting to insert the legally required adjective "alleged." Jay conveniently overlooks the importance of honoring the great American principle that all men are to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty. To Jay, anyone and everyone who's ever been swept up in the phony "war on terror" is to be presumed guilty, even before they have been charged with a crime, and even if they're American citizens like Jose Padilla.
We've written many times about the folly of this mind set; how abandoning the Rule of Law in favor of dictatorial powers always endangers America and Americans. Today we focus on Severin's absurd claim that Barack Obama would afford Usama bin Laden due process of law, were he ever apprehended.
Unfortunately, there is no credible evidence that Obama would obey the Constitution, as Jay suggests. Indeed, Obama's record suggests the opposite; that he would not obey it.
And what a shame, considering that even the FBI has acknowledged there's no hard evidence against bin Laden concerning 9-11.
Evidence, shmevidence, right Jay? Let's just put all our faith in the all-knowing and benevolent Bush administration which would never lie to us. Could Severin really be this naive? Or is he putting us on?
