Phyrfight Intel

Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick wants to ban the direct sale of cigarettes and cigars. He would like everyone to get a prescription first.
From Oregon Catalyst.com:

HB 2233 places the crime of possessing an illegal cigar at $6,000 and one year in jail. This is coming from the same State Representative who has been voting to release violent criminals early and at the same time wants to fill our jails with Oregonians who happen to have a grocery store product in the back pocket.

If you are a friend of liberty living in the great state of Oregon you can contact Rep. Greenlick and voice your opposition here:

Capitol Phone: 503-986-1433
District Phone: 503-297-2416
Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, H-492, Salem, OR, 97301
District Office Address: 712 NW Spring Avenue, Portland, OR, 97229
Email: rep.mitchgreenlick@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/greenlick

From: Erick Erickson

There’s war in Wisconsin. Voters, disgusted with big spending Democrats and out of control unions, handled the whole state over to Republicans. Seizing the voter mandate, Republican Governor Scott Walker is intent on pushing through legislation to end the ability of public sector unions to have collective bargaining rights on behalf of public employees.
Democrat lawmakers in the State Senate have fled Wisconsin for Illinois to ensure there is no quorum in the Senate. While only 17 votes are needed, 20 of the 33 senators must be present for the body to conduct business.
Public sector union members have stormed the state capitol. Teachers have staged a ‘sick in’ putting their union privileges ahead of educating children — bolstering Gov. Walker’s point that union abuse needs to be reined in.
Naturally, Barack Obama has sided with the union goons. His Organizing for America is sending protestors to astroturf Wisconsin in favor of more bloat and corruption. This is as much about saving him politically in 2012 as it is actually defending unionization.
Democrats and unions are comparing what is happening to Wisconsin to the Alamo. It puts me in the unusual position of backing the Mexicans.
— Erick Erickson

January 26, 2011 (12:31)
A video response to the 2011 State of the Union

Regarding President Obama’s speech on Guantanamo detainees in 2009: “One of the most radical proposals for defying  the constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people.”

No, Glenn Beck didn’t say it, Rush Limbaugh didn’t say it either, not even that acidic harpy Ann Coulter.

It was said by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on her May 21st show in 2009.  Watch the video below or click here.

I wonder what that Kool-aid tastes like when it comes back up on you. That’s not really fair I suppose. She is standing behind her convictions and that is more than can be said for most on that network.

Interesting side note:  It appears that many links to YouTube posts of this video have been removed due to claims of “copy right violations”. No guarantee that this one will be up for long so here is a link to MSNBC’s transcript of the show.

In an op-ed piece yesterday on Politico, Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) tries to make a bizarre connection between Al Qaeda and the tragic rampage by the mentally deranged gunman in Tucson. Her conclusion? Enact more gun control legislation before Al Qaeda strikes again.  I know it sounds like something from the Onion but its absolutely true. Read for yourself.

Now for the  really scary part.  According to her website she is  “Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence. “

from Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights:

“I’ve just received word from inside sources in the U.S. Senate.

Senate Democrats are planning to execute a sneak attack on gun rights as soon as TODAY!

Their plan is to sneak Carolyn McCarthy’s Magazine Ban into law as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Bill, a routine piece of generally non-controversial legislation.

And they hope YOU won’t notice.

That’s why you and I need to make our voices heard RIGHT NOW!

We need to let them know we’re watching them like a hawk!”

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=019fdf348072f1ef988bc49ffc01f45b&CID=7927217092&ch=B863910850A1AC21D6304EAE6062FCD2

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Dan Baum over at the Huffington Post has written an article asking liberals to not to be tempted to call for tighter gun laws in the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson. His theme of the article I think is expressed best by this quote:

Gun control not only does no practical good, it actively causes harm. It may be hard to show that it saves lives, but it’s easy to demonstrate that we’ve sacrificed a generation of progress on things like health care, women’s rights, immigration reform, income fairness, and climate change because we keep messing with people’s guns

I am impressed by his honest understanding that this issue is a losing one for Democrats, or any politician. However, from reading the article I get the feeling that he doesn’t truly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. It seems that he has given up the issue in order to pursue other causes which are more important to liberals.

I do have hope for the liberals and Democrats when the author compares gun control to the prohibition of marijuana:

It’s helpful to think of gun control as akin to marijuana prohibition — useless for almost everything except turning otherwise law-abiding people into criminals and fomenting cynicism and resentment.

This statement gives me hope that he is on his way to becoming more libertarian. I heard someone once say, if we can get the gun guys stop worrying about drugs and the drug guys to stop worrying about guns then we would be on our way to a much better country.

From: EFF

Last week’s post about the increasingly draconian and desperate measures the Tunisian government was taking to censor bloggers, journalists, and activists online was rapidly made irrelevant by subsequent events. Over the next few days, Tunisian dictator El Abidine Ben Ali promised not to run for re-election in 2014, then offered widespread reforms, including freedom of expression on the Internet, and finally stepped down from power and fled the country. The steps that EFF called on Facebook, Google, and Yahoo to take in order to protect the privacy and safety of their Tunisian users soon lost their urgency. For now, Tunisians are experiencing unprecedented freedom online after years of extensive government filtering and censorship of websites.

more

From: EFF

Over the past few days, the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and nine U.S. Attorneys’ Offices seized 82 domain names of websites they claim were engaged in the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and illegal copyrighted works.

Setting aside the due process concerns inherent in seizing any website without notice or appropriate recourse for the owner, it appears that the “raid” has swept up several sites that are hardly in the business of willful copyright infringement.

…it’s hard to believe that this kind of action is the best use of the Department of Homeland Security’s resources.

If you go through the scanner at the airport with nothing but a speedo, you will not be allowed to board, but if you are fully clothed you may board.

As a reminder to everyone here is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In a few days I will begin posting the entire Constitution of the United States of America. I will post each section separately to make it easier to read. The document is so small that I could easily post the entire thing, but instead I will divide it up over the course of the next few weeks.

The pilgrims discovered quickly that Communism doesn’t work:

You may know Adam Savage from the Discovery Channel show Mythbusters. He had an interesting encounter with the TSA recently:

A post on Warrior Times led me to this Reason.com article that you absolutely must read. It seems clear to me that the rabid anti-gun crowd will stop at nothing to persecute gun owners. They can’t get the U.S. Supreme court to go along with dismantling the U.S. Constitution so they use state legislation to turn technical infractions of state law into felonies with mandatory prison time. Reading the following section of the Reason article made my blood boil.

“New Jersey gun laws are insane,” Nappen says. “It makes a criminal of every gun owner and forces him to prove his innocence.” Worse, in 2008 the New Jersey legislature and then-Gov. John Corzine changed the law to make the penalty for possessing a gun the same as the penalty for using it to commit a separate crime. That means someone like Aitken gets the same punishment as someone who assaults another person with a gun. In November 2008, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a directive (PDF) urging the state’s prosecutors to apply the new law “vigorously,” “strictly,” and “uniformly.”

I think I’ll go donate some more money to  Reason and to pro-gun lobbyists and maybe my blood pressure will return to normal.  Be sure to read the whole article.

From: Bosch Fawstin

“I never met in my life such an arrogant man,” says the arrogant NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg about Barack Obama to Rupert Murdoch. Obama is the most glorified community organizer in history, with no accomplishments to his name outside of an unlikely rise to the highest office in the world. Murdoch added that President Obama “might make great speeches but doesn’t get things done and doesn’t listen to anybody.” His arrogance will not allow any rational ideas to penetrate his policies, as we’ve seen in his post-election comments where he seems determined to continue the illusion that he knows what is best for America.

more

Pauline Hanson, the former One Nation party chief who warned that Australia was at risk of being “swamped by Asians”, said France was also inundated with foreigners and she had decided to stay in Australia.

“I love England but so many people want to leave there because it’s overrun with immigrants and refugees,” she said.

“France is becoming filled with Muslims and the French and English are losing their way of life because they’re controlled by foreigners.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8132290/Australian-politician-claims-Britain-is-overrun-with-immigrants-and-refugees.html

The California Supreme Court weighed in Monday on the politically charged immigration fray when it ruled that illegal immigrants are entitled to the same tuition breaks offered to in-state high school students to attend public colleges and universities.

While the ruling applies only to California, the case was closely watched nationally because nine other states, including New York and Texas, have similar laws.

Republican congressmen Lamar S. Smith of Texas and Steve King of Iowa filed a so-called friends of the court brief urging that illegal immigrants be denied the reduced rate.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/15/5470581-court-upholds-in-state-tuition-for-some-immigrants

“with the Supreme Court set to hear arguments tomorrow for California’s controversial law aimed at keeping violent games away from minors, support for gamers and the games industry is coming from all corners.

Writing for PCMag, Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents’ hands: “If I have real concerns, it’s up to me to argue it out with my son and take away the games or not buy them for him when he asks.”

Game developer Daniel Greenberg wants to know “how government bureaucrats are supposed to divine the artistic value that a video game has for a 17-year-old,” adding that he’s “disheartened and a little perplexed to see [his] art and passion lumped in with cigarettes and booze.”

http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/11/01/228224/Supreme-Court-Hears-Violent-Video-Game-Case-Tomorrow

From: Slashdot
“Oliver Drage, 19, of Liverpool has been convicted of ‘failing to disclose an encryption key,’ which is an offense under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and as a result has been jailed for 16 weeks. Police seized his computer but could not get past the 50-character encrypted password that he refused to give up.

“http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/10/05/2038219/British-Teen-Jailed-Over-Encryption-Password”