Watch List = No Gun Rights… Again!

It is amazing to me how bad ideas in Washington never seem to die. They are like vampires, that instead of blood want to suck liberties and freedom away instead. They just keep coming back over and over again. You think you put a stake through the heart of one of these freedom robbing ideas, but nope, here it comes again! Here we are after another horrific terrorist act performed by Radical Islamic Jihadist and again the talk moves to gun control. I have of course written about this before.

However this time I wish to report that someone in the Huffington Post of all places actually has some semblance of the problem and what the NRA is against. Let’s see if the dimwits in the Democrat Party can understand THIS time around. I doubt it, but like a hopeful parent I keep hoping the morons will catch on, but they never do.

As pointed out in this Huffington Post article, it explains the issue with the NRA and these ever expanding black lists from government is the absolute lack of due process involved in getting on a list, finding out you are on it, and getting yourself off it if you are innocent.

It seems the government REALLY hates this whole 5th Amendment thing. It is just too hard for them to go out and present real evidence and hold a trial and all that other “hard stuff”. It is so much easier to just pass a law that says we can strip rights, property, freedom and liberty away with no trial because some government thug somewhere thinks it is a good idea to put you on some type of secret list.

Any Libertarian worth his or her salt hates these watch lists for multiple reasons, but as the article above states the NRA is correct on this issue. Lack of due process is completely unacceptable and it holds true in this case as well. You can’t start having secret government lists that strip people of rights!

Now having said that I wouldn’t start cheering these stupid lists even if due process was used. Why? Because ultimately it involves putting someone on a list that strips liberties away for something that someone MIGHT do down the road, but we aren’t really sure.

If someone has ALREADY broken laws and is ALREADY a terrorist who has ALREADY done acts of murder or terror then LOCK THEM UP! Don’t put them on some list! But wait, what about terrorists that are running around overseas right now. Unless they are American citizens they don’t get rights under our Constitution. If they are Americans AND terrorists then catch them like you would any criminal and prosecute them!

The whole concept of taking people’s freedom’s away because of things they haven’t but might do someday is a very dangerous precedent to start. Plus who gets to decide these definitions? What constitutes an actual terrorist? I know everyone has their vision of what a terrorist is, but I guarantee that government will have a different definition if you allow this and it will be one you won’t like or worse the definition will start getting bigger and bigger to include more people.

It is no accident that members of the NRA and gun rights enthusiasts get called “terrorist” every time they stand up to Congress when the scum bags are trying to infringe on our liberties again. These un-American ass hats know damn good and well that a whole lot of freedom and liberties are suddenly granted to the police, courts and government and taken away from private citizens if you can brand some person or group as a “terrorist”. That is like a government magic word for immediately suspending constitutional rights from a group of people.

So, if we let this go through even with “due process” in place what happens when the media and liberals everywhere are successful in branding NRA members as terrorist? Poof! There goes our rights and we help sell the bill that will allow it to happen.

You see as dangerous as it is to strip people’s rights and liberties away for things they might do someday it is even more dangerous when the government has amorphous ever changing definitions of what or who a “terrorist” is and what constitutes “acts of terror” that will justify this loss of liberty. You just have to know that whatever party is in control of the levers of power will try and brand their POLITICAL enemies as “terrorists” so they can immediately throw them on some list and strip away a ton of Constitutional liberties.

This whole “war on terror” and who is an actual terrorist is just giving people that don’t deserve our trust (government) way too much power and discretion with our liberties.

Therefore, I stand where I did before. NOT ONE MORE INCH when it comes to gun rights or for that matter giving the thugs more power under the guise of “keeping us safe” and the “war on terror”.

I will keep myself safe. I don’t need the government to do it for me. First, they suck at it. Second, I prefer to do these things myself so I know what I am getting. All I need from government is to stay away from anymore of my liberties. Just back off and leave me alone. There are millions of other Americans that think the same thing.

Molon Labe!

 

No Fly List Equals No 2nd Amendment

In his most recent tirade, Chairman Obama of the not so free United States called for… wait for it… more gun control in the wake of San Bernardino shootings. Yes, this guy just keeps getting more creative, innovative, predictable by the day!

His most current idea is anyone that is on the “no fly list” should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights. The LA Times editorial board even thought this idea was terrible. Not exactly known for the libertarian centered views even these guys can spot a terrible idea when they see it.

However this is just the latest terrible idea relating to the never ending always expanding “war on terror”. Every time some lunatic anywhere in the world does a horrible act of terror politicians in America start talking about another Constitutional right that needs to be removed or watered down to “keep us safe”.

The (un)Patriot Act has almost completely gutted the 4th Amendment with secret courts that rubber stamp broad and sweeping open warrants that essentially allow the government to go on a fishing expedition whenever they want. This of course is secret from the person being investigated and has strict gag orders in place anywhere it is used, i.e. your bank, library, or anywhere else they wish to look.

The wonderful tool of Civil Asset Forfeiture allows the Federalies to swoop in and steal your property without ANY criminal conviction. The IRS can steal money from your home, business, bank accounts, etc. simply for suspecting you of a crime under this wonderful government boondoggle. Their favorite recent toy in the box is something called “structuring” where they say ANY series of deposits NOT $10,000 or above is an attempt by you to avoid reporting laws and hence you are doing something illegal.

Police can pull you over, search your vehicle and help themselves to your cash, jewelry and other valuables under the rule “it might have been used in a criminal endeavor” theory of law. Again, no criminal conviction or even charges required. In cases of Civil Asset Forfeiture you will almost never be charged with a crime and must hire expensive attorneys to get your property back. So even if you end up “winning” by getting your own property returned by the time you pay attorney and court fees you still lost.

Americans decided to fight back against some of this abuse and many people use strong data encryption for their phones, email to keep government snoops out of their business. Then along comes the FBI saying, wait for it… we need back doors in this software for, yes, you guessed it the never ending “war on terror”

The sad thing all of these have in common is an attempt to subvert your Constitutional rights at every turn. Once your Constitutional rights are gone don’t expect the government to just give them back. People need to be aware you are getting a bad deal if you think they will make you “safer” in exchange for just one more infringement.

Obama’s recent one on 2nd Amendment rights is just the latest and certainly not the last “discussions” we will have about this or that liberty all in the name of giving law enforcement the “tools” they need to protect us.

In case you haven’t noticed all the words and phrases they use in describing these infringements are poll tested, spin tested words to mislead you. Hopefully people are smarter than that, but given the amount of infringements to date and the never ending stream of new ideas for more I am not hopeful.

Wake up people, the hour grows very late for you to stop this abuse by government.

Guns and Doctors Shouldn’t Mix

The Bill of Rights, focus on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

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.

There is a considerable amount of discussion circulating over the Internet about the invasion of privacy from doctors and insurance companies asking patients about gun ownership. It is becoming a very politically charged issue. In some cases state laws prevent it (Florida) and in others nothing. There are medical organizations driving this anti-civil liberties agenda and finally some of it is coming from both doctors and/or insurance companies.

There are a number of articles floating around about how to handle the situation if a doctor asks you gun ownership. Many of them discuss “making a statement” or filing complaints and other such actions. I can appreciate the need to fight back, but I am not sure that is the best course of action here.

When I was in college I knew a gentleman that was about 20 years my senior and was coming back to finish his degree and get a graduate degree. By all accounts this guy would be considered a bit off. He was a conspiracy theorist to the nth degree. He would go on long diatribes about social security numbers, the Fed, black helicopters, and any other number of issues. He would go online forums and argue, debate fellow students, write letters, put letters to the editor in the paper and many other activist activities.

Today I have no idea where he lives or what he is doing or even if he is still alive for that matter. What I do know is all the same things he rallied against back then are still issues today. If you believe in or don’t believe in these things is not what is tangent to this post.

One thing I repeatedly pointed out to him was the potential issue to himself from deliberately bringing down a larger and better funded enemy down on his head. I refer of course to the number of bureaucrats, ABC government officials and their countless databases and record keeping systems. I used to offer a metaphor/parable to him. I said if you are walking across your wooden deck with your bare feet and you come across nails poking up a little what are you likely to do? My rhetorical question/answer was you would take a hammer to the offending nail. The nails that would NOT receive a hammer blow were the ones that stayed low and didn’t bring attention to themselves by poking up.

I felt this was a good parable for life when dealing with our oppressive government of today at all levels. If you yell and scream all the time you will bring a lot of unwanted attention to yourself and when the hammer comes out (and it always does at some point) you will be the first one to get pounded down. While I can appreciate and even participate in activist activities you have to know how and when to do it. You have to be smart about it.

In my opinion arguing with your doctor, filing complaints against them or the insurance company, taking to social media to protest, refusing to answer on the grounds that it is none of their business etc. just makes you that proverbial nail poking up on the deck. If you say you refuse to answer because it makes you uncomfortable or you refuse to answer you might as well as just say “yes” because you already did. It will be noted in their file and anyone with half a brain will guess you have guns and are refusing to answer because you are one of those crazy NRA guys. If you take it farther by writing letters, complaints, etc. you simply raise your profile even more.

Let me offer what I believe to be the absolute best solution. I am at the doctor and they are going through their little questionnaire and hit the question of do I own guns. Here is my elaborate well planned, perfectly executed battle strategy for just such a situation… “no” next question.

Yep, that is it. Simply say no with a straight face and move on. In case it isn’t super clear I am telling you to LIE to them. It is none of their business anyway so I feel no moral compunction to tell the truth. It won’t impact the health services I receive in ANY way if they don’t know. I stay out of any databases and I my “objection” is also not noted anywhere. Nobody, but me and wall know the truth. Now doesn’t that sound like a much better solution?

With my solution I might not be an activist and I might be “rolling over to tyranny” and whatever else someone wants to accuse me of. You know what else I also am? Untracked, unrecorded, with no notation in my PERMANENT medical record as having any issues for or against guns. A record that is easily previewed by any number of Federal government bureaucrats. I don’t receive diminished healthcare services, don’t create an adversarial relationship with my doctor, insurance company and most importantly don’t become the proverbial nail poking up on the deck waiting for the hammer to fall.

If you disagree you are free to handle it any way you want. I know how I will handle it.

Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for “Radical” Americans

In the below video former General Wesley Clark calls for the creation of internment camps to segregate “radicalized” Americans from the rest of the population as we did in World War 2 with Japanese Americans. This is an interesting position from a man who had no shortage of criticisms for George W. Bush’s violations of civil liberties. Apparently protecting civil liberties is not really the mission here. Violating civil liberties is fine so long as it is your team doing the violating. Watch the video for yourself…

There are a few issues with his “ideas” of how to protect Americans. First, exactly who gets to decide who is “radical?” Today we might say it is radical Islamic terrorists, but as we have seen before people that believe in strong 2nd Amendment rights have been labeled “terrorists” on more than one occasion. Does that group get put into one of these camps? How about people that believe in any of the other Bill of Rights and is willing to fight for them. Are those individuals now “radicalized” and need to be put into a camp?

We actually have people out there that instead of having freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment that we should create categories of “hate” speech that is illegal and should be a crime. Wow. Who gets to decide what “hate” speech is? Is that just speech you disagree with?

So if someone says they don’t believe in LGBT lifestyle is that now hate speech and said person needs to be put into a camp for being “radicalized”. When we start deciding what speech is protected and what isn’t and are constantly pointing fingers at each other and saying this person or what they said is offending me and they are a “hate” speech person or “radical” for their idea we are in VERY dangerous waters. Add to that the idea that we should start shoving these people into camps and you have the all the makings of another holocaust.

Maybe those people that believe in a strong 4th Amendment and believe that having a warrant before being able to indiscriminately search someone’s house, computer, library records, phone, business records, car is a good idea. Are those people now “wrong thinking” people that are “radicalized?” Maybe they are hiding something, if they didn’t have something to hide they would just agree to the search, right? They must be a radical, maybe we should lock them up in a camp?

The issue is who gets to decide who is radicalized and a threat and needs to go into one of these camps? What is the process for deciding they have to go? Is it just their position on an issue? Will they have to show they are a danger to society? If so, how exactly does this new Minority Report commission convict someone of a crime they haven’t actually done yet, but may in the future?

If we decide to start shoving people into these camps do they have a trial? appeals? Is there a sentencing system or are they simply put in there until they are no longer “radicalized?” Who gets to decide when that has been achieved? What happens to them in this camp? Do they get re-educated or tortured until they have seen the light? What happens to their property they owned before they got shoved in this camp, doe we just divvy it up among the “non-radicalized” people living outside these camps?

See you start getting a lot of sticky questions when you decide it is a good idea to start labeling various people you disagree with as “radicalized” and “terrorist” and decide to start stripping them of civil liberties and locking them up for crimes they *might* do someday, but haven’t done today and quite frankly may never do.

Depending on exactly what “radicalized” group we are discussing here doing a crime isn’t what is happening so much as standing up for freedom. If their only crime is being “radicalized” according to some person’s definition of the word is then some star chamber of people somewhere get to determine that and shove them in a camp until this group starts thinking the right way? Wow. Just Wow, what else can you say about something like this.

The really scary thing is this clown is actually brought on to discuss this on news shows as it should actually be considered a real policy idea. This maniac should not be given a platform anywhere where his ideas are actually elevated to the level of serious discussion.

In addition, this moron was and may be again a presidential candidate. Finally, at one time he was actually a general in the military, you know, one of only two groups, police being the other one, that should have all the guns according to liberals. Now that should scare every single person.

FBI Wants Requirements for Tech Firms to Create Weak Encryption

FBI Director, James Comey has requested that Congress create mandates on tech companies to essentially create a backdoor or weakened encryption of its products to make it easier for law enforcement to read our communications and data.

Here is an EXCELLENT video from the Cato Institute discussing what a terrible idea this is…

First, I encourage you to watch the video. It is only 7 minutes long and they make some excellent points on the issue. I will add some points from my perspective.

As a tech guy that does related activities daily the concept of creating a “back door” or “master key” that only the company can have access to and happily hand over to law enforcement or spy agencies upon request is really ill informed of exactly how encryption even works. ANY vulnerabilities, intentional or not can be exploited by others just as easily as it can be handed over by said companies to the FBI upon request.

Mr. Comey’s remarks about how he is not a tech person and thinks there are a lot of “smart people” in the tech sector that should be able to find a way to “work this out” is one of the most ignorant comments uttered in this debate.

It is ignorant comments like these that have created the millions of pages of regulations faced by American businesses today. Morons in Congress at the behest of special interest groups, like the FBI, in this case make some vague demand to make their job easier and Congress simply passes a mandate! Presto, just like that the problem is solved, yeah! Another problem solved by Congress, what’s next?

Only its not. First, what if encryption software is open source and someone from another country takes this and removes the vulnerabilities and then starts using it for terrorist communications? This would not be an American company or even an American citizen. They would not be subject to the mandate in our country and I guarantee wouldn’t follow it.

What keeps entrepreneurs in other countries from deciding to fill the gap in the market for “back door” free encryption and they sell it overseas from a non U.S. base of operations? The bad guys can still get their hands on it.

Creating deliberately weak encryption technology to make law enforcement’s job easier and simply mandating that this happen is one of the dumbest ideas ever uttered by a politician. Here is a basic truth, sometimes your job is hard.

We should not always be trying to find ways to make law enforcement’s job easier at the cost of our civil liberties and protection of our private communications.

Technologically there is no way to do this without creating vulnerabilities that skilled bad guys all over the world, i.e. China, Russia, etc can exploit to our disadvantage. Your mandate will be ignored by others around the world who will simply create the in demand software that you have barred U.S. companies from creating. Such a move might remove one of our key attributes as a innovative nation in the tech sector at risk.

The terrorist and other bad guys will simply know that there is a back door to the U.S. created stuff and will quickly adapt and go use stronger stuff created by someone else and will continue to do bad stuff. What are you going to do, mandate that all terrorists must use weakened U.S. software?

What you are seeing unfold here is morons that don’t know anything about technology telling those that do to build an inferior product and simply saying things like “there are a lot of smart people that should be able to figure this out” clearly shows you are not one of them. The FBI’s solution won’t solve the problem at hand, but will create many others.

Federal Government Robbery – Again!

It is probably a good thing that we have digital media available to discuss this since we would probably run out of paper and ink if we had to print the number of incidents where the Federal Government Cartel robs another innocent American of private property!

In this latest countless incident the DEA robs a nail salon owner of his savings of 20 years and “claims” it was gained through vague illegal activities. No charges were filed. No evidence produced. No explanation given outside of the vague claim by the DEA that stole the cash.

Sadly these incidents are happening with alarming frequency on our highways and airports across this once free land. The people our tax dollars employ to protect us from ACTUAL criminals are instead using the funds to BECOME criminals, thieves, highway robbers and legal government enforcers against the very citizens they swore to protect!

Under this completely unconstitutional law known as asset forfeiture the Federalies in conjunction with their local enforcers are pretty much allowed to rob you at will on highways and airports across our country. All they have to do is make a vague claim that the cash or property was derived from criminal activity, which they don’t have to prove (violation of due process from Constitution) and they just keep it.

If you want your property back YOU have to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and fight for months and IF you are lucky the Federalies may give you back HALF of your money! Of course the other half was probably used in paying lawyers to get back the illegal confiscation in the first place. You basically have to prove your innocent instead of the other way around by our Constitution.

This wonderful law is used against small business owners by the IRS in incidents like this, this and this. As well as against citizens driving on our highways or traveling in our airports by thugs from the DEA, TSA, and a whole host of local thug enforcers that actually go to seminars to learn how to do this with more brutal efficiency!

Please tell me again what the difference is between criminal enterprises like the Mafia and our own Federal government because the lines are getting really blurry.

Cleansing Society of Offensive Stuff

Within days of the Charleston South Carolina shooting by a self proclaimed racist that believed he had to “protect” his culture the PC police were out in force trying to again cleanse society of anything offensive. The target this time is the Confederate flag and apparently anything to do with the civil war. To add insult to injury one reporter was even speculating that we should remove the Jefferson monument because he [Jefferson] held slaves.

In a word all of this is STUPID! With so many people out there deciding to throw so many objects into the furnace because it might offend someone can we be far away from book banning and burning? I say we have to be right on the cusp of book burning.

No where in the Constitution or in Natural Law for that matter does it say we have a right to not be offended. People should simply be able to have a mature and civil discussion about ANYTHING and be able to rationally debate and articulate their beliefs without resorting to personal attacks, banning everything and causing riots when we don’t get our way.

Intellectual debate in our country has taken one crippling blow after another since Obama has been in office, but honestly was even taking body shots before we ever heard his name uttered.

We have college educated potential future lawyers and judges saying we should have laws against “hate” speech! What exactly is hate speech and who gets to decide it is hate speech?

That is truly the dangerous ground we are getting into here with all of this PC talk going on today. It is truly suppressing not only free speech, but the very ability to have rational and civil debate on anything. People simply want to shut out anything they personally disagree with and find personally offensive. They don’t even want to be exposed to the very ideas like it is some type of virus they might catch.

The problem is who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is acceptable ideas and what needs to be banned? If someone likes the Confederate flag and someone else likes the hammer and sickle flag of communist Russia and each is offended by the other who gets to decide which one gets banned? Do both of them get banned? Does the person who currently holds the majority in Congress, however slight, get to rule and ban the other one? For everyone? Even if we are talking a 51/49 majority? Does the 49% have any rights? or do they completely lose their rights because the 51% are the “majority” at that exact moment in time? What happens if the tables get switched at the next election, should the now majority that was previously the minority ban everything from the other?

See you get into very slippery territory here very quickly. All because some group doesn’t want to be “offended” by what they perceive to be “hate” speech.

If you have two groups each with different symbols and both calling the other group’s symbols “hate speech” which one does the law ban as “hate speech” apply to?

This of course continues to spiral down and out of control very quickly until ALL free speech is gone for everyone accept the group in power with the most guns. Tyranny. It keeps going until all books, ideas, concepts, debates, and speeches of the side NOT in power are banned and we live under a new tyranny.

We are told constantly that we can’t judge all Muslims because of a few radicals that kill innocent people. We are told those Muslims don’t represent all Muslims. However when one racist nut job kills people in Charleston we have to ban flags, speech, monuments, guns and apparently large chunks of American history to satisfy the PC crowd. Just wait until the next Muslim terrorist does something and let’s call for banning the Koran, any mention of Middle Eastern countries and anything associated with their culture and watch the liberal heavens split asunder as they scream like banshees.

Unfortunately for PC oriented liberals the logic is identical even if they don’t like it. One person commits an atrocity based on a belief system and suddenly we ban everything associated with that belief system for everyone because of one misguided person.

Unless people truly become more tolerant and willing to listen to all ideas and debate everything rationally and civilly Western civilization is truly doomed.

Martin O’Malley Calls for New “Assault” Weapon Ban…Again

In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste Martin O’Malley is the latest flat earth gun control supporter calling for another “assault” weapon ban…again. How does that saying go it is like deja vu all over again. Apparently this clown doesn’t even read his own adoring paper the New York Times, which also admitted that the “assault” weapon ban enacted from 1994 to 2004 didn’t make any difference. Why? Because the vast amount of thugs killing people do NOT use modern sporting rifles, which 2nd Amendment hating, flat earth supporters, like O’Malley call “assault” weapons. The term is a completely and carefully poll tested word used by freedom hating POS like O’Malley to remove rights from us.

It is interesting that he is using the latest crisis in South Carolina to call for this ban. First, the shooting itself was NOT done with a modern sporting rifle. Not that this should make a difference, but it does show how these freedom hating thugs call for any and all types of gun control every time an event like this occurs. Second, the issue in South Carolina was more about mental illness than guns. If we fix the mental illness issue in this country people like this guy in South Carolina should be able to get the treatment he obviously needs.

2nd Amendment hating, anti freedom and anti civil liberties people like O’Malley will never understand the real issue and quite frankly don’t want to. They are more interested in striping freedom from private citizens than actually solving problems, which is what the entire gun control industry is based on.

The formula is always the same. First, wait for “crisis” that involves a gun. Second, don’t wait for the facts and start dancing in the blood of the victims and calling for “common sense” gun laws. Next, try and find a way to work in the words “assault” weapon into every news report the group does on national media, even if the perp uses a knife it becomes a conversation about “assault” weapons. Pull out a long wish list of gun ban laws that are always ready to go in their desk drawer and propose it as THE solution to THIS problem even though they are always the same tired ideas which have been pitched for years. Lastly when you don’t gain traction, blame it your lack of progress on the powerful “gun lobby” and NRA. Rinse and repeat.

In the case of O’Malley work a little fund raising in the issue as well. No point in not squeezing your supporters for a few bucks for your personal coffers at the same time. These guys will never understand we have 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. We don’t need any more “common sense” solutions, which only make it harder for private, law abiding, citizens to exercise their rights and won’t even slow a criminal down. But again, it isn’t about real solutions. It is about control.

The real solution to this latest shooting is two fold. First, fix the mental health system in this country. Of course that is hard and expensive and time consuming so it is easier to just call for some more “common sense”, but useless gun control law and call it a day. Second, eliminate the criminal protection zones like this church was. Gun free zones don’t work and never have. A thug bent on murder isn’t going to change his plans because you put your stupid little no guns sign up. It isn’t like garlic to a vampire, it doesn’t repel criminals. If you really want to stop mass shootings stop creating victim zones where law abiding citizens can’t carry and protect themselves and become prey for thugs like this guy. If anyone in that room besides the killer had a firearm they may have ended this before it became a mass shooting, but hey, let’s just propose another “common sense” gun control law because they always work; full sarcasm intended.

The bottom line is I don’t care how many politicians use the word “common sense” and talk about how this never happens in more enlightened countries like Australia. As a 2nd Amendment supporter I am not giving up one more right for a useless law that won’t solve a damn thing. Not one more inch.

Philadelphia Extorts Bloggers

It would seem the City of Philadelphia, the site of our once Continental Congress, has decided to use its enforcers to shake down bloggers for cash. Of course they wrap it all up in a pretty package called a Business “Privilege” License and make it sound all official, but at the end of the day it is a shake down akin to a visit from the local Mafia thug.

It seems that if you operate a business, which now includes blogs, you need a license from government! They have gone so far as to refer to it as a “privilege” license! Please show me anywhere in our Constitution where it says any level of government can grant businesses a “privilege” license for the sum of $300 to start a business. Anyone? I thought not.

This goes against the very core of freedom and the First Amendment. Now I would never, ever, ever tell anyone to break the laws of our great nation so what I write next is only theoretical mind you. If you are a handy web developer you may want to consider (theoretically) doing the following if you find yourself at the receiving end of something like this…

1. Set up your site on a server in another country.
2. Use a VPN to access your site.
3. Encrypt all of your files on your existing hard drive.
4. Use email encryption when conducting business.
5. Never admit to anything.
6. Conduct financial transactions using Bitcoin.

Of course this is just a theoretical idea for the sake of conversation for intellectually curious Libertarians 🙂

Is Obamacare Dead?

A case sitting before the Supreme Court right now known as King v. Burwell has all the potential to deliver a death blow to Obamacare. The crux of the case is that the law specifically reads that only states that have state run exchanges qualify for Federal subsidies. There are over 30 states they don’t have a state run exchange, which means the Federal tyrants have set up an exchange for them, wasn’t that sweet of them. The states that have no state exchange are technically not entitled to stolen tax payer money subsidies.

It doesn’t help the progressive idiots that used some of the most convoluted shams lies kick backs “rules” to get this passed and as a result didn’t get to actually clean up this monstrosity. Now they are claiming they never intended for it to not cover everyone. Of course this to is a lie. It was specifically written this way to bribe force create incentives the states to set up their own exchanges. Many of them did not and now Obama and his criminal henchman in Congress are in a bit of a pickle as they offer up additional lies excuses lame reasoning explanation for what they meant.

The question of course is will the SCOTUS rule as they should, which is to say looking at the letter of the law where it specifically says state run exchanges are the only ones able to receive stolen tax payer loot and rule as they should by the letter of the law.

Since that traitor, John Roberts had to perform such complex legal gymnastics the first time to find this piece of crap “Constitutional” by essentially re-writing it on the fly I am not hopeful that he will rule any differently this time. He will probably accept the lies from the progressives that they intended this to be the case from the beginning, apply a huge dose of legal gymnastics again and again vote in their favor. After you add up the other 4 guaranteed Obama votes from the 4 liberal Justices you will get another 4/5 decision. In fact, I am so sure this is what will happen I think it is as close to a sure bet as you can get.

We should know in a few short months. The anticipation is killing me…NOT!