Did Joseph Stack Prove the MIAC Report Right?

bbittner — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:12:10 -0600

No doubt you heard about Andrew Joseph Stack flying his Piper Cherokee into an office building where about 200 IRS employees worked in northwest Austin, Texas. In addition to the intentional plane crash, he apparently set his home ablaze and possibly booby-trapped his car with a bomb. His suicide note/manifesto was briefly posted here, before the webhosting company took the site offline “due to the sensitive nature of the events.”

You may recall a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center last winter that equated support of many “extreme” views common in libertarian thought, including resistance to the current tax levels and system, with domestic terrorism. It’s obvious from the note left by Stack that he is no fan of the government, specifically calling out the IRS and FAA, as well as Congress’ manipulation of the tax code. It will likely be a few small correlations between Stack’s manifesto, his actions, and the MIAC report that generate more government scrutiny of those who oppose the continued growth of the federal government.

Thought the MIAC officials who published it removed the report from their websites and claim to have ceased its distribution among law enforcement officials, it only takes one incident to dredge up connections “proving” it right. After all, in the court of public opinion, after the events of 9/11 every Muslim in America got a second look. The broad brush of “Safety” will undoubtedly paint many law-abiding, liberty-loving Americans who oppose any of the following as another “crazy Joe Stack”: The United Nations, Gun Control, The violation of Posse Comitatus, The Federal Reserve, The Income Tax, The Ammunition and Accountability Act, A possible Constitutional Convention, Universal Service Program, and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). I am sure that the readers take issue with at least one of those, if not all. Congratulations! You are on the government’s radar again.

I do not write this to re-open old wounds, but the same people trying to classify you and I as “domestic terrorists” began their calls not long after Mr. Stack’s crash as they seek somewhere to lay the blame. Rather than self-examine, the government will no doubt seize the opportunity to adopt the “research” of big government lapdogs like Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who has seemingly made it his life’s work to demonize those who do not believe in what he thinks about freedom and liberty. Less than 24 hours after the crash, not condemning Stack’s actions meant condoning them. For those of you who read his last public communication, Joseph Stack presents an interesting story of his life and how he is another victim of the bigger is better mentality of the federal leviathan and those who believe it to be the solution rather than the problem.

***Note: As a libertarian, I do not condone violence/destruction as a means to achieve a political end.***

Bayh's Retirement Not Hurting Democrats As Much As Most Think It Will

bbittner — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:53:14 -0600

After absorbing the news from every outlet on earth yesterday, even our own editor’s take, on the “surprise” retirement of Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, I have to say that analysts are not considering all the “good” that can come from his retirement from the U.S. Senate. It seems that everyone predicts a Republican to pick up his seat in November. Lately, I have been among the few to see some things that ebb against the accepted flow in analyzing races and situations. This is another such ebb.

I think the reason that Bayh waited until Presidents’ Day to announce his retirement was to prevent someone relatively unknown, like Tamyra d’Ippolito, from garnering the nomination without a primary election AND without their seal of approval by collecting the requisite signatures necessary to get on the primary ballot. The Democrats have an opportunity to select a candidate, since it seems that d’Ippolito did not achieve the 4500 signatures necessary to get on the ballot. If she had, that is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for Democrats. By waiting, Bayh almost assured that the state Democrat Party could spend time vetting, choosing and fundraising for someone “moderate” enough to win the state, but “progressive” enough to fully support the agenda of the party for the next six years. While d’Ippolito likely fills out the latter, there is no chance she can accommodate the former.

It seems, based on claims by d’Ippolito herself about the “machine” squashing her interview with Rachel Maddow last night, that Democrats figured out that her candidacy was the worst thing that could happen in the wake of Bayh’s retirement announcement yesterday. Keeping her from walking away with the Democratic nomination is in the best interest of their party for the midterm election, because that almost assures that no matter which of the five Republicans wins the GOP nomination, keeping the race for Bayh’s seat competitive.

On the other side of things, Republicans can seize this opportunity to point out that Democrat party leadership hand-picked a candidate, rather than letting the people of Indiana decide. They can also use Bayh’s retirement to their advantage, praising him for his retirement, paying special attention to his reasons for retiring. The most politically advantageous being that the liberal agenda of the Democrats drove one of the most popular Indiana politicians away from a ”dysfunctional” Congress. In this case, especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement, Republicans would do well in picking a liberty-minded candidate, like Marlin Stutzman, over an establishment Republican, in Dan Coats, whose absence from the state since retiring to avoid then-Governor Bayh in 1998 will likely put off many Hoosier voters. It also does not help that he was an ambassador to Germany under George W. Bush, but the fact that he was a DC lobbyist after time in Germany will turn off those recently “awakened” to politics. Though his endorsement may not mean as much in the Midwest as it does in his home state of Georgia, Erick Erickson of RedState has already publicly announced a donation to Stutzman’s campaign.

I agree with the Rothenberg Political Report that this race is now a “toss up,” unless d’Ippolito miraculously makes it to Indianapolis with 4500 signatures in hand.

Poll: Gay Soldiers Serving Openly OK, Homosexuals Not... HUH?!?

bbittner — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:50:51 -0600

As I await the Snowpocalypse to descend upon my small part of the Deep South, I come across this entry about a New York Times/CBS News poll that shows overwhelming support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The poll seemed innocent enough, asking participants a few questions about gays in the military and open service. In a test, those polling used different terminology for both halves of the respondents. One half were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, further asking about whether they should be allowed to serve openly, while the other half were asked were questioned about permitting “homosexuals” to serve, and whether that service should be allowed when they are open about their sexual orientation. The results are most certainly interesting:

The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.
Democrats in the poll seemed particularly swayed by the wording. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Republicans and independents varied less between the two terms.

This begs the question about whether those polled thought there was a difference between “gay and lesbian” and “homosexual.” The fact that one group was significantly swayed by the language change, those identifying as Democrats, over both of the other groups, those identifying as Republican or Independent, brings about some interesting questions in my mind. Democrats, members of the party that claims to be the one to end the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, showed that their views of “homosexual” and “gay and lesbian” are different. I wonder who the party that is pushing to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will lift it for: The “homosexual” soldiers or the “gay and lesbian” soliders?

Where Did Pia Varma Come From?

bbittner — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:58:17 -0600

Out of nowhere, my attention was called to the campaign launch video of a candidate in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional district. Admittedly, outside of our interview of Jake Towne, the sitting Senators, and Pat Toomey’s campaign to unseat Arlen Specter, I am not very involved in Pennsylvania’s political activities.

This video was a refreshing surprise when I cam across it last night. I immediately shared it among some friends, requested an interview for our Liberty Candidate Series of podcasts, and started delving into her campaign page. I like what I see here, and I do not just mean her appearance… Her unique approach to writing issue statements and the truth-telling rarity of her videos (there is another one on her YouTube channel, if you are interested) is really a breath of fresh air.

So, now that you have seen her in action, what are your thoughts? Will this self-named “firebrand” light up Philadelphia’s desire for liberty?

MORE Thoughts on Scott Brown (And The Implications Of His Election)

bbittner — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:55:53 -0600

I just read Matt Wittlief’s thoughts on Scott Brown, and since I have only tweeted about the Massachusetts special election and talked about it on the radio, I must be falling behind as a “political blogger” myself. I started this as a comment, but my opinions turned this into a post itself.

As I see it, the GOP needed solidarity in the Senate (41 votes) to derail ObamaCare, and Scott Brown is that 41st vote for ObamaCare in 2010. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it, Scott Brown is nothing more than a “short term compromise.” His positions are not that different from Coakley, when you compare them across the board for all three candidates that ran. He also supported RomneyCare in Massachusetts a few short years ago. His support of government intervention into the marketplace is unquestionable, and he confirmed it with his comments on Wednesday, that every libertarian that tweets or is on Facebook cited.

Is electing a Massachusetts Republican to the Senate a big deal? Yes. Did Scott Brown run a great campaign? Yes. Did Martha Coakley suck as a candidate? Yes. What happened in Massachusetts was collusion among Republicans from all 50 states bombarding the people of the state with Scott Brown’s well-timed message and grassroots campaigning to garner the millions of dollars received in the final days of his campaign. Whether it was Tea Partiers or establishment Republicans, they united in their short-sightedness. As I said before, IF I LIVED IN MASSACHUSETTS, I would have voted for Joe Kennedy on principle. I am a student of history, and I know that not learning from history will doom us to repeat it, so I ask that you look at the short-sightedness of Massachusetts just six short years ago.

When Democrats were shoring up for a John Kerry win against George W. Bush in 2004, they changed the rules for selecting his interim replacement, as Mitt Romney was could have selected a Republican Senator to replace him. Had they NOT done that in 2004, they would not have faced the special election in 2010, where Scott Brown WON to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. I do not think that Hollywood could have written a more dramatic storyline for what transpired. Democrats’ own short-sightedness hurt them as they were trying to pass the most aggressive government intervention in the marketplace since The New Deal, answering the call from FDR’s second bill of rights.

If short-sightedness had not won in 2004, the “behind closed doors” meetings between both houses of Congress and the President would have hammered out a bill inserting government into 18% or so of the American economy, without addressing the core issues of what is wrong with health care in America. Will compromising for the short term by electing Scott Brown hurt free-market proponents in six or ten or twenty years?

Germans Strip Down To Protest Full Body Scanners

bbittner — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:59:24 -0600

On Christmas Day, members of Germany’s Pirate Party organized a fleshmob to protest use of body scanners at airports:

The protesters marked their bodies with a number of messages such as, “Something to hide?” and “Be a good citizen — drop your pants.”

One woman has the word “diaper” scrawled on her lower back with an arrow pointing to her underwear and the word “prosthetic” printed on her leg. The word “piercing” and an arrow point to one of her breasts. Another woman dressed in a beige sweater and flesh-colored tights wears a sign reading “pixelated.” (To address privacy concerns, security officials say the scanners can be programed to produce a blurred, pixelated image of passengers to protect their modesty.)

Here is video of the protest:

Masschusetts Senate Special Election Polls

bbittner — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:20:13 -0600

In analyzing the data from the latest polls coming from Massachusetts with regard to the upcoming special election on January 19th, I have some things to note.

Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters on January 4, releasing their results the following day.
The Boston Globe polled 554 likely voters January 2-6, releasing their results this morning.
Public Policy Polling polled 744 likely voters January 7-9, releasing their results last night. (full .pdf of the results available there)

Beginning linearly with the commencement of the polls, the Boston Globe began first, though it concluded on the 6th. It was not released until this morning, but I think that its results were not influenced by Rasmussen’s numbers, as Rasmussen conducted their poll in the midst, releasing the results toward the end. They also included Joe Kennedy as an option, whereas neither of the other polls did. Who knows why it took the Globe four days to release their results, but I think for the time their polling spanned, it is likely accurate.

The excitement, for Republicans and conservatives, began with release of Rasmussen’s poll, showing Brown within nine points of Coakley on January 5th, reaching a full court media press at some point on the 6th. I say excitement because no one expected a Republican to pick up a seat held by the Kennedy family for more than the last 50 years, and being inside 10 points in the polls is quite more than I expected Brown to achieve, and I am sure Massachusetts voters, especially the more conservative hold that same view.

The Public Policy Polling poll took place in its entirety after the “excitement” that Rasmussen’s created, and shows a stark increase in Brown’s popularity as the national spotlight we saw in New York’s 23rd focus in on this single race. With reports last week that Martha Coakley is running out, if not already out, of money, Brown’s media blitz began with ads across the state. He seems to have refined the aim of his message to one that won Virginia… JOBS.

This combination of factors leads to think that Public Policy Polling may be giving the most accurate picture of the race. Below, I have provided a graph to show the progression of Brown’s movement as time progressed.

I am by no means predicting a Brown win, but the developments in the last week certainly warrant watching it closely. As far as Joe Kennedy is concerned, his presence in the race only helps Coakley. Stephen Gordon had some great insight about what both the Brown and Coakley campaigns should be doing to make Kennedy’s presence work in their favor in the podcast that will be published tomorrow.

Legislator Wishes To Suspend Civil Liberties To Show He's "Tough On Crime"

bbittner — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:15:12 -0600

This week, I caught a story on the Atlanta news that immediately drew my attention. A state Representative, MY state Representative, will introduce a bill during the next legislative session that requires every suspect arrested of a felony to submit to a DNA sample. Without careful examination, along with a very friendly news report about the bill, this does not strike many everyday citizens as a “bad thing,” as seen in the first comment made about the story.

As you saw in the video, suspects ARRESTED on felony charges would be subject to having their DNA taken in a manner similar to their mugshots and fingerprints. In this state, along with 46 other states with similar DNA collection laws, those CONVICTED of a violent felony are already subject to having their DNA taken, but this bill aims to take it further by including those whose only crime was being subject to arrest. That is where the Southern Center for Human Rights and I agree. This bill violates the civil liberties of those accused of a crime, not those whose rights are subject to suspension for crimes which one has committed or been convicted.

I do not use the term “slippery slope” generously, but this bill, and those like it, certainly place us on a slippery slope in terms of our Constitutional rights, as law enforcement agencies collecting these DNA samples place them in databases that are easily shared from agency to agency, especially with the recent introduction of fusion centers that allow information to be shared easily from departments and agencies nationwide. I am sure there are many among you that may say, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about!”, but I ask that you take a look at stories like this or this that indicate otherwise. Neither of the victims of police violence did anything wrong either, but it did not stop the misconduct by the police that forever changed their lives. What is to stop a “dumbing down” of the police and other law enforcement agencies to the point of merely casting a net among those possibly involved, arresting them all to eliminate those without DNA matching evidence found at the scene of a crime? Or worse, subjecting all Americans to a mandatory DNA collection in the name of safety?

Currently, there are 21 states, including California and Tennessee, with laws in place collect DNA upon felony arrest, store it in perpetuity, and share it with whomever they like. The rationale used by supporters of pre-conviction DNA collection is that it identifies criminals earlier and creating efficiencies in the practices of investigation, blaming rights granted by the Constitution of these United States as slowing down law enforcement investigation. Those “pesky” rights they wish to bypass in the name of safety and investigation efficiency include a trial by a jury of peers, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and due process of law.

It is one thing to be “tough on crime” when running for a statewide office, but it is entirely another when you promote an agenda that suspends the liberties of everyday citizens in the name of putting them in jail more quickly.

Ever Wonder Why Healthcare Is So Expensive?

bbittner — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:58:53 -0600

Note: I intended to merely comment on this chart when sharing it via my Posterous. During the 5 or so minutes I was commenting, it grew to be something more substantial, and at the urging of others, it has been cross-posted here.

Since the 1960s, the percentage of total healthcare cost paid directly by the end consumer, aka patient, has dropped drastically, but out of pocket costs have risen and the cost of healthcare has risen drastically over that same period.

What has happened between then and now? The intervention of government into the marketplace. Insurance regulations, government mandates about what MUST be covered, Medicare/caid, and inflation make costs skyrocket, but the opacity of the prices keeps patients from seeing what each visit, prescription, and procedure actually costs. With that opacity, there is no competitive pricing, because the prices paid by patients are merely co-pays and the withholding from their paycheck for employer-sponsored health plans, insurance companies, and government programs that pay negotiated rates. Without competition and price transparency, prices will continue to rise.

In addition, patients largest out of pocket expense is their insurance coverage, which does not fluctuate to accommodate the amount of healthcare services consumed. The patient knows they only pay $10-$50 for each office visit, but the overall costs of those visits can be thousands of dollars. The patient rarely, if ever, sees the actual cost… Usually only if their insurance claim is denied.

Without seeing the ACTUAL cost of their visit, the out of pocket expense is the only one considered when choosing if a doctor’s visit is in order. For the uninsured, a trip to the doctor for the sniffles is wasteful, but the insured do not think twice about scheduling an appointment… After all, it COULD be the Swine Flu (whose death rate is smaller than the regular annual flu virus).

Contrary to popular belief, this is NOT a free market system for healthcare. This is a shell game where the doctors charge whatever they want, insurers and the government negotiate it down to a generalized “one size fits all” pricing schedule, rewarding those that overcharge to be negotiated down while paying claims in full for doctors with lower costs who charge less than the deemed “acceptable standard.”

UPDATED: Homeland Security Official Air Travel Security Rules

bbittner — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:39:33 -0600

UPDATE: This afternoon, airline officials confirmed that the in-flight restrictions had been eased to allow a plane’s captain discretion about their enforcement.

For those of you still awaiting flights home from the holidays or with impending business travel in the coming weeks, you may want to read over these security directives distributed by TSA as their “official security rules” in light of the Flight 253 “Underpants Bomber:”

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security Directive
Subject: Security Directive
Number: SD 1544-09-06
Date: December 25, 2009
EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009
This Security Directive (SD) must be implemented immediately. The measures contained in this SD are in addition to all other SDs currently in effect for your operations.
INFORMATION: On December 25, 2009, a terrorist attack was attempted against a flight traveling to the United States. TSA has identified security measures to be implemented by airports, aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers to mitigate potential threats to flights.
APPLICABILITY: THIS SD APPLIES TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS THAT CARRY OUT A SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATED UNDER 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR)1544.101(a).
ACTIONS REQUIRED: If you conduct scheduled and/or public charter flight operations under a Full Program under 49 CFR 1544.101(a) departing from any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and possessions), you must immediately implement all measures in this SD for each such flight.

1. BOARDING GATE

1. The aircraft operator or authorized air carrier representative must ensure all passengers are screened at the boarding gate during the boarding process using the following procedures. These procedures are in addition to the screening of all passengers at the screening checkpoint.
1. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding,concentrating on upper legs and torso.
2. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passenger accessible property at the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being transported along with powders and/or liquids.
3. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly adhered to in accordance with SD 1544-06-02E.
2. During the boarding process, the air carrier may exempt passengers who are Heads of State or Heads of Government from the measures outlined in Section I.A. of this SD, including the following who are traveling with the Head of State or Head of Government:

1. Spouse and children, or
2. One other individual (chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government)
3. For the purposes of Section I.B., the following definitions apply:
1. Head of State: An individual serving as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth, or any other political state (for example, King, Queen, and President).
2. Head of Government: The chief officer of the executive branch of a government presiding over a cabinet (for example, Prime Minister, Premier, President, and Monarch).

2. IN FLIGHT

1. During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:
1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.

AIRCRAFT OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The aircraft operator must immediately provide written confirmation to its assigned PSI indicating receipt of this SD.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: With respect to the provisions of this SD, as stated in 49 CFR 1544.305(d), the aircraft operator may submit in writing to its PSI proposed alternative measures and the basis for submitting the alternative measures for approval by the Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management. The aircraft operator must immediately notify its PSI whenever any procedure in this SD cannot be carried out by a government authority charged with performing security procedures.
FOR TSA ACTION ONLY: The TSA must issue this SD immediately to the corporate security element of all affected U.S. aircraft operators.
FOR STATE DEPARTMENT: Retransmittal to appropriate foreign posts is authorized. Post must refer to STATE 162917, 201826Z Sep 01, Subject: FAA Security Directives and Information Circulars: Definitions and Handling, for specific guidance and dissemination.

Gale Rossides
Acting Administrator

As always, these directives and the policies they evolve into are merely security theater, as the hassle makes it seem like the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are reacting to the latest incident to keep flying Americans safe. Interestingly, the hour moratorium on movement about the cabin may actually cause more harm than good, as passengers will be caught between abiding by the new directive and potentially protecting their fellow flyers from an attack within the plane.

H/T: Gizmodo (via Boarding Area via Runway Girl)

Recent posts by bbittner