Google Search

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Texas Police Kill Unarmed Man Before Confiscating Witness Camera and Deleting Images


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
By Carlos Miller

Police in Texas shot an unarmed man 41 times, then turned around and confiscated another man?s camera after he started taking photos and shooting video of the bloody aftermath.

Dallas-area cops then deleted the man?s footage before returning the camera four days later.

Now police from two agencies are vowing to do a ?complete investigation,? which, of course, means we will hear nothing more about the August 31 incident for at least several months.

But so far, the partial investigation has determined that Garland police officer Patrick Tuter lied in his initial report when he claimed that suspect Michael Vincent Allen backed his truck into the patrol car, causing the cop to fear for his life and leaving him no choice but to fire 41 times, meaning he reloaded at least once.

Miraculously, a 20-year-old unarmed woman who was sitting in the cab of the pick-up truck emerged unscathed.

According to the Dallas Morning News, Mesquite police officers confiscated the witness?s camera:

?From the time they yelled, ?Get out, get out,? they didn?t give him three seconds to get out,? Mitchell Wallace said, adding that he counted about 20 bullet holes in Allen?s truck.

Wallace and his wife were asleep when the gunshots began, but they quickly made it to the porch to see Allen?s passenger being pulled from the truck and a police dog jumping into the cab. The German shepherd bit Allen in the neck and jaw area and dragged him out of the truck and onto the pavement, Wallace said.

Police officers pulled the dog off, flipped Allen on his stomach and handcuffed him before checking his pulse. Autopsy results are pending on the cause of Allen?s death.

Wallace took cellphone pictures and video after the shooting stopped, but he said Mesquite police confiscated the phone and deleted the video and pictures. The phone was returned four days later, he said.

Mesquite police are conducting the criminal investigation, which hopefully includes whether or not Tuter acted lawfully, and Garland police are conducting the internal investigation.

Read More


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Cop Drags 77-Yr-Old Grandmother from Car for Refusing to Show ID
- Police Learn Propaganda Tactics at Internet Conference
- Drug Sentences Driving Federal Prison Population Growth, Government Report Finds
- Tarnished badges: Opa-locka's troubled police force
- Officer Enforcing Leash Law Shoots Family's Dog, Witness Horrified
- 90-Plus Arrests of D.C. Cops in Under 4 Years
- Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police
- LRPD officer Josh Hastings has 6 suspensions in 5 years, currently on paid leave after killing 15-yr-old

My God...my God for the texes police officers whom confiscated the witness camera and delete the video trust and believe your conscious will not be set free you may have delete the camera but you can't delete the truth. That was witness by beloved father God whom sit high and up above only the truth will set you free not covered up lies and decent God have the last judgment not men. For the Lord God see everything inside out your heart thoughts jesus!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by John W. Whitehead

What happened to 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub ? who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called ?conspiratorial? views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys ? has happened many times throughout history in totalitarian regimes.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anne Applebaum observes in Gulag: A History: ?The exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ?pay their debt to society,? make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself.?

The advent of psychiatry eliminated the need to exile political prisoners, allowing governments instead to declare such dissidents mentally ill and unfit for society. For example, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union often used psychiatric hospitals as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally through the use of electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures.

In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, Russian officials also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is ?prejudicial to public order? or ?incompatible with public tranquility,? he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years. Administrative exile?which required no trial and no sentencing procedure?was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.
Sound familiar? This age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by declaring them mentally ill and locking them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time is a common practice in present-day China. What is particularly unnerving, however, is that this practice of making individuals disappear is happening with increasing frequency in America. Indeed, Raub?s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans ? especially military veterans ? for expressing their discontent over America?s rapid transition to a police state.

It?s no coincidence that within days of Raub being seized at his Virginia home on August 16, 2012, and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences. These incidents are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be ?disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.? Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

One tactic being used to deal with so-called ?mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare? is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear. For example, in 2006, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA?s warrantless wiretapping program, as ?mentally unbalanced? based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors. In 2009, NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct.

Most recently, of course, Virginia?s civil commitment law was used to justify arresting and detaining Marine Brandon Raub in a psychiatric ward. On Thursday, August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub?s home, asking to speak with him about posts he had made on his Facebook page made up of song lyrics, political opinions and dialogue used in a virtual card game. In a hearing on August 20, government officials pointed to Raub?s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration. Ignoring Raub?s explanations about the fact that the Facebook posts were being read out of context, Raub was sentenced to up to 30 days? further confinement in a psychiatric ward.

On August 23, Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett declared the government?s case to be lacking in factual allegations and ordered Raub immediately released. However, for the tens of thousands of individuals detained ? wrongfully or otherwise ? under civil commitment laws every year, regaining their freedom is nearly impossible, predicated as it is on a bureaucratic legal and judicial system. The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which to penalize certain ?unacceptable? social behaviors.

Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced or declared unfit for society. Governmental authorities at all levels have made it abundantly clear that they want no one questioning their authority. And for those who do take to the streets to express their opinions and beliefs, rows of riot police, clad in jackboots, military vests, and helmets, holding batons, stun guns, assault rifles, and sometimes even grenade launchers, are there to keep them in line.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Why Vote?
- Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone
- Liquid, Liquid Everywhere, But Not a Drop To Drink Free of Our Rulers' Stranglehold
- Eight Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately
- The Liberal Way to Run the World - "Improve" or We'll Kill You
- Of Bidens and Bikers: Does Anybody Remember Derek Hale?
- Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality
- How I Live a Little Freer by Staying on the Move

Great article. Shockingly true.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Things Are Getting Worse: Median Household Income Has Fallen 4 Years In A Row

by Michael Snyder

New numbers that have just been released show that things are getting worse for American families.? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income declined to?$50,054 in 2011.? That is a 1.5 percent decline from the previous year, and median household income has now fallen for 4 years in a row.? In fact, after adjusting for inflation median household income has not been this low since 1995.? These new numbers once again confirm what so many of us have been talking about for so long - American families are steadily getting poorer.? Incomes are going down and the cost of living just keeps going up.? This dynamic is squeezing more Americans out of the middle class every single month.? Others just keep going into more debt in an attempt to maintain their previous lifestyles.? As Americans, we really don't like to hear that things are getting worse and that we are in decline, but unfortunately that is exactly what is happening.? Our economy does not produce nearly enough jobs for everyone anymore, the proportion of low wage jobs in our economy continues to grow, and the middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate.? Our politicians can deliver speeches about how great we all are until the cows come home, but it isn't going to change the reality of our situation.? If we want different results we have got to start taking different actions.

When you take the median household income of $50,054 and divide it up over 12 months, it comes to about $4000 a month.

About half of all American households are making more than that and about half of all American households are making less than that.

So can an average family of four people make it on just $4000 a month?

Well, first of all you have got to take out taxes.? After accounting for all forms of taxation you will be lucky if you have $3000 remaining.

With that $3000, you have to pay for all of the following.

*Housing

*Power

*Water

*Food

*Phone

*Internet

*At Least One Vehicle

*Gasoline

*Vehicle Repairs

*Car Insurance

*Health Insurance

*Dental Bills

*Home Or Rental Insurance

*Life Insurance

*Student Loan Debt Payments

*Credit Card Payments

*Furniture

*Clothing

*Pets

*Entertainment (although it is hard to imagine any money will be left for that)

Have I left anything out?

The truth is that $3000 does not go as far as it used to.

No wonder American families are feeling so stretched financially these days.

Most families can't even afford to think about retirement or investments because most of them are just trying to figure out a way to survive from month to month.

Unfortunately, economic conditions for middle income Americans continue to deteriorate.? Being in the middle class in America is like playing a perverse game of musical chairs.? More chairs are constantly being pulled out of the game and the middle class just continues to shrivel up.

The following are some more statistics that show that things are getting worse....

-In 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance.? Today, only 55.1 percent are covered by employment-based health insurance.

-Health insurance premiums rose faster than the overall rate of inflation in 2011 and that is happening once again in 2012.? In fact, it is been happening for a very long time.

-In the United States today, there are close to 10 million households that do not have a single bank account.? That number has increased by about a million since 2009.

-Back in 1962, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans had 125 times the net worth of the median household.? Today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans has 288 times the net worth of the median household.

-Back in 2007, 19.2 percent of all American families had a net worth of zero or less than zero.? By 2010, that figure had soared to 32.5 percent.

-According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 32 percent of all Americans now identify themselves as "lower class".? In 2008, that figure was only at 25 percent.

-As I have written about previously, 61 percent of all Americans were "middle income" back in 1971 according to the Pew Research Center.? Today, only 51 percent of all Americans are "middle income".

-62 percent of all middle class Americans say that they have had to reduce household spending over the past year.

-Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

-There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing.? That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.

-According to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of American families dropped "from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010".

-Sadly, 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were mid-wage jobs, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been low wage jobs.

-At this point, less than 25 percent of all jobs in the United States are "good jobs", and that number continues to shrink.

-The percentage of working age Americans that are employed is smaller now than it was two years ago.

-The number of Americans that are financially dependent on the government is sitting at an all-time record, and it just keeps going up.

-If the labor force participation rate was the same today as it was back when Barack Obama first took office, the unemployment rate in the United States would be 11.2 percent.

That last statistic deserves some special attention.

If the exact same percentage of Americans were considered to be "in the work force" today as when Barack Obama became president, the unemployment rate in this country would be well over 11 percent.

But the federal government has pretended that millions upon millions of Americans have "left the work force" over the past few years and that allows them to tell the fib that the unemployment rate has actually declined to 8.1 percent.

Of course we all know that is a bunch of nonsense.? About the same percentage of Americans want a job today as was the case back in 2008.

But 8.1 percent looks way better than 11.2 percent does.

What makes all of this even more distressing is that this is the recovery.

Things are not going to be getting much better than this.? We are rapidly approaching the next wave of the economic collapse and all of the numbers posted above are going to be getting a lot worse.

So even though things may be tight for your family right now, you should enjoy these times while you still have them.

Someday we will look back on these years as "the good old days".


View the original article here

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Eight Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
J.G. Vibes

The drug war is one of the most misunderstood subjects in the mainstream political dialogue, even among people who are sympathetic to the plight of responsible drug users. It is rare for someone to come out and say that all drugs should be legal, but in all honesty this is the only logically consistent stance on the issue. To say that some drugs should be legal while others should not is still giving credence to the punishment paradigm and overlooking the external consequences of drug prohibition, or prohibition of any object for that matter.

There is no doubt that drug abuse is a serious issue in our culture, primarily because people are so depressed and beaten down that they self medicate just to be able to tolerate the average day. However, a prohibition policy is a policy of violence, because if you happen to be caught with any of these banned items you will be forcefully taken against your will and put in a cage, and if you dare to prevent this kidnap from taking place you will inevitably be killed. This is the fundamental issue surrounding the drug war that we need to be focused on. Instead of bickering over how to slightly reform drug policy, or arguing about which drug is more harmful than the other, we need to be pointing out that prohibition itself is an inherently violent policy that rests upon the stone age concept of punishment.

As I alluded to earlier, there are many external factors that are effected by the drug war that many people don?t take into account. That is because when you carry out acts of violence, even in the form of punishment, you then create a ripple effect which extends far beyond the bounds of the original circumstance to effect many innocent people down the line. The following list delves into those external factors to illustrate how drug users and non users alike, would be a lot better off if prohibition ended immediately.

(1) ? Reduce Violent Crime ? The steady increase in violent crime over the past few decades is directly correlated with the escalation of the drug war. As we saw during the times of alcohol prohibition, when you ban any inanimate object, you create an incentive for people to get involved in the black market distribution of that object. Since there is no accountability, or means of peaceful dispute resolution within the black market, buyers and sellers are forced to resort to violence as their sole means of handling disagreements.

Eventually, this violence spills over into the everyday world and effects everyone?s lives. No one could imagine Budweiser and Miller Lite in a back alley gunfight, but less than a century ago during alcohol prohibition, distributors of the drug were involved in shootouts on a regular basis, just as drug gangs are today. Of course, all of this violence came to an immediate end when alcohol was legalized, however, it was not long before the establishment found a new crusade in the drug war, which allowed them to continue the same policy just with different substances.

(2) Improve Seller Accountability and Drug Safety - In the black market one of the major drawbacks is that there is no accountability among the people selling the drug. Since anyone can get kidnapped and thrown in a cage for even dealing with the stuff, it really doesn?t make sense for people to be plastering their names and logos all over the drugs. In this age of corporate mercantilism logos and branding may seem like a really tacky idea, but when looking at the black market we can see the value in such things. Someone who is selling a product with their name on it, is going to go through far greater lengths to ensure the quality of their product, as opposed to someone who would remain anonymous.

This anonymity creates an incentive for people to be dishonest with what they sell. This could lead to rip offs, or downright contamination of the drug with unwanted harmful substances. This is why there was bathtub gin that would make you go blind if your drank it during alcohol prohibition. This is also the reason why some of the harder street drugs today are cut with toxic chemicals that increase the chance of overdose ten fold. The fact that the drugs need to be smuggled also creates the incentive to make drugs more potent, and thus in some circumstances more dangerous. The increased potency and decreased availability inevitably leads to a massive increase in cost. The increased cost is a whole other issue with its own unique side effects in regaurds to drug safety. When the price of the real drugs go up, people just start huffing paint thinner, smoking bath salts and cooking up crystal meth in their basements, which is then even many times more dangerous than the unbranded drugs on the black market.

(3) ? Reduce Drug Availability to Children ? Many children have houses that are filled with alcohol, yet most of them find it way easier to get drugs than to get alcohol even though alcohol is legal. Even if there were no legal age restrictions on alcohol, the societal and family norms would be just as effective at deterring children from then a formal prohibition policy. If we look overseas at countries that don?t have age restrictions on alcohol, younger people are oftentimes much more mature and informed about its effects than children in the west, and are more likely to make responsible decisions about mind altering substances. In Portugal where drugs have been decriminalized for some time now there has actually been a double digit drop in drug use by school age children.

(4) ? Reduce Nonviolent Prisoner Population ? A vast majority of the prisoners in the united states are there for nonviolent non crimes, many of which stem from the drug war. Currently, there are more people in US prisons than were in the gulags of Soviet Russia at its worst. Putting nonviolent people in cages, bringing violence against nonviolent people is a horrible violation of natural law. However, if you have no sympathy or compassion for the casualties in this drug war, I would point again to the external consequences which effect even the most vocal prohibitionist. According to the most cited Judge in the United States, Richard A. Posner, the government spends $41.3 billion per year of your tax money on law enforcement measures against mostly small time drug users.

(5) ? Real Crime Can be Dealt With ? Even in areas with a declining homicide rate, the murder cases that are going unsolved are continuing to climb. Police departments and buerocrats have a million excuses, but the drug war is one of the primary reasons for this occurrence. On one hand indiscriminate killings become more common than crimes of passion that are easy to figure out, but there is a much more sinister aspect of this as well. If you look at the rate of incarcerations for drug offenses, and how incredibly often drug cases are ?solved? and found in favor of the state, it becomes obvious that the police have more of an incentive in their day to day activities to hunt down drug users than murderers. These people aren?t selfless public servants as the propaganda on primetime television would lead you to believe, they are average people just like you and me. They will even tell ya ?im just doin my job?, so like most of us, when they are on the job they try to get the most amount of money for the least amount of work, and murder cases are really tough work.

A cop could even miss his quota by taking the time and effort to hunt down a murderer, instead of grabbing a kid with a bag of pot, which is a lot easier to find and a lot easier to catch. Quotas are another thing that many police departments deny, but time and time again evidence surfaces that proves otherwise, recently a former NYPD officer has come forward saying that he used to ticket dead people just to meet his quota. This is not to say that all cops are nasty people, but the way that their jobs are monopolized by the state and focused on the drug war corrupts their position and forces them to hurt innocent people and violate people?s rights even if they have the best of intentions.

(6) ? Encourage Genuine Treatment for Addicts ? As a result of international drug treaties most of the world has remained trapped in a punishment mindset when it comes to dealing with the social problem of drug addiction. While an addiction may be problematic for the person involved and everyone that they come in contact with, they are not a criminal until they actually hurt someone or damage their property, and even then they are a criminal because of their aforementioned transgression not because of their drug addiction. Even the treatment that we see today is not genuine because it is forced on people and doesent address the reasons why they are doing drugs in the first place. In other words, today's treatment programs just try to bash the idea that ?drugs are bad? into peoples heads, instead of really communicating with these them, treating them like human beings and overcoming the underlying issues in their lives that are pushing them towards lives of drug addiction.

(7) ? Prevent Drug Overdoses ? As I mentioned earlier most drug overdoses that happen today wouldn?t occur if it wasn?t for the artificially high potency of drugs that we see today. However, what is even more sad is that of those overdoses that do happen, many more of them could have been prevented but were not because witnesses were too afraid of the police getting involved to call for help. 9 states out of 50 in the US currently have good Samaritan laws to give legal amnesty to anyone who brings an overdosing person to the hospital, but that measure wouldn?t even be necessary if prohibition wasn?t a factor in the first place. The fact that people are actually afraid to call an ambulance in this country should really tell you something about the level that the police state has risen to.

(8) ? Protect Individual Rights ? Thanks to the drug war, merely on the whim of saying that they smell something cops are now able to enter homes, search cars and totally violate the rights of nonviolent people. The drug war and terrorism are the two biggest excuses used to violate peoples rights, yet according to the national safety council you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. The very existence of the drug war to begin with, or a prohibition on any object is a fundamental violation of natural rights that should not exist in any civilized society.

If you have any questions or disagreements feel free to email me at jgvibes@aotmr.com
_
J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist with an established record label and event promotion company that hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his new 87 chapter book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance at www.aotmr.com where you can also catch his show Voluntary Hippie Radio every Wednesday night from 10pm-12am EST.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Why Vote?
- Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone
- Liquid, Liquid Everywhere, But Not a Drop To Drink Free of Our Rulers' Stranglehold
- Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters
- The Liberal Way to Run the World - "Improve" or We'll Kill You
- Of Bidens and Bikers: Does Anybody Remember Derek Hale?
- Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality
- How I Live a Little Freer by Staying on the Move

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

How I Live a Little Freer by Staying on the Move

Gary Gibson

Even after the armed Mexican drug dealer punched me in the face for the third time I didn?t regret my decision to move to Mexico. I?d been in Acapulco just over a month at that point. I?d been here for a couple weeks the year before and had felt just as safe as could be in that little seaside city.

This time around I got a bit more settled in and comfortable because I was planning to be back in Mexico often for longer and longer stretches.

After a night of carousing, my companions and I ended up in one of our regular beach bar haunts. A band of local drug-dealing toughs were also there that night and the largest and most muscular of them had a shapely girlfriend who trotted about in push-up bra, ultra short jean shorts and five-inch heels, as if she were advertising.

Our group?s gaze lingered on her as she minced her way to the bathroom. Her gorilla of a boyfriend then started gesticulating angrily in our direction. A few minutes later one of my companions glared back at him and the gorilla tossed an empty can of Red Bull at our table. Then he got up and charged over.

Don?t misunderstand about Mexico. Sure, there is a lot of Prohibition-based violence. There is the small time crime rooted in greed or desperation. There is the big time crime practiced by politicians. Then there is the typical anger-based violence that you find in bars. In other words, it?s just like anywhere else on the planet. The key to having a trouble-free good time is to keep to the nicer parts of town, to be respectful of individuals and of the customs, and to try not get too drunk in public. Just like anywhere else on the planet. That night I?d ignored at least two of these guidelines.

As I prepared to try to calm him down before he got to my friend, the gorilla moved in quickly and punched me twice rapidly in the left eye. As I raised my hands he punched me again on the left side of my mouth. Boxing and soccer are popular in Mexico, sort of like basketball in US public housing projects. I?ve met quite a few competent boxers among the general populace in Acapulco. The gorilla appeared to be another one of them.

My contact and host in Mexico had often advised me to take the sport up. I had not gotten around to it yet. My lack of familiarity with boxing really showed that night, as did the dozen or so vodkas I?d had. I was slow and uncoordinated, but at least I barely felt any pain.

The bar managers and staff quickly came over to stop the fight. As I aimed my best bit of "Is that the best you got?" taunting at the gorilla, the bar manager holding onto me warned me that if I did not leave immediately, my assailant and his friends would do great harm to me with the guns I had failed to notice strapped to their waists.

My other companion -- who had spent years in Mexico and understood the danger -- was at the bar exit frantically urging me to get leave. As we sped away in his vehicle, he explained, "There really are no bar fights in Mexico, especially with narcotraficantes (drug dealers) like that guy and his buddies. There is some posturing and then some shooting. We were lucky to get away."

Surely this little adventure must have soured me on Mexico?and perhaps made me question this whole notion I had that living anywhere else was better than living in the belly of the US leviathan.

Actually no, not at all. This kind of thing could have happened anywhere in the US. And the US government still frightens me far more than some local toughs in a foreign country. You think that armed bar bully was bad? I?d much rather take my chances with him than with the IRS or with the government?s growing army of death-dealing spy drones. Thing is, at least I can avoid armed tough guys by avoiding certain places at certain times. It?s much harder to avoid the IRS and death-dealing spy drones. You have to give the entire US a wide berth. Even then your safety isn?t assured.

And so my desire to avoid both the police state and outrageous poverty-inducing government theft led me to begin my life as a perpetual tourist. The wonderful thing about being a perpetual traveler or tourist is that you get to interact with the world almost solely on commercial terms.

Living as a perpetual tourist isn?t pure anarchism, but it does allow you to see the beauty of a life with minimal harassment from the state. You get to experience how blissful it is to deal with people on the basis of coming to mutual agreement?or walking away when you cannot agree.

Merchants try to persuade you at every turn while the taxing authorities have very little or no claim on you. You choose what you need and pay for what suits your budget and tastes best?from lodging, to clothing, to transportation. It is all persuasion and no coercion. Right now I have no family and thus have the freedom to keep moving, never staying in a country long enough to warrant the attention of government thieves. The only government forms I have to fill out these days are those ridiculous customs declarations that flight attendants hand out on international flights.

Permanent tourism works much better if you do not have citizenship or permanent residency status (i.e. a "green card") with the United States. The US, as it?s often been pointed out, is one of the very few nation-states to require income taxes even on its expatriate citizens and permanent residents. Sure the first $96,000 or so of income earned outside the US by expats is tax-free (unless the expat is self-employed in which case he has to pay both the employer and employee "contribution" to Social Security). But even if no taxes are owed, one must still report one?s earnings to the IRS.

Even if a US citizen or resident spends the entire year outside of the US and his income falls under the amount that can be taxed, that US citizen or resident must still send a tell-all form to the IRS. This may not seem like such a hassle to some. After all it?s just a little paperwork, right? But if you fail to comply with this presumptuous hassle, the US government assumes the right to steal your assets and possibly kidnap you.

To some of us radicals who insist that people don?t belong to the state, this is both ridiculous and outrageous. Most of the rest of the statist world doesn?t have to put up with having to report to the nation of their birth like an adolescent to a parent. A permanent tourist who retains ties of citizenship and residency to the US will never feel the sheer freedom of one who cuts those ties?or who never had those ties to begin with.

Giving up US citizenship is possible, but to many Americans it is unthinkable. It smacks of treason to jingoists and to those who feel some moral satisfaction from smiling while politicians and bureaucrats steal from them. And anyway the renunciation is a little complicated and can be expensive. There are forms to be filled out and submitted and sizable exit taxes to be paid.

But it could be well worth the trouble. Just ask Denise Rich and Eduardo Saverin. And notice that the lines to renounce are growing. Renunciation isn?t just for the wealthy, however. Even for Americans with little in the way of assets but who can make a good living online, over the phone or via the mail, renunciation and well-chosen relocation could mean savings of millions of dollars over a lifetime.

The world doesn?t currently allow one to be stateless, so a renouncer needs to have another citizenship ready. Some passports make much better travel documents than others. But once you?re free from worldwide taxation, you don?t have to travel perpetually. There are a few countries in which you can settle down as a citizen where you won?t be taxed on any foreign income. Imagine that?keeping every single dime you earn! That?s something most people in the US associate with criminal disloyalty.

I?d advise them to read Rothbard or Hoppe joining the Laissez Faire Club to get that bit of brainwashing cleared up. I have to admit, however, that even if you?re a US tax cow who is partial to the notion, you?d have to give up the comforts of the US to enjoy income tax-free life. And that?s just not for everyone. But for those who want to be a little freer -- and keep what they earn -- there is a big, beautiful world out there. Just avoid the late nights at questionable bars.
_
Gary Gibson is the former managing editor for Whiskey and Gunpowder. He joins the Laissez Faire staff as a graduate of Fordham University, Gary now spends his days reading about and writing on limited government, sound money, personal responsibility and resource investing.


View the original article here

Friday, October 12, 2012

Court To Twitter: No Time For Appeal, Hand Over Info Or You're In Contempt


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Mike Masnick

We've been covering the legal fight concerning the government's desire to access Tweets and other information related to Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street protestor who was arrested. Twitter had jumped into the case to argue that users have standing to protect their own information, which the court denied. Twitter then said it would appeal, but it appears that NY State Supreme Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. doesn't care, claiming that its failure to hand over the info may put it in contempt of court:
The judge had asked Twitter to show why it wasn?t in contempt of court after refusing to produce information about Twitter posts by protester Malcolm Harris in response to a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

?I can?t put Twitter or the little blue bird in jail, so the only way to punish is monetarily,? Sciarrino said.

Twitter and Harris's lawyers point out that this seems to completely ignore Twitter's right to appeal the ruling. Sciarrino again doesn't seem to think this is an issue, insisting that his original ruling was "fair" and Twitter has had more than enough time to comply with the order. Harris' lawyer notes that this appears to be an attempt at railroading, preventing due process from happening:
?It?s pretty outrageous that the D.A.?s office wants to prohibit Twitter from exercising its right to appeal,? said Martin Stolar, a lawyer with the National Lawyers Guild who represents Harris, after the hearing.
Unfortunately, that seems to be how things work these days...

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- House Approves Rep. Lamar Smith's Bill To Keep Spying On Americans
- 16-Year-Old Questioned by FBI Over YouTube Video
- New Results From Our Nationwide Cell Phone Tracking Records Requests
- Man Investigated By Police For Buying Ammunition
- Google Adds Pirate Bay Domains to Censorship List
- The Prisons We Call "Airports"
- FBI begins installation of $1 billion face recognition system across America
- Hackers Get Personal Info On 12-Million Apple Users... From An FBI Laptop

Twitter will now go by the wayside as did google and facebook.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, October 11, 2012

The Fed's Balance At The End Of 2013: $4 Trillion


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Tyler Durden

What happens next:
Imminently, the Fed's Open Markets Operations desk will commence buying $40 billion in MBS per month, or about $10 billion each week. Concurrently, the Fed which is continuing Operation Twist, will still purchase $45 billion in "longer-term" Treasurys, sterilized by the $45 billion or so in 1-3 years Bonds it will sell until the end of the year at which point it runs out of short-term paper to sell. End result: every month through the end of 2012, the Fed's balance sheet expands by $40 billion in MBS. Beginning January 1, 2013 the Fed will continue monetizing $40 billion in MBS each month, and will continue Operation Twist, however it will adjust the program so that it continues to increase its long-term holdings at $85 billion per month, without sterilization as it will no longer have short-term bonds to sell. It will also need to extend its ZIRP language "through the end of 2016" so all bonds 1-3 years are essentially risk free, as they are now, in effect eliminating the need to sell them. End result: every month in 2013 the Fed will increase its balance sheet by $85 billion, consisting of $40 billion in MBS, and $45 billion in 10-30 year Treasurys, or the natural monthly supply of longer-dated issuance. The Fed will therefore monetize roughly half of the US budget deficit in 2013.

Putting it all together, the Fed's balance sheet will increase from just over $2.8 trillion currently, to $4 trillion on December 25, 2013. A total increase of $1.17 trillion.

This is what the Fed's balance sheet will looks like:

Another way of visualizing this is how many assets as a percentage of US GDP the Fed will hold on its books. Currently, this number is 18%. By the end of 2013, the Fed's historical flow operations will be accountable for 24% of US GDP.

Why is this important? Simple: when the time comes for the Fed to unwind its balance sheet, if ever, the reverse Flow process will be responsible for deducting at least 24% of US GDP at the time when said tightening happens. If ever.

What is scariest, is that as of this moment, all of this is priced in. Any incremental gains in the stock market will have to come from additional easing over and above what Bernanke just announced.

And finally: Fed's DV01 at December 31, 2013: ~$4 billion


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- Ron Paul: "Country Should Panic Over Fed's Decision"
- Things Are Getting Worse: Median Household Income Has Fallen 4 Years In A Row
- Schiff Vs. Insana; Matter Vs. Anti-Matter
- Peter Schiff On CNBC - Talks Ban Corporate Profits Video
- The Bill Clinton Myth
- Philip DeFranco Interviewed on Redistribution
- Peter Schiff Talks Rising Food Prices On Al Jazeera
- World's richest woman: "Drink less, work more"

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here