Argus Leader
   "Two South Dakota landowners have filed a lawsuit against a new law that allows road hunters to shoot game over private land..... It calls the legalization of hunting over private land an illegal 'taking' prohibited by the South Dakota Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." (10/23/03)

To me, this is blatantly unconstitutional. In this country, our government is suppose to protect our unalienable right to own property. A property owner has the right to practice or prohibit whatever he likes or dislikes from his own property. If he doesn't want somebody shooting birds or other game that are on his property, then people shouldn't be allowed to. If property rights such as these aren't paramount, then it's impossible for environmental organizations such as the Aubidon society to purchase land for conservation purposes. Anybody with a long range rifle be allowed to shoot animals on their private property, and they wouldn't be able to protect them. See Free Market Environmentalism for more information on how private property rights actually improve gaming conditions for hunters as well as help the environment and protect endangered species.

Saterday 10/18

According to The Skeptical Environmentalist solar technology will be competitive with fossil fuels by around 2010.

Well, it's a wonderful book (But be warned it isn't light reading), and a real eye-opener for those of us who are afraid we're recking the planet. (We're not. Government is -- And countries with the best private property rights happen to be the best for both the economy and the environment. See also Free Market Environmentalism. )

But Skeptical's projections are wrong.

Solar Energy will actually be cheeper then energy derived from fossil fuels by the end of 2004.

STMicroelectronics Discovers Cheaper Solar Cell Production Method

STMicroelectronics has developed organic solar panels that create energy for about 1/20 the cost of the cheapest, and most efficient solar cells sold currently.

Apparently these cells, aren't as efficient as the current semi-conductor ones, however they are so much more cheeper to make that they'll still generate electricity 20 times cheeper.

This new technology makes electricity for about 1/2 the cost that gas makes it.

Perhaps Halburton will go bankrupt in spite of all it's political favors.

Because this new technology isn't as efficient in converting solar to electrical energy, you do need more land to place them on. About one and a half to twice as much.

See also, STMicroelectronics Pursues Program to Reduce the Cost of Solar Cells.

I'm really quite excited. Solar technology to me, promises to be a technology that will topple the  current local government sponsored energy monopolies, and provide for a more anarchistic system of energy production. A system in which people will have a choice about how they get their electricity and energy needs, and a system with legitimate market competition. This in turn might make it easier for people to eliminate local confiscatory taxes.

And remember, when semi-conductor solar cell technology was first discovered it was less then 10% efficiency so there's definitely room for improvements in the cost of this method.

This is how wealth is created. This is why when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. Investors and entrepreneurs seeking profit invest capital and develop new technologies. This in turn makes the cost of living cheeper for everybody. This is why we must always constantly strive for more freedom. Liberty is the best way in the world to help the poor AND help the planet. This is what happens to that "other $28."

I was glancing through C-Span 2 today and saw Senator Bob Graham talking in opposition to the 87 Billion dollar appropriation to "support our troops in Iraq."

He said (paraphrase), "I must oppose this bill. No doubt, people are going to construe this opposition as not supporting our troops. However, I submit that the best way, to support our troops. . . ."

OK, and then here I thought he was going to say, "Bring them home," or something but no.

". . .is to bring in troops from other countries."

Graham isn't against the occupation. He just wants the entire world involved with terrorizing Iraqis. He wants troops from other nations to have low moral instead of our own.

It just goes to show that Democrats aren't opposed to war. They just want the entire world involved with them when they wage it.

Wasn't it entangling alliances that caused the 1st world war? Isn't that what the UN is, a collection of entangling alliances? But wasn't the UN developed to end all wars?

It's just wonderful the way the UN's armies are called "peace keeping forces" when in actuality they're the ones waging half of the wars.

To learn more about NEWSPEAK, read 1984, by George Orwell.

A better idea that's better for all of our troops it to bring them home, where they can actually be here to protect America. This is also best for Iraq also. We should let them figure out on their own how to live their lives -- not be forcing liberty down their throats ot the point of a bayonet. It's quite reminiscent of the way Lincoln treated the Southerners after the U.S. Civil War.

Towards a more Anarchistic School System

I have posted a new article.
 

Saterday 10/11

Support the repeal of the Statewide Food Sales Tax

Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone?

Aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of small government? Aren't Democrats usually the ones that believe government is good?

Well, not right now. The SD Democrat party is pushing a petition for the Repeal of the 4% statewide sales-tax on food, and Governor Mike Rounds is opposing it, along with the Republicans of SD.

We need to support the Democrats on this issue.

The truth is neither party really cares either way. They just want to be opposed to the other party.

The Argus Liar had an article about it today.

Here's a poll you at there home page you can take untill 9:00 tonight.

Is Mike Rounds right to oppose the repeal of sales tax?

VOTE NO in this poll.

If you're from South Dakota, we need to support the repeal of this tax.

Frankly it doesn't go far enough. South Dakota's Budget has bloated a lot. It's time for the State to be forced to be frugal -- everybody else is. Mike went on a spending spree as soon as he got into office, with socialistic medical discount cards for Senior Citizens (paid for by hard working young'ens like me.) and more.

It sounds like Local governments want the state sales tax repealed too. Otherwise Mike wouldn't be going around giving propaganda speeches about it's benefits. But the truth is, if the 4% tax on food was repealed. People would have more money to spend on local businesses, which would give the city more money. Not that I want to city to have more money, but if I were forced to choose I would rather give it to the city instead of the state. If the city becomes intrusive, at least I can leave and move to an unincorporated part of the state. But if the State's intrusive it's much harder to escape.

South Dakotans need to write their local and State legislators and tell them to change the 5% state-wide sales tax on other things down to 1% also. Local cities get buy on a flat 1%. The State should be able to as well. Our state government has become too intrusive. Repealing this tax will take away some of that ability.

Saterday 10/4

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

President Bush's declaration Wednesday that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties but that there was "no evidence" he was linked to 9/11 had an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. Only a few days earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney on national television had expanded the administration's claims, hinting darkly that Hussein's security forces might have been involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and that Iraq was at "the heart of the base" of the terrorist threat that culminated in Sept. 11.

I've been going through Larken Rose's TaxableIncome.net site. According to him, the actuall IRS regulations and Treasury statutes define "sources" of income as something that most Americans don't have. Most income that American's make don't come from "sources" as defined in the IRS treasury regulations. He's actually writen a letter to Ashcroft asking Ashcroft to prosecute him if he's actually breaking any laws. It's quite entertaining to read the transcripts of conversations he's had with IRS agents who can't answer his simple questions. Sample letters you can send to ask your Congressmen some polite questions are here.

I'll give you a review when I finish going through his report.

In related interests check out  http://www.givemeliberty.org (about the 1st ammendment right to petition for redress of grievences) and http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com (About the fraudulent nature of the way the 16th Amendment was ratified).

The 16th Ammendment was ratified improperly, but it's really a non-issue, as several supream court cases have said the 16th Ammendment gave Congress no new power to tax (see Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining. See actual cases here.) However, it's been used by the IRS, and the government to obviscate the issue. The IRS even blatently lies when it tells us in it's publications that the 16th ammendment gives Congress that taxing power. The 16th ammendment has made it easier for the IRS to continue it's fraud and needs to be eliminated.

See also DownSizeDC.com

I sent a message to my US Senetors and Reps through Congress.org, about Bushes proposed Marriage Ammendment.

Marriage is a religious sacriment, not a political one.

"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore, so what the hell?"

-- Jay Leno, The Tonight Show August 5, 2003 Quoted by LPNews

I'm becoming more and more disheartened by some of the columns Lew Rockwell's  been picking up like Charley Reese, Tom White, and Paul Craig Roberts encouraging the Democrats, to oust George Bush. These three people seem to have this notion that the Democrats will end the evil's of the warfare state.

This is just as naive as expecting the Republican's to end the welfare state. (In fact, government welfare programs have gone up 2.5 times over the course of the past 3 years. This is a bigger leap then Clinton made in his entire 8 years in office.) In fact, Democrats won't end the warfare state. Remember Clinton? Remember Kosavo, Bosnia, and Serbia? In fact the Democrat's running for their party's presidential nomination, have been tiptoeing around the issue. They harp on the Civil Liberties of the Patriot Act, but they don't complain about Bushes war. First of all, the reason they can't do that, is because most of them, gave Bush permission in the form of the resolution. They thought that because they didn't officially declare an act of war, and by making everything up to Bush, they could blame Bush for everything. But they really can't, for their conscience isn't clear either.

Reese, seems to think that the former Vermont governor Howard Dean, will end the warfare state, and end US nation building. It's a good theory, as he's the only one with-out blood on his hands, and the most vocal opponent of Bushes war. But, to quote Harry Brown, it turns out the only things Dean is really opposed to is "anti-wars-in-Iraq-begun-by-George-W-Bush."

Nope, Bush has set the precedent of preemptive war, in the past we always coerced our enemies to fire on us first, the Democrats will simply continue this path, and say, "If Bush could do it, why can't I." It's also mostly the Democrats, who want us to go rescue that civil war situation in Liberia. No. The Democrat elite isn't opposed to the warfare state. They just don't like the Neo-con's reasons. They have their own reasons for meddling in foreign affairs.

I just read an entry by Robert Blumen about China in the mises blog, and I'd just like to mention something.

People complain about Free Trade with China stealing our jobs, but it's not really free trade. In fact currently, our trade with China is US Subsidized trade.

A recent article in The New American, "Exporting US Jobs"

The article outlines the export import bank:

"That advantage is compounded by our own government’s perverse insistence on subsidizing, via the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), the relocation of U.S. corporations to China. The Ex-Im Bank was created by the FDR administration in 1934 for the purpose of encouraging business investment in the Soviet Union. Through Ex-Im, corporate investments in China are subsidized, and any losses incurred are socialized (that is, picked up by U.S. taxpayers) — while the profits remain private and legitimate market competition is undermined."

This is why we're loosing all our jobs to China. It's not the trade deficit. We have capital simply being squandered over there. With the tab picked up by US taxpayers. America as a whole, is loosing wealth through this system. Because money's going into China, and we're getting nothing back.