Wednesday, June 30, 2010

New health scare: orthorexia nervosa reports that controlling one's diet can be considered a mental illness -- orthorexia nervosa:

In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating." ...

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

However, if you eat junk food, you presumably are mentally healthy (as the boardroom at McDonald's collectively heaves a sigh of relief).

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's
really happening in the world around them.

Even worse, such a declaration speeds the day when political dissent will become a sign of mental illness, just as it was in the Soviet Union, but perhaps with a fancy new name like persistent political maladaptation syndrome (PPMS).*

Virtual buckeye to Liberty Voice.

* Inspired by's "Disease Mongering Engine," which satirizes the rash of invented ailments that infects our mass media.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Uh, don't we have this backward?

Photo published in Human Events (and elsewhere) of a sign posted in Arizona about 80 miles from the border with Mexico:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the federal government is supposed to protect us from invasion, not the other way around.

This sign is an attempt to restrict U.S. citizens from open land within the territory of the United States, because the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibility to protect the borders. There is no question that the federal government is capable of protecting the borders. We still have a large military with sophisticated weaponry. The federal government, for reasons difficult to fathom, has chosen to effectively cede a strip of land up to 80 miles wide south of I-8 to Mexico.

This is why Arizonans are angry. It's their land (even where it is owned by the U.S. government).

Arizonans should be starting to give some serious thought to secession.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Health care nullification not on November ballot

The Columbus Dispatch reported today that The Ohio Project's petitions for an Ohio Constitutional amendment to nullify federal law mandating participation in the federal health care program, will not appear in this November's ballot; however backers are confident that it will be ready to submit for the November 2011 election. The petition needs approximately 400,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Decentralism works!

Here's proof:

Voters in Fremont, Nebraska have demonstrated that local action can be an effective way to control immigration: the only way the American people can enact much-needed border security.

Here is the story from KTPM Fox42 in Omaha:
The ordinance will require employers to check their workers through the federal E-verify database to see if they're illegal or not. For landlords it means all renters over the age of 18 must get an occupancy license from the Fremont Police Department, where their immigration status will be checked.

The votes of the special election will not be made official until Monday. The ordinance will then go through the city council.

Over 45% of registered voters made their way to the polls compared to a 28% voter turnout in the primary election.

Mike Tuggle at Rebellion comments (and I wholeheartedly agree with him):
The high turnout reveals a basic truth: People can make more of an impact where they live. That's where their loyalties lie. And smaller, local governments are more attuned to their friends and neighbors than a distant central government could ever be. That's why political power should devolve down to the smallest possible level.

That's also why those special interest groups who hate and want to transform America, from Neocons to the NAACP to La Raza, all want a powerful central overnment as an engine of reconstruction.

This further confirms an observation I made years ago. City councils see very few professional lobbyists. Why? Because there are too many cities. Lobbyists can't spread themselves that thin. This is the power of decentralism!

Monday, June 21, 2010

Mr. Kasich is right (this time)

Clevelanders are anxious about the possibility that basketball star LeBron James will leave the Cavaliers. They have even recruited Gov. Ted Strickland to urge LeBron to stay on. They tried to recruit John Kasich, and failed.

Not because Mr. Kasich is unsympathetic to the cause, but because he believes that a governor should have better things to do.

According to

[Fox News host Alan] Colmes asked Kasich if he were governor, what he would do to help persuade James to stay in Ohio.

"Alan, we've lost 400,000 jobs out here and the last guy I worry about is LeBron James. You know I mean, we all hope he'll stay in Cleveland. We think we've got a great guy there that can turn everything around, but we got some serious problems," Kasich said. "

Yes we do have some serious problems, and we need a Governor who has better things to do than to urge one professional basketball player to stay home. I have some doubts about John Kasich as Governor, but on this point, he is correct. His answer should be a model for politicians who let themselves be drawn into trivial matters.

And, for the record, I strongly favor LeBron staying in Cleveland, too; but if the Cavaliers franchise is not willing to pay him what the market will bear, he has the right (and the obligation to himself) to do what works best for him.

Friday, June 18, 2010

This is strength?

Tonight, conservative talk show hosts Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly will hold another edition of their road show (The Bold and Fresh Tour) in Nationwide Arena in Columbus. The Ohio Project, the group petitioning for an Ohio constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory health care, plans to have petition circulators present. Obviously, this is a good move for them, since most people interested in Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are likely to be sympathetic to that cause.

However, ProgressOhio doesn't want The Ohio Project to go unanswered, so they are countering with a literature distribution of their own. However, they have a small problem. Only one person has signed up online to participate (screen shot edited for space). Do you think maybe health care isn't such a popular issue, after all, hmmmm?

June 21 update: I spoke with a friend who did attend The Bold and Fresh Tour. He saw several petition circulators, but not one person distributing literature against the petition. Thus backing up my point. The "progressive" movement in Ohio is a paper tiger.

Quotation of the day

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
-- Groucho Marx

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

The three types of governmental spending

Tom Mullen argues in his blog that governments spend money for three purposes:
  1. Security (protection from force and fraud);
  2. Public services (which include roads, bridges, and public utilities); and
  3. Redistribution of wealth.

He characterizes libertarians as tolerating (Endorsing seems to be too strong a word) governmental involvement in security activities. He sees conservatives as also endorsing government funds for public services; while only liberals and progressives would support taxpayer money to redistribute wealth.

Mr. Mullen does his readers (and now mine) a great service in clarifying the issues in terms of governmental spending. For one thing, he has clearly exposed how meaningless the term conservative has become in our current political debate.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Who cares, really?

I did not watch President Obama's speech last night about the BP oil spill, but I have heard enough commentary today to have a pretty good idea what happened and how. In essence, following Rahm Emanuel's dictum to "never let a good crisis go to waste," the President decided to basically ignore the problem, and use it as an opportunity to get his "cap and trade" bill going. It is interesting that his speech drew considerable criticism even from the left. Even that epitome of state-run media, The New York Times, editorialized that the President failed to convince the American people that he would take the right steps to ensure that the oil spill would be cleaned up as soon as possible.

This brings me to Rush Limbaugh. Near the beginning of his show today, he launched into a twenty-minute philippic about the President's failure of leadership in this situation; and as usual, acted as a shill for the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, whose competence to address a crisis of this nature is equally doubtful. Mr. Limbaugh's criticism is that the feds are not listening to the states, and are not providing the help they need to deal with the environmental damage.

The fundamental error that made this oil spill possible was the federal government's cap on BP's liability, and its failure to provide reasonable legislation to ensure environmental protection in the deep-sea oil fields, as I discussed May 28.

When I was a child, my mother taught me that if I make a mess, it's my responsibility to clean it up. BP should be expected to clean up the mess, entirely at their own expense; but that does not preclude the federal government marshalling resources at its disposal to assist; or to get necessary equipment and supplies to the affected states in a timely manner.

On the other hand, now is probably as good a time as any to instruct the American people, that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to rob the taxpayers for charitable causes, such as providing make-work jobs for displaced workers in Louisiana.

With this in mind, the example of Grover Cleveland in 1887 in dealing with a massive crop failure in Texas should prove instructive, as this piece by the libertarian Mises Institute makes clear. Following are excerpts from President Cleveland's veto message against a Congressional appropriation to provide seeds for the Texas farmers (emphasis added):

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor." ...

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood...

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our senators and representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

That's what I would have liked to have heard from Mr. Limbaugh. A call to the people to assist the Gulf states on their own through charitable organizations that already exist. A call for BP to act responsibly. A call for a President who can use the "bully pulpit" to urge Americans to do what is needed, while staying within the Constitutional bonds our Founding Fathers put into place.

But I suppose I'm whistling into the wind again...

Sign of economic recovery?

Our handlers in DC want us to believe that we are experiencing economic recovery.

Is that why the Columbus Dispatch reported that homelessness in Ohio has increased 12.7% between 2007 and 2009? Estimated reported homeless in Ohio totaled 12,700.

Additional information is available in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Why Internet censorship won't work

There has been a great deal of attention to China's attempts to censor Internet content in support of the Communist Party's policies, especially against Taiwanese and Tibetan independence. Most IT professionals are of the opinion that such a "super firewall" is impractical, if not impossible. This article from the industry publication eWeek gives ten reasons why. However, do take a look at the comments -- they offer some valuable perspective and counterpoint on the issue.

My take-home: Concern about proposed policy in the United States to censor Internet content is probably overblown, especially when the technological sophistication of Americans is taken into account. Any attempts to legislate it should, of course, be resisted; but if enacted, it may prove unenforceable.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

How the feds silence "unruly children"

No, I do not, until it is too late. The following is from Infowars: (Emphasis added)

In his book Friendly Fascism, author Bertram Gross argues that when fascism comes to America it will be “friendly” and lack the overt brutality of the classic varieties of German and Italian fascism. Richard Nixon once said that average American is like a child in the family. Nixon was merely expressing the dominant opinion of the ruling elite who consider us contemptible children in need of adult supervision. Hitler, too, considered the German people children in need of adult supervision. For the elite, a political activist is the worst sort of unruly child, one that directly challenges the authority of the father who represents the state. In order to modify the behavior of a rebellious child the state must instill fear. It must intimidate but — as Gross noted — it must do this with a friendly face. It must uphold the pretense of “democracy.” A frog must be boiled slowly. “No truly sophisticated proponent of repression would be stupid enough to shatter the facade of democratic institutions,” wrote Murray B. Levin.

In a video at the Infowars link, agents of friendly fascism — who resemble a insurance salesman and his dowdy wife — visit a woman in Austin, Texas, and attempt to ask a few friendly questions about her rebellious behavior during a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Her rebellion did not consist of bomb-making or even inappropriate jokes about the president. Her crime was to display organized outrage over the murder and mistreatment of an entire people, a crime supported by and paid for by the U.S. government.

The FBI agents asked: Did she know anybody who would engage in violence or property damage? In other words, does she admit to being a terrorist and does she know of any terrorist plots ongoing?

At first glance, this line of questioning seems patently absurd. But it has a deeper purpose unstated and denied by the FBI — to inculcate fear of the state and intimidate and modify the behavior of an unruly and rebellious child. It is a routine designed to shut down opposition and discourage troublemakers from exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Government will decide what is appropriate and what verges on a crime against the state. The First Amendment now has circumscribed areas of practice surrounded by men in black ski masks and Darth Vader storm trooper uniforms.

The intimidation process did not work on this brave woman. She knows her rights and she was not afraid to tell the FBI in a polite way to shove it where the sun does not shine.

This video includes four helpful rules. If the feds knock on your door, here's what you should do:
  1. Check badges carefully. Don't give out any information without an attorney.
  2. Don't let them in the house, and shut the door behind you.
  3. The right to remain silent is a Constitutional right (You know, the Fifth Amendment!). It does not mean that you are hiding information.
  4. The FBI can lie to you to get information; but to lie to them is a serious crime.
Virtual buckeyes to Infowars and The Liberty Voice.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Quotation of the day

"If a public policy is based on fear, its bad for your freedom, bad for your psyche, and probably bad for your pocketbook."
-- Jeremiah Arn (in Facebook)

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

More crying over spilled oil

Gregory Sullivan at Pajamas Media* reports that a firm in Maine is ready, willing, and able to provide enough oil containment boom to contain the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Only problem is, no one is buying it.

John Lapoint of Packgen in Auburn, Maine, says he’s got plenty of floating oil containment boom and can make lots more on short notice. There’s just one problem: no one will buy it from him.

He’s already had a representative from BP visit his factory and inspect his product. The governor of Maine, John Baldacci, visited the facility and made a video plea to no one in particular to close the deal. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins wrote a letter on May 21 to the secretary of the Interior, the administrator of NOAA, and the commandant of the Coast Guard to alert them to the existence of Packgen, their supply of boom, and their demonstrated capacity to make more.

Clearly, the appropriate agencies of federal government should be aware of this company by now. The longer this oil spill goes on, the more I suspect skulduggery at the federal level.

The only good thing I can say about this story is, it is hastening the day when the American people become so disgusted with incompetent federal government that they will embrace secession.

Virtual buckeyes to Mike McCool and Big Government.

* I am usually skeptical of Internet sources not backed up by mainstream media, but in this case, the facts were obviously checked with primary sources.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Why we need to protect ourselves with gold (and silver)

This post is for those who think that talk about holding gold and silver is alarmist rubbish.

One of the issues favored by the liberty movement is "Honest Money" -- that is, returning to the use of gold and silver as currency, because they are a store of value, and the paper Federal Reserve Note is not. One problem with that discussion is most of its proponents are biased either for political (yours truly, Ron Paul) or business reasons (Goldline, Monex).

This is not true, however, of The Joseph Group. The Joseph Group, based in Columbus, is an investment advisory firm that provides personalized service to select clients (It's a great firm -- I know the managing partners personally -- but is a little rich for my blood). As part of their service, they have in-house analysts who manage according to a long-term strategy, which works to strike a balance between stocks, bonds, and other investments that will be profitable to their clients. In general, I have seen them recommend that precious metals be included as a small part of a sound portfolio.

With this in mind, you will understand why the following segment from their Wealth Notes e-newsletter dated May 24 (no link available) made me sit up and take notice (While not indented, the following text is directly quoted from Wealth Notes with their permission. Emphasis and the comment in brackets are mine).

To inform… The Perfect Bubble: Fiat money chasing a “Store of Value” (Gold)

The most important thing about money is to maintain its stability…You have to chose between trusting the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of members of the government. With due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.

-- George Bernard Shaw

The financial markets have always run to gold in times of great uncertainty. As we wrote a few weeks back, the price of gold is often sought of as a barometer of fear. The recent push higher in gold may not just be concern over the European Union (EU) crises but the sobering reality that there is seemingly an endless supply of paper money being created by debt laden governments. [Including ours].

The recent response by the European Central Bank (ECB) of purchasing government bonds to thwart the debt crisis in the EU, is yet another example of how central banks are used to create fiat money. What is fiat money? Fiat money is “currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith” (Investopedia). With the recent decline in the Euro, investors apparently have little faith in the EU government and the value of that currency.

Currency is supposed to be a constant unit of account, a “Store of Value”. Historically, paper money has been a very poor store of value. The chart below shows the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar since 1940. (Similar path for all fiat currencies.)

Purchasing power drops when prices rise. Prices rise from too much money chasing the same amount of goods. Thus, the more supply of money, the less it is worth.

Financial bubbles occur when assets are not priced according to cash flow, but according to what another investor is willing to pay. (Recall tech stocks in 1999, subprime loans and real estate in 2007.) Gold cannot be valued on any basis of cash flows and thus perfectly satisfies bubble conditions. However, the bubble is not in gold but rather in the rapid creation of fiat money.

The growth in the global money supply is vastly exceeding central bank gold holdings. The chart below shows the growth in the monetary base has more than tripled compared to the gold holdings by central banks. Thus the value of fiat currency has become (and will continue to be) relatively less and less compared to gold.

Investors will continue to seek a store of value away from fiat currency. And, without any restraint by governments to create currency, global demand for gold will overwhelm supply, causing gold prices to skyrocket.

The last chart below shows how gold has outperformed all major asset classes on many time horizons. This was during a period of relatively slow money growth. With the recent acceleration in money growth, future returns of gold should be even better.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Explaining the world economic crisis in 2:44

The Brits have it all figured out -- or at least they have the analysis all figured out. As to the solution, well ...

Update 6/10: I have learned that this is actually a comedy sketch by two Australians. The sketch is funny, but is telling the truth.

Virtual buckeye to Russell Longcore at DumpDC.

War is no defense against domestic tyranny

Old Rebel at Rebellion preaches eloquently on the DC shell game -- focusing our attention on imagined threats abroad, while taking away our liberties at home:

When politicians, editorial writers, and other government mouthpieces claim our freedom depends on the Commander-in-chief waging war on hapless peasants thousands of miles away, they're saying things that were meant to be applauded, not analyzed. Because if you think about it, as Jack Kenny does, such claims make no sense. After all, the truth is that the real threat to our freedom is the central government, something the Founders knew, but we have forgotten -- which is why the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall make no law ...". And the Founders were right, as Kenny illustrates with the following examples:

"... when Congress abridges the freedom of speech and of the press, as with the Sedition Act during World War I, soldiers fighting abroad are no defense against that assault on freedom. When the Supreme Court presumes to tell us when, where, and under what circumstances "We the people" may offer a public prayer, the soldier is in no position to defend the free exercise of religion. And when a President of the United States claims the authority to lock up suspected terrorists, including American citizens, indefinitely and without trial, the soldiers at his command are no defense against the usurpation."

Now that our attention's been focused on eeeevil Islamo-meanies in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're letting the government nullify the Bill of Rights -- in the name of protecting us.

How long can this scam go on?

The longer it goes on, the wiser the people get to it. If the 2010 elections don't clean up the Congress, the nullification battles will begin in earnest. If the nullification battles don't clean up DC, the map of North America will be plastered with new nations, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all of us are created equal.