ENIGMA CURRY

Crystal Meth is easier to buy than cold medicine

November 30, 2005 at 06:14 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

I read today that Vicks has changed the formula of NyQuil to no longer contain pseudoephedrine, a nasal decongestent ingredient. According to Vick's pseudoephedrine FAQ: "There are reports that some people are using this drug to make an illegal substance called methamphetamine." NyQuil still has the same name but is now a whole lot less effective.

States all across the country are restricting the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine. The Texas State Board of Pharmacy has a notice of the new rules regarding its sale. Included in those rules are the following:

• You now have to show your drivers licence to prove you are at least 16 years of age before purchasing any product containing the chemical.
• You have to sign your name in a log book.
• The pharmacy must record the exact quantity (in grams) you purchase and make sure that you don't purchase more than two items containing the chemical at the same time.

Not even alchohol is as hard to buy as Tylenol Cold and Flu, which, unlike NyQuil, still contains pseudoephedrine. Certainly Crystal Meth, which this new legislation is trying to stop the production of, is now even easier to buy than cold medicine containg pseudoephedrine.

But nowhere is there a requirement for obtaining a prescription before purchasing drugs containing the chemical. This is a wholly new form of restriction and surveillance imposed by the Police State.

This could get absurd real quick. I could make napalm out of gasoline. I could die from drinking antifreeze. I could burn my hand on the stove. None of these items are stored in glass cases nor tracked to each individual buyer. Are these items also soon to become regulated, or is there really some ulterior motive here? Hilary Clinton seems to want to require prescriptions even for simple vitamins. Is the government going to tell us when we can and can't help our own selves when we get sick? Of course they will. That's what will give the State control. If they can create a large enough epidemic, or even the perception of one, then the state can finally impose martial law, including curfews and travel restrictions, forcing people to renew their faith in the SYSTEM because the SYSTEM will be the only one left who will have the ability to decongest your nose.

Welcome to the Police State folks.

Republic vs Democracy

October 18, 2005 at 03:44 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

My girlfriend Kellie and I have often brought up, in dialog, the question of what is the difference (if any) between a Republic and a Democracy. For those of you unaware that there was an argument concerning these two things, let's just say that there has been a lot of difference in opinion over the last several hundred years about what these two terms mean.

It is apparent that the founding fathers clearly had a disdain for what they termed "democracy." I could choose from hundreds of statements to exemplify this, but I think that just one coming from Benjamin Franklin very clearly typifies the sentiment:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

But we hear the word "democracy" every day, almost always in a positive light as in sayings such as "we are bringing democracy to the world." The question at hand then is this: Has the meaning of the word somehow changed? Or have the virtues of the founding fathers not been carried down to today's media and politicians? I have a hunch that it's the latter; however, Kellie, being the analytical person that she is, challenges me to consider that the word may have evolved.

Well then, here are my own thoughts on the word "democracy.". . .

When considering the word, with no qualifier of any kind, it is fairly ambiguous. There are a myriad of ways to interpret it, but let's look at two that I feel are the most common:

• In one manner, the singular word (democracy) often alludes to a sense of equality among individuals. This sense is also depicted in the Declaration of Independence when it states that all men are created equal. Let's call this social-democracy.
• In a strictly political sense, democracy vests the power to rule within the realm of the majority. The most common method (and probably the only practical one on a large scale) is by electing representatives. Let's call this political-democracy.

A political-democracy is obviously a true representational form of government. So is a republic. The difference? A republic guarantees that certain things are not and never will be placed up for a vote. The Bill of Rights is one of the most clear examples that there was no intention for this country to form a political-democracy without such guarantees. While semantically I will not dispute the fact that our country is a democracy (although a limited republican form) and should be one, I have to wonder what is going on when the media espouses a very ambiguous word as if it were some utopian, idealistic panacea that everyone should strive for and support. The only conclusion that I can come to, given such an ambiguous term, is that we are being deceived.

After much dialog, I now believe that the word "democracy" HAS changed over the years, not because of cultural reasons or natural language evolution, but because of a series of systematic changes that has occured in our own government. The traditional way for a government to control people is with weapons; however, the populace (at least in the United States) has more weapons than the government itself, so that won't work. The alternative is the much harder task (but still feasable one) of changing our minds by deception.

I just found this document today. It is the Soldier Training Manual (TM 2000-25) published by the War Department in November of 1928 on the topic of Citizenship. Its stated intent is to prepare soldiers that they "may be returned to civilian life better equipped as the defenders of the institutions of our Government in time of peace as well as in time of war." It contains definitions of the two terms we are discussing today. It is prima facie evidence that the US Government had a drastically different take on what democracy is compared with today. Here it is copied directly from the manual itself on pages 91 and 92:

It is rumored that Franklin Roosevelt ordered that this book be destroyed, shortly after his infamous 'banking holiday.' Whether or not this is true, it still shows that there has been a dramatic shift in both the platform of modern politics and also in the meaning of what otherwise appears to be a simple word.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government -- Article 4 Section 4 united States Constitution... what was all the fuss?

Paving New Orleans with gold

September 22, 2005 at 03:28 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

Joe Schembrie over at LewRockwell.com has written a very thought provoking article on the excess of spending that Congress is exercising in the name of 'Reconstruction' in the southern united States.

To share just a few of his good points:

• Congress has recently authorized the expenditure of $62 billion for reconstruction of flood damaged property.
• Congress is already talking about appropriating over $200 billion total by the end of reconstruction
• $200 billion would allow the federal government to do one of the following:
• • Give $200,000 to every man, woman and child in New Orleans.
  • Purchase 32 SUVs for each family in New Orleans ($25,000 a car, for a typical 4 member family)
  • Pave all of the streets of New Orleans with pure gold.

If that last one didn't make you think about the sheer absurdity of the amount of money we are talking about here, nothing will. Who do you think has this kind of money? Certainly not the government. This will just be financed by plopping it right onto the federal charge card (read: deficit).

This is all coming from a government that is majority controlled by a party that claims to want to cut federal spending. Either our political leaders are outright lying to us or they are unbelievably stupid when it comes to economics. Now I don't believe that our leaders are economics experts, but they are far from stupid. Watch as GOP house majority leader Tom DeLay makes what the New Hampshire Union-Leader calls the 'lie of the year':

My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet.

Here Mr DeLay is saying that there is absolutely no way that we can cut any more out of the federal budget. He further clarifies his point by saying:

It is right to borrow to pay for it

An incredulous reporter asked him if he felt that the government was operating at peak-efficiency. Mr DeLay responds:

Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good

Lies, and damn lies.

The Citizens Against Government Waste have written a document describing almost 14,000 programs instituted in 2005 alone, that could easily be cut.

There are so many more tragedies here beyond the pain and suffering of the victims of Katrina. The most important one though is that the government has no responsibility in the matter, and furthermore they have no right to 'borrow' money for which is unecessary and will never be 'returned'. It is absurd to believe that reconstruction should be funded by tax dollars because it is 'the right thing to do', when the very victims are taxpayers themselves.

It is a tragedy that we are even being lied to about where this money is going. There is no way that the money will be used to buy the things that Joe Schembrie mentioned the government could spend it on. No taxpayer, nor victim will ever see that money. That money is already lining the pockets of the very people that have taken it away from you.

Reappraising the war in Iraq - Col. Tim Collins speaks

September 21, 2005 at 05:50 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

Tim Collins, a former Colnel of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, has sobering words to say about the war in Iraq. His words have been creeping around in my mind all day long.

Long have I felt that the United states was in the wrong for going to war. Yet, although I knew that I was against it, I never fully rationalized the other side of the argument, at least, not to my requirements as of now.

We may be able to understand the war in light of it's accomplishments, let's make a check list:

• Destruction of WMDs: Nope
• Destruction of the Baath party: Nope
• Control over Oil: Nope (have you seen prices lately?)
• Disband 'Terror' groups: Nope (the war has made recruitment numbers soar)

On the surface, these criteria were exactly what the war was supposed to be about... right? Again like I said, I never agreed with those agendas, but it appears now I was disagreeing with the wrong agendas. Were any of these criteria ever on the minds of those who brought this war to pass (except in making a public justification)?

...China and India are growing and sucking up every drop of oil, every scrap of concrete or steel even as the old-world powers of the UK and US pour blood and treasure into overseas campaigns which seem to have no ending and no goal... It is time for our leaders to explain what is going on.

When I read that statement of having "no ending and no goal," I had the eery feeling that the warmongers of the world have no ultimate agenda. Not evil, nor good. Unless someone can prove me wrong, I must admit that this Empire has gone insane. Politics is no longer a war of 'difference of opinion'. It wouldn't matter what anyone's opinion was, this war is an outcry from a dying Empire.

It is the very nature of an Empire to spend money and to flex muscles, It doesn't matter to what end that power is used. If you realize the nature of the thing, it puts things into it's rightful perspective.

I'm sorry Tim, you may never get that explanation for "what is going on."

Hostile Government takeover of Spanish Fork Concert

August 24, 2005 at 06:03 PM | categories: letters, liberty rants | View Comments

DOWNLOAD AND WATCH THIS VIDEO NOW!!

On Saturday there was a concert at Diamond Fork in Spanish Fork canyon (just 200 miles north of where I live) featuring Evol Intent among other bands. Just after about 11:30pm that evening, this concert of somwhere between 1500-3000 in attendance (I can't find an official count, just the number of ticket sales), was raided by SWAT teams and over 60 people were arrested for drug charges. Now, this may or may not seem out of the ordinary to you but consider the following:

• The Concert was 100% legal and legitamite. The tickets were sold well in advance. There was ample advertising.
• Permission from both the city of Spanish Fork and the Bueuru of Land Management was given prior to the event.
• Just as any 100% legal concert would have, there was already ample security forces present. Searches for drug paraphenalia were being done at the door prior to anyone's entrance to the concert.
• Not only drug 'offenders' were arrested. All of the organizers of the event were arrested as well. This includes the Security forces that were employed that night.
• As you watch the video, ask yourself the following: Do these people look like police officers (they are) or do they look like military? Make sure you notice the fact that these 'peace officers' are carrying some form of assault rifles.
• Did the SWAT teams enter through the front door even? No. They flew into the concert via helicopter!!
• And worst of all: No warrant was issued to the invading forces.

Watch the video. It speaks for itself. We are already living in a fascist empire. What's that you say? You think I'm an extremist who takes things a little too far? Whether or not you choose to see this country for what it is, is probably dependant on whether or not you can see things that don't directly affect you, not whether you like or dislike the music style. If you don't express your outrage for the rights of others... what rights do you have?

I smell another letter in the works....

(See much more documentation on this matter over on the MySpace Forums (local copy here))

Update Aug 25: There is a wealth of information on the new site Music Vs. Guns