Barack Obama, on his decision to abolish my freedom to choose. (My comments in brackets.)

"Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage ... The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.

[Except that it is not a foregone conclusion that those without insurance will go to the emergency room. Some, such as I, will go to their family doctor and pay out of pocket. Others have a deep mistrust of all doctors and will choose to treat themselves. Some might even take care of their health and not HAVE to go to a doctor.]

... And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.

[It's not my responsibility to offer up my liberty as a sacrifice just so you can achieve your agenda, Mr. President.]

And that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

[Apples and oranges, Mr. President. I can CHOOSE not to buy auto insurance, by choosing not to drive a car. Do we really want to live in a society where the only option I have to exercise my freedom is to choose not to live?]

... There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage ...

[So, I'm supposed to go crawling to some career bureaucrat on a power trip, throw myself on his mercy, and beg for an exception?]

... [W]e can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.

[Where did this responsibility come from? Is it in the Constitution? Or is it a responsibility because you SAY it's a responsibility?]

Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part."

[I am a human being, endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness, not some cog in your death machine, Mr. President.]

Now, just a reminder of what CANDIDATE Obama said about the Individual Mandate:

I probably shouldn't start with "I was listening to Alex Jones on the shortwave last night . . ."

... but I was. And as much as I fear that gives the big-government supporters an excuse to refuse to address the substance of what follows and instead paint both me and Jones as tinfoil-hat-wearing whackos, I have to give my two cents on what he spent much of the show discussing.

This Missouri Information Analysis Center report business (you can view the document here).

It seems the authors of this report need to be reminded that "extremism" is not a synonym for "terrorism." Extremism, as used in the famous Goldwater quote, is the holding to one's ideology without compromise. Terrorism is the infliction of violence to instill fear.

This part is rich:

"Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."

(There were so many [sic]s in that quote I gave up trying.)

1. What is the methodology they used to reach this conclusion? Did they survey known militia members and ask them what sort of bumper sticker they have on their cars? Where is their research to back up this claim?

2. One of the things that makes Libertarians Libertarians and not anarchists is the principle of noninterference in the lives of others. This is incompatible with militiaism.

3. This will lead to ideological profiling. Is D.W.L.* the new D.W.B.**? And isn't this WAY over the line into Thoughtcrime?

4. Bob Barr is the grouchy brother-in-law at the family reunion; Ron Paul is the eccentric grandpa. Both are harmless. Any notion that they are leaders of some militia movement is patently absurd.

5. Isn't it convenient how this further marginalizes third parties that present a clear and concise alternative to the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats? Doesn't it give them another arrow in their quivers to shoot at us? "You don't want to vote for them, do you? After all, there is a perception that they are vaguely dangerous. Are you vaguely dangerous too?"

6. Timothy McVeigh was a Republican. John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat. As long as we're painting broad strokes here, doesn't that mean Republicans are terrorists and Democrats are murderous child molesters?

That's my two-cents after a quick once-over. I'm printing the report out to go over it more in-depth at my leisure.

And here I was ready to order a "Don't Blame Me; I Voted For Ron Paul" bumper sticker...

[H/T 2 Alex Jones.]

[Update: State apologizes, removes Paul, Barr & Baldwin's names. I don't see anything about removing the names of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, though.]

* D.W.L. - "Driving While Libertarian," also known as DWACI - "Driving With A Consistent Ideology."

** D.W.B - "Driving While Black."

Any takers?

Just reserved "Blog Free America."

Think "Radio Free Cuba." Only with blogging. In America.

Anyone wanna join?

More Double Coupon Shopping.

Today I got two $1.28 cans of Wolf Chili for $1.76, a $1.32 French's yellow mustard squeeze bottle for $.72, a $.92 can of mild Rotel for negative $.08, and a $1.12 bottle of Joy Ultra dish detergent for $.52.

So in total, I got $5.92 worth of stuff for $2.92.

I'm thinking of keeping a record of every time I wind up paying negative money for a product and sending at least half of that money to the National Libertarian Party.

That would be killing two birds with one stone by sapping money from Borg Queen Obama's economy AND helping fund the Libertarians, who will lose their ballot access in 2012 in a lot of states if enough of us don't vote for them.

Your reading assignment for the day . . .

. . . comes, surprisingly, from the tree-huggers at Mother Earth News.

Everything He Wants To Do Is Illegal.

It explores the perils of over-regulation. Even when those regulations are imposed by tree-huggers such as those at Mother Earth News.

The Libertarian 12 Days of X-Mas!

On the 12th day of X-Mas, my true love gave to me . . .

Altas Shrugged For Dummies,

Screw The I.R.S. game,

Pocket Constitution,

Suzette Kelo's picture,

gay wedding announcements,

subscription to Reason,

AK-47,

some slot machine tokens,

funky copyright laws,

Cannabis sativa,

a laissez-faire T-shirt,

porn and a bar of gold.

Hey, Bob. I gotta suggestion.

Pick Sam Nunn as your running mate. C'mon. It'll be cool.

Barr/Nunn '08.

I'd still rather vote for Paul/Gigot, but that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen.

Barrples and oranges.

A little more on Bob Barr.

If forced to choose between Bush and Clinton, he chooses Bubba.

President Clinton... I certainly had my problems with him. But what he did, in terms of perjury and obstruction was bad but it was not destructive of the very systemic foundations of our country.

What Barr isn't seeing is that Clinton had his party in control of Congress for only two years, whereas Bush had his party in control for six. Give Clinton six years of a Democratic Congress, and there'd have been Wacos and Elian raids all over the place.

It's not evidence of the intrinsic good of Clinton and the intrinsic bad of Bush, but rather of how much liberty dies when government can "get things done" without the intrinsic good of gridlock.

You almost had me, Bob.

I try to look at what candidates are doing, not what they're saying. So, I was disappointed to find my friend Mr. Hanna seemingly ready to drink the McCain Kool-Aid after he listened to Senator Palpatine talk.

I hear McCain saying all the right things, but then I look at what he's doing as a Senator to advance these issues. And I don't find much of anything.

But I shouldn't be surprised. I myself, after listening to a Bob Barr interview, was almost ready to drink the Barr-Aid. Barr's no longer in a position where he COULD do much of anything to advance his new-found libertarian ideology, even if he wanted to, so all we have to judge him on IS his words. He might sincerely regret his authoritarian past, and the only thing he can do about it is say he was wrong.

So I was ALMOST ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That is, until 5:02 - 5:22.



What's so hard to understand about the concept that the government should not be in the business of dictating the genders of the participants in a private contract?

Unfortunately, I wasn't near the stereo.

Because if I was, the pollster that called my house yesterday would have gotten an earful of Uncle Fukka.

As soon as I found out it was a political pollster, I hung up.

Mostly because I surmised that given the heated campaign ad war between Missouri Republican gub-goob candidates Hulshof and Steelman, it was probably gonna ask who I was voting for in that race or in the general, and I hafta admit I don't know yet. Or if.

Who is this Andy Finkenstadt person?

You hear those footsteps coming up behind you, REASON?

It's Popular Science about to overtake you as the standardbearer of libertarian magazines.

Case In Point.

Here's a sample:

Wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses, I walked into an AT&T store and immediately noticed several black half-globes suspended from the ceiling: surveillance cameras. I needed to keep my head down. When I tried to pay for my new phone, the cashier swiped its bar code, looked up at me with her fingers poised above her keyboard, and asked me for identification. “I don’t have any on me,” I lied.

She seemed mildly annoyed and asked for my name and address.

“I’m sorry,” I said, “but I don’t really want my information in the system.”

“We need your information.”

“Why?”

“For billing purposes.”

“But it’s a prepaid card. You don’t need to bill me.”

This, apparently, was irrelevant. “We need to put your information into the system,” she said again. “Otherwise you can’t buy the phone.”

There's an equally excellent article in the same print issue on drug-testing sewage and the probable-cause problems that would generate, but it doesn't seem to have made it's way onto the online edition yet.

On a somewhat related note, here's one of those Kipesque questions one PopSci article raises: Is a lack of empathy for others a disease?

And what if you think the cure (compassion in a pill) is worse than the disease? And if I choose the disease over the cure, does the government have the power to overrule me?

(Husky, whispered voice from the shadows:) Take your Soma, citizen. Leave the philosophical questions to the experts, who always have your best interests in mind.