Social Services is Limited?

I honestly cannot believe this story. It claims that a judge actually ruled that social services employees actually have to obey the law. Well, he didn't actually rule that, instead he allowed a lawsuit to go forward that is against social services. I expect the lawsuit to fail.

In this case, social services did what social services does -- they used force of government to break various laws because "It's For The Children." They used an anonymous tip to clearly and openly violate Constitutionally protected rights. They used threats of unstoppable, unquestionable government force to bully people into doing what they wanted to. They threatened violence against people who had committed no crime -- backed up by FOUR men with guns.

Basically, social services showed up at someone's house. The people had committed no crime. NO ONE had any evidence or suspicion that anyone had committed a crime. Even after openly breaking the law, the government STILL found no evidence that any sort of crime had ever been committed by the people. But none of that matters. Social Services wanted in that house, and they were going in, or they were going to kill someone (literally).

They brought a pile of armed government thugs with them (sheriffs). They continued to threaten violence against the homeowners unless the homeowners let them in to search their premises for, well, any damn thing they wanted -- they are social services, and they have guns. These government goons said that they were going to inspect the house -- and if the people refused, these thugs were going to arrest them, use violence against them AND take their children away from them by force.

Now if I were to do that to someone, I'd go to jail for a VERY long time. But these were government goons, so they're literally allowed to do anything they want because no one can stop them.

So far, the lawsuit has been allowed to proceed -- only after the government actually filed a motion claiming that since they're government, they're literally above the law! Yes, government actually filed a motion in court that says they don't have to obey the law because they're government employees. That's the position of social services departments around the world. But the lawsuit has not been won yet, it's just proceeding. I honestly hope these people do win the lawsuit to show at least a few government employees that they do have to obey the law.

In the meantime, I strongly suggest that if you have children that you have a plan to escape. I suggest a small pile of cash, a bag with clothes and supplies, and a plan of a place to head OUT OF STATE in case social services ever shows up at your doorstep. This is, in my opinion, the most evil of the government services: social services. They are not bound by any laws and they will take your children and THEN let you try and prove your innocence. Your current best defense is to flee, hide the children, and then fight them.

States vs. Feds

Do states have any say in anything? If the federal government makes a declaration, can any state, at any time, contradict their statements? Seriously, think about that question for a moment before you read on -- is there anything the federal government can say where the states can just tell the feds to get lost?

Keep in mind, according to the US Constitution, once the supreme law of the land:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

In other words, according to that ancient document, the states can nearly ALWAYS tell the federal government to take a hike. That's how things are supposed to be. Unless the law is supported by the Constitution directly, states are supposed to make up their own mind.

So then why can't California (and a few other states) make their own rules regarding auto emissions? California asked the EPA (there was the first mistake) for permission to make more restrictions on cars driving in the state. Apparently the EPA said "no." And for some reason, California said, "Gee, okay."

Hey California, how about growing a pair? Oh, right, it's California. But seriously, if California decided they wanted to create their own emission standards, how in the world could the federal government stop them? This is something I would LOVE to see. I'd love to see each state make their own standards and have the federal government run around trying to stop them. States SHOULD do this.

I know, you people who favor the auto industry say that it would be impossible for auto makers to comply with 50 different sets of regulations. I say, "SO WHAT!?!" That's a GOOD thing! It would make for more competition! It might make cars more expensive -- again, good for competition! I can see regional auto manufacturers! Man, would that be great. But "Big Auto" could never have that -- it might cut into their profits.

Once again, this shows that freedom can work -- and should work. It also shows that the federal government, state governments, and industry all working together CAN crush freedom. Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Henderson County NEEDS cash

So says their board of county commissioners and school board. And predictably, the very first thing they use to support the tax increase is "For The Children:"

Our schools depend on it.


These people are incompetent. They're irresponsible with money. They have no fiscal common sense. And they're not above using and saying ANYTHING to get more cash to spend. For example, they're complaining it's the end of the world because they NEED $31 million to build two schools. And they've NEEDED this money for ELEVEN YEARS! Yes, the entire school system will fail if they don't get a dump truck load of cash ELEVEN YEARS AGO. And we're supposed to take them seriously.

And they lie about the purpose and who will be affected by the "land transfer tax." They claim that it will "spread that burden to those who are creating the growth in our county." That's simply a lie. Know who has to pay that tax, primarily? Anyone who wants to LEAVE the "community." ANYONE who sells their house, no matter if they make a profit, will pay the tax. That's not "those who are creating growth," it's the people who don't want to live there any more.

Of course, they'll also use threats to get their money:

These projects must be funded, so if this referendum fails, the property taxes will have to be increased.

In other words,
We're government and you're not. We DEMAND that you give us a whole pile of cash because we want to spend it. You have no say in the matter, we're going to spend the money. However, if you vote for this new tax, we will claim that you wanted to give us the money to spend. And if you vote down this new tax, we'll just take the money anyway and spend it.

You're not government and we are. You're too stupid to know how to spend money you work for and earn (and we're incapable of actually earning money or creating ANYTHING), so we, the anointed, will spend the money you earn for you. Now shut up and give us this money or we will tax you even more.

What bastards. I wonder what it would be like to live in a country where the government was run by the people and for the people instead of by the bureaucrats FOR the bureaucrats.

Police at Work

There are a number of web sites that chronicle abuse by the police. And sure, there's always the "bad apples." But it seems to me that there's more and more reports like this one -- where police abuse and brutality is met with "the department supports the actions of the policeman" and "no charges have been filed."

In the first case, I have to say -- the policeman is lucky to be alive. There are a lot of people I know that would have shot him. Imagine what you would do, men, if at night you walked into a hallway and found an unidentified man on top of your wife, pinning her to the ground, with two of his unidentified pals standing in the doorway. I'm afraid to say that the two in the doorway may have been shot first. And I'd bet that if that happened, the man would be portrayed as a cop killer instead of a home defender.

On a forum I read, someone who read this story posted, "Wait, they can't do that." And the response, sad as it is, was, "In fact, yes they can. And there is no one to stop them." I lose more faith in this country and freedom with each passing day.

Drew Cary on Traffic

How about some solutions to traffic WITHOUT government?

Dave Ridley Report
Dave Ridley from takes you to the front lines of the peaceful battle for liberty in New Hampshire. Ron Paul Revolutionaries, Free Staters, Ed Brown's standoff with Live Free or Die country, history unfolds before your eyes.

The Ridley Report is basically glorified raw video of key events, sparingly shot and narrated on the spot so it can be promptly uploaded with no need for editing. People say this is not possible. Decide for yourself.

But be never know what might pop up in the middle of the story!

Take a peek!

Designated Driver?

You cannot drive drunk, right? There's few left today that would argue that you can drive drunk (I'm not saying there aren't those who are doing it still). However, this is pretty much the worst crime possible. If you're convicted of DUI, there is nothing worse you can do. You will be punished worse than just about anything else. You get massive fines (more than for just about any crime). You will get hundreds of hours (or more) of "community service." And you'll be fired from your job. You'll be looked down on by your community forever. Not for drinking, but for getting caught with a DUI.

People mostly fear this action because of the punishments, NOT because of the fact it's wrong. Therefore, people will do just about anything to avoid getting caught -- including getting underage designated drivers. This man learned well from government -- instead of risking the serious penalties for DUI, instead he took the risk of "reckless endangerment" -- a MUCH less serious crime! He still got 15 days in jail for letting his 11-year old drive, but that's a LOT less than if he had been driving.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

Can anyone explain any real crime here? Who was endangered? Who was hurt? Who was at risk of being hurt? I'm sorry, but I can't find a victim here. The only thing close to a "crime" was that a driver with THREE YEARS of experience driving made a wrong turn. And that's 15 days in jail. Have YOU ever made a wrong turn while driving? Do you think you should go to jail for 15 days for it?

It's not dangerous for an 11-year old to drive a car in Alaska -- especially when he's got three years of experience! Anyone want to bet if he can pass the driving test? Why should there be an arbitrary age for children driving?