Thought Police Are Here

Folsom, CA - 6 August 2010 @ 1823 PDT - A man in Connecticut who said he understood the mindset of the shooter who killed nine people in a workplace shooting on 3 August in Manchester, CT. For that statemnent, fifty-eight-year-old Francis Laskowski was arrested and charged with breach of peace.

Give me a break! Where was the crime? Simply saying he understood what the guy was thinking lands him in jail? No overt act. No threat. A simple statement that he understands what the shooter was going through. If Laskowski is convicted of this crime or a lesser crime, a very dangerous precedent will be set. A precedent where a simple thought (in this case understanding what the shooter was going through) can be enough to be convicted of a crime.

Heaven help us.
____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Stop Forcing the States to Remain Part of the USA!

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 6 August 2010 @ 1230 PDT - I am so tired of hearing the Left try to force American states to remain part of the United States of America. The latest anti-secession opinion I've seen comes from liberal latte-drinking Washington Post writer Dana Milbank. 

From the start, Milbank ridicules the secession movement. She does not even bother to analyze history to see if secession would be allowed. Instead, she points out in her blog post that past presidents have been against secession (as if presidents have ever been right on the law). She quotes Andrew Jackson as saying, "to say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation." (How right he was—more on that in a moment.) Milbank also mentions that "[m]ost conservatives know it sounds loopy to talk about dissolving the union" because of how it turned out before (i.e., the Civil War—or the more correctly named War Between the States). 

Neither of these views on secession by past presidents is correct; however, if the bases for the belief that secession is not allowed are statements like the ones made by Jackson, I can see why liberals jump to that conclusion. Unfortunately, presidents such as Jackson and Lincoln were not great presidents when it comes to upholding the principles upon which this country was founded. I am one of the few people who do not believe the rhetoric taught in public schools and instead believe Lincoln to be one of our worst presidents (he kept the states together by force rather than let the union peaceably dissolve into two ideologically different entities—and contrary to popular belief, Lincoln's primary purpose in keeping the country together was economic, not slave related). Perhaps if liberals knew history (and not the sorry politically correct history taught in public schools) they wouldn't be so quick to poo-poo the idea of secession.

The most important thing to remember is that governments at all levels in a free society are created by the people. If you were to picture each possible act, privilege, right, power (whatever you want to call them) that each person has been endowed by nature as a stick, and if you bundled all those sticks together, you would get a "bundle of rights." This bundle of rights represents the rights individuals have in a complete anarchy. A government only gets the powers the people choose to take from their bundle of sticks and pass on to the government. The individual retains all other rights.

With the bundle of rights in mind, let's get back to Jackson's statement that if states can leave the union whenever they want, the USA is not a nation. Jackson was correct—the USA is not a nation. It is a federation. A republic—a union—of sovereign states. A nation has complete power over all its people. A national government can veto or declare null any law that is passed by some smaller government agency under it. In a federation, the federal government (notice the US doesn't have a national government—we have a federal government) only has a say in what it does based on the rights and powers it was given by the states.

Back in the 18th century, the word "state" was synonymous with "country." A state was a sovereign entity that could do anything the likes of Britain, France, Spain, Germany, or any other European country could do. The Declaration of Independence averred that the colonies were to be "free and independent states." In other words, until the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution came along, each state was 100% sovereign and could do anything any other country could do.

Following the signing of the Declaration of Independence, each of these states created its own constitution. In drafting and ratifying the state constitutions, the individuals in each state willingly gave up a subset of rights (i.e., handed over some subset of sticks out of the bundle) to the state government. The people retained all the other rights and privileges endowed to them by nature and the states went on with a small bundle of sticks representing their powers.

When the states came together to create the Articles of Confederation, they did not hand over all their power (sticks) to the central government. They simply took a few of the sticks out of their bundle and gave those to the central government. All the sticks (i.e., rights, powers, privileges) remaining in the states' hands were for the states to exercise. And, probably more importantly, the sticks not in the states' hands nor in the federal government's hands, remained with the people (tenth amendment, anyone?).

As everyone should already know, the Articles of Confederation proved a bit too loose for the states and soon the states wanted to reform the central government. At that point, the states took back all the sticks from the central government and created a slightly more powerful federal government (in other words, each state gave a few more sticks to the federal government than they did under the Articles) "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . ." Again, all the other sticks they kept in their bundle represented rights the states could exercise and all the sticks the individuals retained were the powers and rights they had not given up to the state.

For those of you saying, "Thanks for the history lesson, but what does that have to do with secession," let me finish connecting the dots for you. We have to go back to the initial premise that all governments formed in a free society are voluntarily created by the people. That means that if the people do not want to continue to give certain rights, powers, or privileges to their government, they have the power to dissolve that government or their ties to that government and start again. This dissolving of ties is exactly what the Declaration of Independence stated it was doing in its preamble:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The founders understood that governments only worked for so long. They understood that times change, people change, governments change. They understood that eventually a government that seemed great when it was formed may no longer be great for some or all of the people it governs. The founders knew that secession was often the only option.

It seems that we are again on the verge of having to secede. If only liberals would realize how happy we could all be with two federal governments—one with Obama at the helm advocating socialism and love for all and another where freedom loving libertarian types could go to be left alone by the federal government—we could each go our separate ways and live happily ever after.  And isn't that what liberals want for everyone, anyway?
____________________________
Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Pirates Taunt Obama; President Must Take Action

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 15 April 2009 @ 1116 PDT - Now that Obama's heroic rescue (at least to hear him speak of it) of Captain Phillips is complete, the pirates are pissed. They have vowed revenge against the U.S. and have already tried to exact it.

I'm not saying that Obama should not have used force against the pirates (in fact, he should have done so sooner), but I am saying Obama can't sit behind his political gloating that he saved the captain. Obama will actually have to continue to take a hard stance against the pirates, backing his words up with action. So far, though, Obama is nothing but words.

The pirates have already attacked another U.S. ship, bringing the total to four ships attacked within 48 hours of the rescue of Captain Phillips. So what can Obama do to reduce the risk to American ships first and foremost and then to have an overflow effect on reducing risks to ships from other countries? Well, he could attack the pirates outright. I mean, come on, the French just attacked a pirate "mothership," so what is the U.S. doing sitting on its laurels? The French took military action before the United States did. Something is seriously wrong with that picture.

Barring an outright attack (which I don't think Obama has the guts—or other body parts—for), Obama could (in order from most to least preferable):

• Put military escorts on U.S. maritime ships; 
• Work on passing legislation that would allow (or mandate) these ships to have weapons on board; 
• Outfit the ships with "high tech" non-lethal weapons like the ones described in the Fox News article Ten High-Tech Weapons to Repel Pirates; 
• Do nothing, continue talking about the problem, take credit when things go well, claim Republican stonewalling when things go poorly.

I hope Obama will surprise us by taking out these terrorists with a show of extreme force. After all, wasn't Obama's campaign slogan "Hope"? I won't hold my breath, though . . .

Updated 4 May 2009 @ 1913 PDT: Showing that these pirates weren't exactly the top of their class, France arrested 11 Somali pirates who mistook a French military vessel for a commercial ship.  Oops.

Updated 27 May 2010 @ 1430 PDT: At least the Russian military can and does take on the pirates. They invoke 18th and 19th century maritime laws still in effect to board pirate ships and do with them as the captain of the boarding party sees fit. Obama should take lessons.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill (SB1070 / HB 2162)

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 27 May 2010 @ 1314 PDT - I can't believe that liberals are making such a to-do out of the Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration law that was enacted on 23 April 2010. It is a very basic law—only 10 pages or so in length. It prohibits any local or state agency from failing to fully enforce the federal laws on immigration. In other words, it makes AZ actually enforce the law—something the federal government won't do. As a result, there can be no "sanctuary" cities in Arizona.

The law further prohibits people from stopping on the road to pickup laborers, makes proof of legal immigration status a requirement for social programs in Arizona, and allows Arizona officials to verify immigration status before enrolling a person in a hand-out program.

As soon as the law passed, commentators were distressed beyond belief. Many of these commentator haven't even read the bill! Including, of all people, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder! What an imbecile to show up to hearings on the Arizona law not having read a ten page law! If you are going to argue against (or for) something, get the first-hand facts by reading the original document!

These same uneducated (by virture of not having read the law) commentators claim(ed) that the law allows cops to request "papers" from anyone who isn't white just because they may be here illegally. No, it doesn't. It does allow the police to request a document that establishes legal entry into the country if the police are contacting that person for some other reason. And let's face it—if the cops are talking to you for some other reason, you probably did something that could be construed to be illegal. Only the most liberal and anti-American among us would claim that under those circumstances police should be prohibited from asking about immigration status.

Commentators fret that this law will result in racial profiling and harassing of "minorities." Nope. It won't. And if it does, did you know there are already laws that prohibit racial profiling and harassment? If you have at least two brain cells, you did. To top it of, the Arizona law itself prohibits using race or ethnicity for any reason not authorized by federal law.

Commentators also worry that non-whites will be targeted, harassed, jailed, and deported without being able to prove their immigration status a la Born in East LA. That's not the case. Proving legal immigration status can be accomplished very simply by producing:

• a valid Arizona driver's license;
• a valid Arizona non-operating identification;
• a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal ID; or
• if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid U.S. federal, state, or local government issued ID (e.g., military ID, passport, etc.).

Let's see. In most states, you have to show a driver's license when you get pulled over or if a police officer wants to verify your identity. How is this any more cumbersome? It doesn't call for a national ID (in fact, it expressly discounts that fact). It doesn't make you carry any other documents that you shouldn't already have on you. It doesn't burden anyone other than illegal immigrants who should not be here anyway!
In a nutshell, the Arizona law requires that the federal immigration laws be enforced in Arizona. AZ did not make immigration laws more strict. They did not make enforcement laws stricter than federal law. They simply said that since the feds won't enforce the law, Arizona will.
If you don't like the law, move out of Arizona. If you don't live in AZ, you have no basis to complain—it's a state law. It does not affect you if you don't live in AZ, so quit your whining! If the feds would do their job and enforce the laws they wrote—and passed—Arizona would not be forced to take matters into its own hands!
____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

President O-bow-ma?

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 9 April 2009 @ 0858 PDT - On April 1st, President Obama, in his America-bashing trip to Europe and the middle east, decided to put America down, yet again, by bowing before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Of course, the left (including the White House and liberal bloggers) are saying everything from O-bow-ma did not bow to the King—he just had to bend WAY down to reach the short guy's hand—to "well, Bush bowed, too, so get over it."

All of the claims of the liberal left, though, are disingenuous. The White House claiming—unofficially—that O-bow-ma had to bend over to shake the king's hand is preposterous. The king is not that short—certainly no shorter than the 5' 4" Queen of England. Oh, and by the way, O-bow-ma did not have to bend over to shake the short queen's hand, so why did he have to do it for the taller king's hand?

As for the liberal blogger at Little Green Footballs (which won't let anyone register on its site anymore to leave comments, interestingly enough), the video of what he claims is President Bush bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia is clearly Bush bending over slightly so the short king can place a medal he is bestowing on Bush around the President's neck. Bush's bending over wasn't a sign of deference like it was when O-bow-ma did it.

If only the left, including the liberal biased media, would stop being partisan in their reporting they would see that O-bow-ma was bowing—not stooping to reach a short person's hand; not bending over to look for a contact; not bending over to inspect the king's shoes; and certainly not bending over to receive a medal. Stop covering up for him. Let him either apologize or defend his actions so America and the world can see what kind of a man we have leading us for . . . 3.5 more years . . .

Updated 18 November 2009 @ 2030 PDT: Oops, O-bow-ma did it again! Obama bowed to the emperor of Japan a few days ago during a trip to Asia. Apparently O-bow-ma thinks the U.S. needs to run to every country with her tail between her legs and beg forgiveness for something. Good grief. I'd wish something horrible to happen to him, but Biden and Pelosi are just as bad. Let's hope he's a one-termer.

Updated 13 April 2010 @ 1235 PDT: Are you freakin' kidding me! He did it again! This time, Obowma bowed to the President of China at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C. This guy will never learn . . .

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Don't Talk to the Police!

Folsom, CA - 21 October 2009 @ 1330 PDT - I wish I had seen this video sooner—it is SO great. Professor James Duane of Regent Law School in Virginia very eloquently and entertainingly explains why the 5th Amendment exists and why no one (not even "innocent" people) should talk to police. Following the professor's talk, 28-year veteran police detective George Bruch (now a student at the law school) gives his perspective. (Hint: He agrees 100% with the professor.)
It's a 45 minute video, but something everyone should watch!
____________________________


Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Kanye West, the Jackass

by Dave C. Jones

San Diego, CA - 17 September 2009 @ 1434 PDT - Finally something I can agree with Obama on—Kanye West is a jackass.

And I must disagree with the Politico tweeter who insinuated such a comment was not "Presidential." Frankly, I think we need more presidents who say it like it is rather than playing politics. At least we know where Obama actually stands on this issue.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Motivational Obama Announces Health Care Plan

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 10 September 2009 @ 2145 PDT - Obama started his address to Congress last night sounding like Tony Robbins. (Or a politician campaigning for office. Wait a minute, isn't he already . . . President? Why the eternal campaigning?) He led off by blowing the proverbial sunshine up our rear ends and he never stopped.

His initial sugar-coated claim was that he "pulled this economy back from the brink" of "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." Yeah, right. Even though his cheering section—the liberals in Congress—were screaming and drooling over him like a bunch of teenage girls at a Jonah Brothers concert, it doesn't make the claim true.

After that touchy-feely moment, the Illustrious One told us of how [w]e are the only advanced democracy on Earth—the only wealthy nation—that allows [medical] hardships for millions of its people." What he fails to mention (or to even care about) is that we are also the freest "advanced democracy" on Earth and we don't want the government running our lives. (Never mind that we aren't a democracy and that our government is stripping us of our freedoms even as you read this.) Obama also claimed that we spend 1.5 times more on health care than any other country and declared "that our health care problem IS our deficit problem."

It is true that we spend a lot of money on health care (that happens when the feds mandate that doctors treat anyone regardless of whether they can pay). However, Obama's plan will not decrease the cost of health care--it will just move the costs around. (This is the inverse of Obama's "spread the wealth around" method of tax and spend; his health care plan is all about "spreading the debt around.")

Obama outlined the following facets of his health care plan:

• If you have health insurance, you can keep it;
• It's great that we can keep our insurance plans if we want to, but how long will the insurance companies be offering those plans? Once the government starts offering insurance, you can bet insurance companies will find it hard to compete. Premiums will rise, people will go for the government option, insurance companies will have to increase premiums again, more people will leave, etc. Soon, insurance companies will be out of business and unemployment will rise).

• If you don't have health insurance, you must get some;
• After all, if everyone doesn't chip in, it will be too expensive for everyone else. (Spoiler alert! Obama wants to spread the wealth AND the debt.) Obama likened the mandatory health insurance requirement to laws mandating auto insurance. Unfortunately, the two are not the same at all. Auto insurance is required so you can pay for damages to the other guy--not to yourself. If you choose not to carry insurance to cover your own car, no state is going to force you to. Why should the government force us to protect ourselves? (In a society that will pay for your health care if you can't, it is Obama's way of taking the burden off the government and putting it on the insurance companies. Notice I did not say it would decrease costs; it won't. But it will shift the cost from the feds and states to private companies. The end result is still that the individual is footing the bill--the check just goes to Blue Cross instead of Uncle Sam.)

• If you can't afford health insurance, you can get government insurance;
• This is the endgame of liberals anyway. By pushing through a plan that they say has private insurance options, they eventually get what they want because the private insurance companies will soon fold under the burdens of covering pre-existing conditions, paying fees for the best plans, competing with the government, etc.

• Insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions;
• This is a laudable goal, but will increase costs for everyone. Why should the healthy have to pay for the sick? (Spoiler alert! Obama wants to spread the wealth AND the debt.)

• Insurance companies will have to pay a fee for their most expensive policies;
• Why are some plans more costly than others? Likely because they cover the most maladies and treatments. And,do you really think insurance companies will foot the bill for the fee? Of course not. They will pass that fee onto their customers in the form of higher premiums. Eventually, customers won't be able to afford the high premiums for the best policies, forcing insurance companies to drop them. Once the best policies are dropped, only the mediocre to pathetic plans will exist. The mediocre plans will now be the most expensive, so they will have a fee, no one will be able to afford them, and they will be dropped. That cycle will continue until only the crappiest plans are left or everyone is on government insurance.

• No bureaucrat will stand between you and the care you need;
• Yeah, right. If my doctor says I need a $25,000 procedure, you can't tell me Obama won't have his guy look over my medical record to make sure he thinks I need that procedure.

• Employers must provide insurance or assist in paying for insurance;
• Do you really think employers will simply cut their profit by paying for insurance they don't already provide? Nope. They will cut wages, lay people off, or both to have the money to pay for health care. So much for pulling us back from the brink of economic collapse.

• Will not cover illegal aliens;
• That's great. I'm glad. But . . . wait. Won't those 20 million illegals be going to the emergency room? Who pays for it then? That's right, me and you. It's a nice word game that Obama says his plan won't cover illegal aliens, but they get free health care anyway.

• Will not add one one dime to the deficit; and
• That's a cute trick. It'll cost $900 billion dollars in his Highness's opinion and he doesn't think it will add to the deficit? Can you say, "Hello, new taxes"? But if you are considered middle class or low income, I guess you don't care because Obama says your taxes won't go up. (There's that spreading the wealth around thing again.)

• May include medical malpractice tort reform.
• That's a good one. Let's let people sue a doctor for not doing a CAT scan when they come in for a sore throat and later die of a brain tumor. That's brilliant. But what would you expect when Obama has so many attorney friends?

I could go on and on about the problems with Obama's plan specifically and the problems with reforming the health care system generally, but I just don't have the time (hence why my posts have been so few and far between lately).

But, I do want to mention one more thing: Obama says he doesn't like to play politics as usual but he does it all the time. He did it several times last night. And even though the libs thought Obama's speech was so great, I found it disingenuous of him to accuse people in the media and politics of telling "scary stories" designed to frighten segments of the population into being against "health care reform" and then to use his own scare tactics in telling America what will happen if the system is not reformed: "Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result." Oh, please! Talk about fear-mongering!

Do you think I'm fear-mongering with my analysis of Obama's "plan?" I don't think so. But if you disagree with me, feel free to turn me in to the White House Disinformation Office—I enjoy talking to pathetic bureaucrats (please excuse the redundancy).

And until Obama gets his health care plan passed, if you are feeling depressed and just can't afford a shrink, just listen to an Obama speech. He's got the motivational speech down pat.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

William Kostric is a Patriot!

by Dave C. Jones

San Diego, CA - 12 August 2009 @ 2130 PDT - William Kostric, openly wearing a gun in a holster and hoisting a sign saying "It is time to water the tree of liberty," appeared outside the New Hampshire town hall meeting where President Obama spoke yesterday. His sign and his gun drew a lot of ire from the liberal media and some attention from the police.

For instance, Chris Matthews of MSNBC wanted to know why Kostric brought a "God-damned gun" to a presidential event. Upon hearing that a man had a gun at the event, Carlos Watson (also of liberal MSNBC fame) called for the police to disarm Kostric. In true liberal fashion, Watson simply could not believe that someone could carry a gun and bepeaceable.

Additionally, MSNBC reported that the Secret Service told Kostric he could be arrested for being within 1000 feet of a school with the gun if he left private property (he was on church grounds). Unfortunately, the so-called "Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990" was overturned in U.S. v Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549 as an overreaching of the federal government's Commerce Clause powers. In 1996, Congress reenacted a more narrowly drawn version (18 USC section 44, subsection (q)(2)(B)) but Kostric did not violate that law because he was on private property and may even have had a permit to carry the gun in New Hampshire (which would have allowed him to leave the church grounds with the gun).

William Kostric is a patriot. He went out to the town hall meeting, peaceably demonstrated, and exercised his second amendment rights at the same time. My only gripe about the whole incident (aside from it probably leading to more gun control) is that he had to carry openly and stay on private property. There is absolutely NO reason he should be restrained in how or where he carries a gun. I don't care if the president had been touching Kostric at the time and Kostric had been yelling that he hoped the president died (which is not a threat, by the way). Simply exercising two of his rights—his right to bear arms and his right to free speech—at the same time (God forbid!) should not give the government any say in whether an American carries a gun.

Kostric is also a patriot for putting himself up to the public scrutiny that is normally reserved only for candidates for public office. As I mentioned yesterday, when the media and political opponents disagree with your viewpoint and when they view you as a threat to their goals, they smear you to eliminate you. Kostric is a perfect example of that leftist tactic.

Salon.com reports that Kostric:

• Is a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People, "the far-right group best known for joining a lawsuit challenging Obama's right to be president based on his not being a U.S. citizen";
  


• Has a MySpace page that lists his "heroes" as:


• Robert Schultz, "the anti-tax activist and We the People founder who spent a ton of his own money on ads promoting the Birther movement";


• Randy Weaver, "the white supremacist and right-wing activist who survived the Ruby Ridge confrontation with federal agents";


• Ayn Rand's John Galt;


• Thomas Jefferson;


• Libertarian/GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul; and


• William Wallace, the Scottish resistance leader portrayed in Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."


• Is MySpace "friends" with "the Free State Project, a group organizing libertarians to move to New Hampshire and expand on the state's "Live Free or Die" credo, and ultimately secede from the union";


• Signed "two pledges at PledgeBank, a site that lets people organize around various causes." Kostric's two pledges include:


• "[M]ove to New Hampshire by 12/31/2008 where I will work to bring about a society in which government’s maximum role is protecting life, liberty, and property"—the credo of Free State Project members; and


• "[R]efuse to accept a national ID card," a cause among many far-right libertarians.
  

Whew! With a resume like that, no wonder the liberals are worried about this guy!

Come on! Seriously? The media vilifies this guy for:

• Wanting proof that the president is Constitutionally eligible to serve as president;


• Not liking taxes (remember the original Boston Tea Party?);


• Siding with a guy who was framed by the Clinton administration and whose entire family and way of life was destroyed by Janet Reno;


• Thinking Atlas should shrug;


• Liking one of our Founding Fathers (that's probably the most damning fact for him);


• Admiring a libertarian;


• Respecting a man who fought for his country's independence;


• Associating with a group that wants to limit the role of government to that specified in the Constitution and for taking an oath to help meet that goal; and


• Refusing to submit to registration of people at the national level.

None of this is extreme unless you are a liberal who despises the original Constitution and its clear meaning. Clearly, the media falls into that category as do Obama, the majority of Democrats in office today, and even a majority of Republicans in office.

It is precisely because too many people across this country believe Kostric is an extremist that I do not think this country will ever again be on the correct track. Unlike Glenn Beck, I do not think the country will wake up and correct its course. We are too far gone. There are too few people left who believe in the America that our Founders created to be able to affect change at the ballot boxes. There is no way that we can regain the original glory of this country without feeding the tree of liberty.

As Kostric's sign alluded, Thomas Jefferson said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I wish Jefferson was wrong. But, like most everything else Jefferson did and said, he is correct. It is far longer than the 20 years Jefferson predicted would be necessary to maintain freedom. I wish it would be longer still but I just don't think we will ever get back to a state of freedom without heeding Jefferson's words.

We need more patriots like William Kostric—and we need them now.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Today, Mr. Smith Could Never Go To Washington

by Dave C. Jones

San Diego, CA - 12 August 2009 @ 0830 PDT - Although Mr. Smith was appointed, not elected, he stands as the epitome of the common man going to Washington to affect change. Unfortunately, he would never win an election and would face a tough time in Washington today.

People hate politicians—no one likes them. Politicians say what the people want to hear but then the politicians do what they want to do anyway. The people know they are being lied to (just ask anyone who went to the "health care" town hall meetings) but there is nothing they can do but voice their opinions and hope for the best. No matter what Obama says, hope does not lead to change.

The Mr. Smiths among us want to change Washington. Not in the way Obama has—not in a way that leads to socialism or fascism, but in a way that takes us firmly back to the roots of this nation. Unfortunately, when the Mr. Smiths among us make it in the world of politics, we are seen as a threat and ridiculed just as Mr. Smith was in the '30s. Look no further than Sarah Palin as an example of a Mrs. Smith who made it big in politics only to be smeared in the media when she became a threat to the left's golden child.

Besides the fear of smear attacks that will hurt our families, the would-be Mr. (and Mrs.) Smiths out there also have the formidable hurdle of the campaign to overcome. No longer can a person merely post their platform on the web, in a newspaper, or via a television or radio interview. No, apparently today's "undecided" voters need candidates to hand-hold them; to kiss their babies' cheeks; to kowtow to their whims before they decide to vote for them. And, of course, all of this travel and butt-kissing on the part of the would-be "politician" costs beaucoup bucks. According to some reports, it can take $10 million to make a credible Senate run.

How can any normal person who does not want to be a "politician" serve the public when it costs so much to convert the undecided voters out there? I've already said that the independents and undecided voters out there are ruining America. The price tag they put on elections is just more proof that they are doing so.

And the final straw is that campaign checklists include sponsoring polls to find out what the public thinks about various issues. In a Utopian society, polls would allow the candidate to figure out how he would actually act once elected—not just how to get elected. In other words, the polls would let the candidate know that if he wanted to run for state office in California he better campaign as a pro-immigration, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion candidate. And, if he wants to be re-elected, he better vote that way once elected. Unfortunately, "politicians" use polls to know what the public wants to hear so they can write speeches to get elected. Politicians very rarely follow the will of the people once elected.

If the health care town halls have taught us anything, it is that America is fed up with politics as usual in DC. It's time for hundreds of Mr. Smiths to go to Washington. It's too bad, though, that given the cost, the "politics" involved, and the hypocrisy, a Mr. Smith would never get elected today and would be smeared if he did.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Gun Advertising on Television - Thanks to Henry Repeating Arms!

by Dave C. Jones

San Diego, CA - 5 August 2009 @ 1130 PDT - I don't know if I just don't notice it or it just doesn't happen very often, but I just saw an advertisement on television for guns! I've never noticed gun ads on TV before and thought it was awesome.

Why don't we see more companies advertising their guns on radio or TV? Is it that the liberal media conglomerates who own the airwaves won't sell the airtime? Is it that manufaturers fear the backlash the media and the public may give them?

I don't know what the reason is, but I was very happy to see Henry Repeating Arms advertising on Fox News channel. If you are in the market for a fine rifle, give them a call and let them know you heard about them from Fox News!

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

American Journalists Released from N. Korea--Woohoo?

by Dave C. Jones

San Diego, CA - 5 August 2009 @ 0830 PDT - I posted some comments to my Facebook friends' wall posts praising Bill Clinton for securing the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. My comments essentially were that these women illegally crossed into North Korea (or were in the process of doing so), they were not subject to U.S. law at that point, and they should be stuck with the consequences of their actions. When you travel to a foreign country, you subject yourself to the laws of that country. As the saying goes, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

I was hounded by a bunch of my liberal friends and their liberal friends responding to my comments. One of those people hopes I get a maximum sentence if I ever commit a crime and another thinks it is the duty and responsibility of the U.S. to send journalists all over the world to report on wrongs committed by other countries and then have the U.S. correct those wrongs.

Don't get me wrong—I love my friends even though I think many of them are misguided. But I thought I should elaborate on my concerns.

To start with, let me be clear: I am very happy that these two women will not be put in a hard labor camp for 12 years where it is highly likely they would have died. I am not happy, however, that the U.S. spent time and money to deal with North Korea to secure their release and may have compromised our position in world diplomacy in the process.

First and foremost, these women chose to break North Korean law. They illegally crossed the border into a country that has plainly stated that foreign journalists are not welcome. If the U.S. rattles its sabers at North Korea to release these illegal border jumpers and not subject them to the law of North Korea, what kind of message does that send to illegal aliens in the U.S?

Additionally, Kim Jong-Il did not release these women for "free." The U.S. must have given him something he wanted. Although Obama tried to deny it, North Korea media reported that Bill Clinton delivered a message to Jong-Il. I have no doubt that this trip was sanctioned by Obama and that Obama sent a message with Clinton. A has-been president of the U.S. is useless to Kim Jong-Il; he needs some sort of buy-in from the current administration for him to secure influence. Obama gave that buy in to Jong-Il via the message Clinton delivered.

Americans lament our poor stature among other countries, but the saber rattling Clinton performed yesterday is a large reason Americans are considered arrogant in the international community. Look how this all went down:

1. Korea says they don't want foreign journalists in the country;
2. The women could not enter legally because they were journalists, so they jumped the border illegally;
3. They got caught, were tried, and were sentenced under North Korean law;
4. The U.S. argued for their release (and likely gave Jong-Il something he wanted); and
5. The women go back to America with virtually no punishment.

How is that not the height of arrogance? How can the U.S. expect other countries to respect us when we won't respect their laws when we are in their territory?

I would be furious if it was a North Korean who came to America under similar circumstances and the U.S. just released him to Jong-Il. Why should Koreans be happy about the U.S. doing the same to them?

As former U.N. ambassador John Bolton said, this whole trip and the negotiations leading up to it was dangerously close to negotiating with terrorists. The problem with Bolton is he is too diplomatic (a side effect of being an ambassador, I guess). I would say that this actually was negotiating with terrorists. Up until now, the U.S. did not negotiate with terrorists. I guess that policy has now changed.

And why rattle our sabers for these women? What about the other Americans held in foreign countries? Why are they less important? It couldn't be that those other Americans don't work for a "news" agency founded by Al Gore, could it? No, I didn't think so. That would not be fighting for the underprivileged and ensuring justice; it would simply be playing politics and rewarding those who have connections. Even liberals should despise that. But if it wasn't that, why do we have other compatriots languishing in foreign prisons without attempting to free them?

To top it off, even though no military action was used (or, perhaps, because no military action was used), the release of these women may actually have caused diplomatic problems in the region and around the world. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, some experts predict that:

• Jong-Il will use the photos with Clinton as propaganda showing his people that his saber rattling (a la the crappy missiles he launched) got the U.S. to negotiate with him, lending him credibility and setting the stage for one of his sons to take over the country;
• Russia and China may ask that international sanctions against North Korea be lifted;
• Other allies in the region (e.g., Japan and S. Korea) may feel left out and vulnerable if they believe the U.S. is entering into bilateral talks with N. Korea; and
• Other nations holding U.S. citizens may now expect former U.S. presidents or other high ranking U.S. officials to open talks with them.

What a mess. All for two women who chose to break the law of North Korea (or at least to cut it close by filming into North Korea even if they weren't actually in North Korea). If you play with fire, expect to get burned. But these women got lucky. I just hope the U.S. did not give up anything important or harm our relations with any other country to secure the release of these careless women.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Switzerland Bans Ammunition in the Home

by Dave C. Jones

San Diego, CA - 4 Aug 2009 @ 0830 PDT - The last bastion of firearms rights—Switzerland—appears to have all but disappeared. I must have missed a bunch of newspaper and TV news reports from September 2007 until today. It turns out that the Swiss are no longer as heavily armed as they used to be. In fact, the U.S. may actually out rank them as the most heavily armed country in the world.

In September 2007, Switzerland passed a law preventing all but a handful of Swiss men from keeping ammunition at their homes. So, even though all able-bodied men must enter military service and keep a rifle at home, they won't be allowed the ammunition to fire the guns.. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.

It was only Switzerland's privately owned firearms (and ammunition) that prevented them from being attacked in WWI and WWII and that has helped them remain neutral in several other wars. Apparently today's Swiss think they are too good to be attacked in the future and they don't need to protect themselves. Or, perhaps, they think the U.S. will bail them out like we bail out every other country that can't (or won't) help themselves.

Unfortunately, it seems that the short-sightedness and egos of the Swiss have led to their effective disarming of the population. After a few shootings with "army" guns, the population is calling for a ban on all guns—the ammunition is just a first step. In an all too familiar to U.S. gun owner statement, the Swiss government said that they do not want to ban all guns and that hunters should not worry about keeping their guns for hunting.

Give me a break. Owning guns for hunting is no the point. The point of private ownership of guns is to protect against crime, foreign invasions, and domestic tyranny.

Additionally, using suicides and murders as a reason to ban guns or ammunition is disingenuous. No law will ever prevent all murders, rapes, suicides, etc. Given that Switzerland has approximately 2.3 million guns in circulation, 280 deaths per year from firearms is minuscule. That means that only one in 8,214 guns has been used in a suicide or murder. (Compare that to the 250,851,833 cars registered in the U.S. in 2006 and the 42,642 deaths attributed to cars that year. Those numbers mean that one car out of every 5,882 caused a death. In other words, you are 140% more likely to die from a car than from a gun, but I don't hear anyone calling for bans on cars or gasoline!)

But, like liberals in any other country, every life is precious and even one death is too many. Never mind the many more that will die from not having the firearms in the hands of private citizens. As in the U.S., Swiss liberals can't see the forest for the trees. God help the Swiss!

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Glenn Beck: Cars.gov Allows Government to Take Over Your Computer

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 3 Aug 2009 @ 0830 PDT - I love Glenn Beck. I really do. He tells it like it is and airs stories that no one else would. For instance, his story Friday about the Cars.gov website and the broad use agreement the government makes users agree to when entering the site. (See the whole cars.gov segment from the Glenn Beck show.)

Essentially, the end user license agreement states that if you enter the site you agree that your computer is deemed to be a federal computer and that all the contents of your computer and anything you transmit to or from your computer is subject to intercept by the government. The feds say they can give whatever information they intercept or find on your computer to law enforcement and other agencies both foreign and domestic!

Is this a major power grab or what? I don't care what the feds think their justification is for their broad terms of use agreement but it is not necessary and is highly likely to be abused even if the intentions were good when it was written.

I would not go to that site on my computer. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish, but I don't trust the government at all. And when they openly say they are going to take all your information if you enter their site, why should I trust them?

Updated 3 Aug 2009 @ 1915 PDT: Today, Glenn Beck announced that the White House has removed the language about the feds being able to commandeer your computer and search all data and communications "touching" the computer. The exact terms of the new use agreement are still being determined by the Obama adminstration, but at least the language has been removed. Of course, as Judge Napolitano stated on Glenn's show today, the real question is whether the adminstration is still intercepting communications to and from these dealer's computers but simply removed the disclaimer statement. The PATRIOT Act authroizes the government to do those types of warrantless searches— (and see Wiki for more info) but getting a person's "consent" is a whole lot easier than arguing these sticky issues in court. We'll have to see how it plays out.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Government Butts Into Private Lives . . . Again.

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 1 Aug 2009 @ 2230 PDT - In Wisconsin, Dale Neumann was convicted today of second degree reckless manslaughter for the "faith healing" death of his 11-year-old daughter. I could not be more disgusted with the people of this country. How can we possibly assert our views and beliefs on this man and his family?

Neumann is Pentecostal, believing that the Bible teaches that God will heal and that going to a doctor to heal places God second to doctors. He claims that he and the family believed his daughter had the flu and that their prayers would heal her. Once she stopped breathing, the family did call 911.

Whatever you may think of faith healing and those who believe in it, why should your beliefs trump theirs? Simply put, they should not.

I know, I know. What about that poor child? Who's going to speak for her? Her parents. I don't care if you think they are crazy or misguided. The parents should have ultimate say over their kids.

Call me whatever you like, but it's not as if this world is hurting for people. It's not as if all but ten people on the planet got wiped out in some doomsday scenario. The all-knowing government (through its apparently all-knowing citizenry) should not be dictating how parents raise their kids even if some of those decisions lead to the death of kids. Neumann will be judged by God when his time comes. He did not do anything to society at large—just to his own family.

And if you still don't agree with me, riddle me this: Why should someone who puts their faith in God to heal their child who ultimately dies be any more legally culpable than someone who places their trust in a doctor to heal their child who ultimately dies?

If a person's actions only harm his own family and not society at large, government should back off and keep its nose (and other parts) out of our private lives.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Burdened Enough (Even Without Government Health Care)

by Dave C. Jones

Los Angeles, CA - 9 July 2009 @ 0830 PDT - I'm tired of hearing about how much we need the government to reform health care. In fact, I'm tired of hearing about government reform of anything. Everytime the government gets involved in anything, they expect more money from me (and anyone else who pays taxes). I have enough financial and emotional burdens already. I really do not need to take on the responsibility of paying for your blood pressure medication or the treatment of your best friend's bipolar disorder.

For some strange reason, though, people think the government (and Obama in particular) can improve health care. I don't know why people think that the government will improve anything it "reforms," let alone something so personal as health care. What has the government ever made better by reforming (i.e., regulating) it?

N-O-T-H-I-N-G. That's what.

In fact, government and all the do-gooders out there have caused the problems in health care that we now have. That's right—the government and the liberals on both sides of the aisle have caused:

• Medical care costs to sky rocket;


• Health insurance costs to sky rocket;


• Pharmaceutical drug costs to sky rocket; and


• Medical malpractice insurance costs to sky rocket.

How did the do-gooders (or as I lovingly refer to them, the touchy-feely liberals [a.k.a., TFLs]) cause these problems? By trying to regulate health care.

Without government regulation and intervention, society is like a calm lake. Society is at peace; in harmony. Regulations are like stones thrown into that calm lake. Each regulation—no matter how well intentioned—causes ripples that cause problems in other areas of society, disturbing society's harmony. Naturally, Big Brother has to step in to smooth the waters again. And how does Big Brother do that? With another regulation. Each of these "fixes" causes more ripples that result in more regulatory "fixes," ad infinitum.

In the case of health care, I'm not sure what happened first to cause all the problems, but there are several things that certainly are not helping:

• Free medical care via the "emergency" departments at hospitals;


• Drug companies reducing prices for seniors and others who cannot afford their drugs;


• Trial attorneys filing huge lawsuits against doctors (and juries and judges awarding those astronomical damages);


• Doctors ordering tests (often expensive ones) to rule out maladies that are extremely rare and unlikely to be the problem in patients who can't pay for services;


• And so on.

How would I fix the system, you ask? I would take the libertarian approach of not allowing anyone to take an action that will adversely affect me or anyone else. Specifically, I would not let doctors treat anyone who could not pay (either privately or through insurance) at the same rate as everyone else is charged UNLESS the doctor wants to eat the cost himself. That means the doctor could not charge other people more to cover the care he gave to a person who could not pay.

Before you label me "heartless," ask yourself why I should have to pay for your kids' health care or why you should have to pay for mine. Why should I have to pay for the lung cancer treatment for the guy who smoked a pack a day for 30 years? Why should you have to pay for your neighbor's bypass surgery when it was his genes or his Big Mac a day that led to the problem?

I know, I know. You think all we need is a regulation prohibiting smoking so lung cancer goes away. Or you think we need to tax Big Macs into oblivion. Or you think some other regulation will prevent these problems. I've got news for you. If that's what you think, you are part of the problem.

Regulations of any sort result in a loss of freedom. I want that guy to be able to smoke a pack a day if he wants to—but I don't want to suffer the consequences. I want your neighbor to be able to eat a Big Mac each day if he wants to—but I don't want to pay for it. With everyone paying their own way, everyone is free to make their own choices—and to live with the consequences.

As a side effect of making everyone pay their own health care costs—or forgo treatment—health care costs would go down for everyone. If you and I don't have to pay for the MRI, CT scans, radiation treatments, and other costly tests and treatments for people who can't pay for them, hospitals and doctors can lower prices across the board. Suddenly people who now cannot afford to pay cash for health care would be able to pay for it.

As for those who still could not afford medical care, they should turn to their friends, family, church, and neighbors. I do think helping your neighbors, friends, and family is noble and may even be your ethical and moral obligation, but we don't need another law to force people to help others. If you want to help others, join a church, start a fund, collect donations, etc. But do not use the strong arm of the law to forcibly take money from me to pay for others' health care.

It's about time everyone took personal responsibility for their own lives and actions and stopped expecting everyone else to shoulder their burdens. If we all carried our own financial and emotional weight, we'd all find life more enjoyable and less of a burden.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

State Orders Dr. John Muney to Stop Treating Patients for $79/month

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 5 March 2009 @ 0951 PST - I was listening to Tom Sullivan yesterday and heard about Dr. John Muney of New York and his innovative method of servicing those who cannot afford health insurance. In a nutshell, he charges his patients $79 per month plus $10 per visit. In other words, for about $1,000 per year, his patients do not have to worry about routine illnesses or anything else that can be taken care of in Dr. Muney's offices.

Who could possibly have a problem with that plan? Apparently, the New York state insurance regulators do. The state told Dr. Muney that his plan is an insurance policy and he has to be licensed to sell insurance.

Give me a break. The government cries out of one side of its mouth that society has an obligation to ensure that every person has access to health care; then, out of the other side, it berates doctors who do something to make that goal a reality. What the government really wants is complete control of everything. If the government really cared about the people, New York state would have no problem with what Dr. Muney is doing. In fact, the state should be recommending that idea to doctors all over the state.

Unfortunately, the state sees money running through its fingers. Rather than Dr. Muney submitting claims to Medicare, he collects cash. Rather than paying the state insurance licensing fees, he shuns insurance, enabling his patients to pay cash. The government worries that if all doctors did this, the government would not be able to continue employing people to process insurance, doctors could cut overhead by laying off insurance billers and accounts receivable employees, and the economy as we know it would end! Good grief.

The bottom line is that what Dr. Muney is doing here is not conceptually different from what attorneys do when they allow clients to sign a retainer agreement. In essence, a retainer agreement secures the right of the client to call the attorney with any legal problems the retainer agreement says are covered and to have the attorney handle them for an agreed upon rate (either included in the retainer fee, hourly, or flat fee). The "client" may never call the attorney for advice, just as the "patient" may never come in to see Dr. Muney.

I don't know how Dr. Muney's agreements are written or structured, but any good civil attorney should be able to help Dr. Muney modify his agreements so they are essentially putting him on retainer for each of his patients. The agreement would be that Dr. Muney would see the patient within X number of hours for any of the problems he can handle in his office for a retainer fee of $79/month and a flat $10 per problem.

If the state still has problems with the arrangement, it must have a problem with attorney retainer agreements. And, if that is the case, I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands of attorneys who would step up and defend the retainer agreement in both law and medicine.

It's time that people see government for what it is—a leviathan that would rather take complete control of everything rather than fix anything. Just ask Dr. Muney's patients.

For more information:

• New York Post
• News Day
• Crain's

Updated 16 March 2009 @ 1305 PDT: I was listening to Glenn Beck's show on Fox News late last week (Thursday, 12 May 2009, I believe) and heard Dr. Muney giving an update on the situation. Apparently the State of New York changed its mind--somewhat. The State wrote to the doctor and said he could continue to offer his fixed fee $79/month medical care for preventative health but if someone came in complaining of an illness or injury, he would have to charge them at least $33 for that visit. Bureaucracy at work. I hope he is still fighting this with the state, but at least he is not completely shut down . . .

Updated 7 May 2009 @ 2258 PDT: Reuters reports that New York State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell, IV of the 68th Assembly District will be introducing a bill to allow primary care physicians—such as Dr. Muney—to offer services using a flat-fee approach. I have not been able to verify that report yet and another site reports information that may contradict the Reuters story. The New York Post reports that New York State Senator Andrew J. Lanza of the 24th Senate District will be introducing the legislation. Of course, both men could introduce such a bill in their respective chambers, so the two stories don't necessarily mean the reports are incorrect. I will attempt to verify the information and find a link to the legislation when it is available. (Thanks to reader Chris H.—who told me he works for Dr. Muney—for pointing out these articles.)

Updated 8 July 2009 @ 1950 PDT: Apparently other doctors are getting tired of dealing with insurance companies and have opted to try Dr. Muney's approach: flat-rate unlimited healthcare. Let's hope these Seattle doctors have less trouble with the state than Dr. Muney did!

Updated 19 March 2010 @ 1330 PDT: I just got asked by Keith (see comments below) whether there is an update on this issue. I hadn't heard anything, but given the state of the healthcare debate, I thought it would be interesting to look into this. I did some digging on (where else?) the Internet and found the website for Dr. Muney's medical group, AMG. It still shows that people can get unlimited preventative healthcare for $79 a month. This appears to be the same status as it was in as of 16 March 2009 when the State of New York changed its stance to allow preventative care for a flat fee but not illness or injury care. And the Democrats wonder why there is so much opposition to their healthcare "reform" bill!

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com. Read more of his writings at blog.AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Robert Gibbs Is An Idiot (And Because He Is Still Employed, So Is His Boss)

by Dave C. Jones

Folsom, CA - 2 July 2009 @ 2215 PDT - I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Robert Gibbs is the worst press secretary there could ever be. How is this guy still employed?

The press is slowly coming to the realization that Obama and his administration are anything but transparent and that Obama is trying to use the press as his puppets. Surprisingly, it was CBS News and Hearst Publishing who gave Gibbs grief over the pre-screening of questions and guests at the Annandale, VA, town hall meeting.

Gibbs, being the dim-wit he is, did not see the issue with the town hall and is so unskilled and untalented that he could not politically answer the question and move on. Instead, he giggled nervously like a school girl meeting the Jonas brothers.

Why Obama hasn't fired this guy is a mystery. The only saving grace is Gibbs is a large part of why the press may finally be starting to smell what they've been shoveling . . .

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Ammunition Restrictions on the Horizon in California

by Dave C. Jones

Pleasanton, CA - 1 April 2009 @ 1300 PDT - A drastic anti-gun bill has been introduced in California by Democrat Assembly Member Kevin De Leon. AB 962, as it is numbered, does not attack guns directly—just the ammunition guns need to operate. This bill infringes on the 2nd Amendment the same way licensing and restricting ink would interfere with freedom of the press.

AB 962 would make it illegal to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition unless you are registered with the California Department of Justice (DOJ) as a “handgun ammunition vendor.” The bill also requires that ammunition retailers be licensed, store ammunition out of reach of customers, and submit customer fingerprints to the DOJ. As if those restrictions are not enough, it would be illegal to buy ammunition through the mail. If this bill becomes law in California, you can say goodbye to buying ammunition from sites like AmmoMan.com.

AB 962 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and is scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, April 14. Please call, write, fax, and/or e-mail the Assembly Members who are on the Public Safety Committee and voice your opposition to this bill. If we all do our part, maybe California won't be one step closer to losing yet another right.

Updated 25 June 2009 @ 2215 CDT: The Assembly did it. They passed AB962 out of committee and then the CA Assembly passed it. See who voted for and against AB962 in the Public Safety Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and in the general Assembly. The amended (but not better—and in some ways worse) bill is here.

If you have time, please thank those who opposed it and tell the idiots who voted for it that you will remember it at the polls. But the most important thing is that AB962 is now in the Senate Public Safety Committee scheduled for a hearing on 30 June 2009. It is imperative that you contact the Senate committee members immediately to voice your opposition to AB962.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

There's a 30% Chance of Rain for Tomorrow--Do You Know What the Weatherman Means?

by Dave C. Jones

Fort Worth, TX - 24 June 2009 @2200 CDT - On page 7D of today's issue of USA Today, there is an article about how a simple weather report stating there is a "30% chance of rain tomorrow" is one of the most misunderstood of all forecast phrases.

Really? Who are the morons who don't understand that simple statement? According to the report, a study by a senior lecturer at the University of Washington, Seattle, found that out of 450 college students she surveyed, many of them completely misunderstood the simple weather report. If we assume that most college students are smarter than most non-college graduates, the results for the general public are even sadder.

In what ways can you misconstrue what it means when a person says there is a 30% chance of rain? According to the study, some people think it means it will rain in 30% of the local area or that it will rain 30% of the day. The lecturer recommends that, to avoid confusion, weather reports also include the percent chance of a sunny day—as in, there's a 70% chance of no rain and a 30% chance of rain.

If this study does not prove the pathetic state of our government run educational system, I don't know what does. It's time big brother stops trying to educate our kids. It clearly isn't working.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Boxer Puts General in His Place for a Perceived Faux Pas

by Dave C. Jones

Fort Worth, TX - 23 June 2009 @ 2300 CDT - Barbara Boxer is displaying her idiocy again. This time, it isn't through her legislation (thank goodness), but through her lack of ability to discern what is important.

Last Thursday, Boxer was listening to Brigadier General Michael Walsh of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers testify about the rebuilding of the Louisiana coast following Hurricane Katrina. He referred to Boxer as "ma'am" in one of his remarks and she blew up.

"You know, do me a favor," Boxer said. "Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"

"Yes, ma'am," Walsh interjected.

"It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you," she said.

"Yes, senator," he responded.

I guess Boxer views Walsh as a lowly one star brigadier general who doesn't know how to address people with respect. I'm sure Boxer is wrong if that is what she was thinking. Let's just say that General Walsh made it to the rank of general by being much more diplomatic than I would have been.

Clearly Boxer was more concerned with her ego than with focusing on the work being done on the Louisiana coast reconstruction. I really hope the rest of her constituents are glad she squared away Brig. Gen. Walsh and cleared up her title. As for me, notice I'm not calling her "senator" or "ma'am" here.

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.

Oklahoma Pharmacist Charged with Murder for Shooting Robber

by Dave C. Jones

Los Angeles, CA - 28 May 2009 @ 1400 PDT - Earlier this week, Jerome Ersland, a pharmacist at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City, shot and killed one of three robbers holding up the pharmacy. According to reports, the robbers told Ersland he was going to die at which point Ersland drew a .380 and shot one of the robbers in the head. Ersland retrieved a larger gun—a Taurus Judge—and fired at the other robber. The first robber started to get up, and Ersland fired five more shots into the robber's chest, killing the 16-year-old. Ersland then exited the store to see where the second robber was going. Ersland saw a third man with a shotgun in what was apparently the getaway car. When Ersland pointed his gun at the man, the car sped away and crashed. The police apprehended the driver and are looking for the third man.

The police arrested and charged Ersland with first degree murder for the killing of the 16 year old boy. The judge ordered that Ersland have no access to guns pending the outcome of this case.

In a surprising and refreshing move, the district attorney handling the case actually argued that Ersland should be able to have guns while this case is pending. The judge would not reverse her decision, however, and the DA told the judge she was making the wrong decision. The question I have to ask is, if the DA is OK with Ersland having guns despite what he contends is first degree murder, why is the DA even charging Ersland?

If I were the DA, I would not charge Ersland. I would let criminals know that if they get shot, injured, or killed in some other manner while committing a crime, there will be no penalty to the person defending himself or his property. I guarantee you that violent crime would decrease drastically.

Additionally, if a defender killed someone while that person was committing a crime, I would charge any accomplices of that criminal with felony murder. The felony murder rule allows for charging any and all perpetrators of a felony with murder if any deaths occur during the commission of the felony. Apparently, the DA may do just that in this case.

Ersland faces an uphill battle here. What he did is probably technically first degree murder as he had the opportunity to reflect on what he was doing (premeditation can be mere seconds) and the first robber was likely out of the fight. Ersland has only two real avenues open to him to escape the first degree murder rap: (1) he was really in fear of his life when the 16-year-old with the gun shot wound to the head starting getting up (maybe he had a gun in his hand, immediately near by, etc.) and (2) jury nullification.

If I represented Ersland, I would argue that the 16-year-old was still a clear and present danger and, even if the jury doesn't think he was or if they think Ersland was irrational in his fear, I would argue that the kid deserved to die and that to find Ersland guilty would send a message to criminals that it is open season on law abiding citizens.

I really hope Ersland is acquitted or the DA gets a clue and drops the charges. If not, the liberals have hopelessly perverted our country and our justice system.

Updated 23 June 2009 @ 2218 CDT: Here are some more stories about Ersland's shooting of criminals who were robbing his pharmacy:

• The DA will be able to examine Ersland's military records.


• The DA will also probably try to make a claim that Ersland's mental state is unstable.


• A blatantly biased article from a "news" website. (If it is opinion, it should say so rather than appearing as if it is the official view of the paper.)

____________________________

Dave Jones is not your typical liberal California criminal defense trial attorney. He is a libertarian who believes in less government, more guns, and greater freedom–in short, the principles on which this country was founded. He can be reached at his law firm, the American Justice Center, via e-mail at djones at AmericanJusticeCenter.com.