Ron Paul Supporters Infiltrate Utah GOP Delegation

Ron Paul supporters have infiltrated the Utah GOP delegation.

And you know what's great about this? They're not kowtowing to the collectivistic statist Republicans.

Here's an excerpt of the Salt Lake Tribune piece that goes into detail about it:

The Ron Paul Revolution will not go quietly.

As they have done in Nevada, Minnesota and elsewhere, a number of Utah Ron Paul backers are trying to get elected Saturday as delegates to the Republican National Convention where, under a proposed rule change, they could be free to vote for whomever they want.

Under existing party rules, the 36 Utah delegates to the convention are obligated to vote for Mitt Romney, who won the state GOP primary with 90 percent of the vote.

But on Saturday, the state party will consider changing its rules to release the delegates and let them vote for whom they see fit.

The proposed bylaws change comes in response to a request from Romney, after he dropped out of the race, to release his bound delegates.

The Paulestinian Dissension

Apparently the Ron Paulistas continue their Revolution, and it's incensing the staunch Republicans.

The Paulites Aren't Done Yet

Ron Paul deserves representation at the Republican national convention in proportion to the support he received in the primaries. And his supporters are prepared to fight like hell to make sure he gets it.

Across the country, at state and county GOP conventions, diehard supporters of maverick Ron Paul are staging uprisings in an effort to secure a role for Paul at the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul....

In Minnesota, Paul loyalists captured seven delegate slots at congressional district meetings, and in Nevada, the convention abruptly recessed on April 26 after balloting showed Paul supporters winning at least half of the initial contests for delegate slots to the national convention....

The Russian Soldier Chorus

A number of Russian soldiers join with The Leningrad Cowboys, a Finnish band, just to sing Alabama's national anthlem.



[H/T to Lew who noticed this.]

More on the Vile and Diabolical Pledge of Allegiance

Those who advocate that vile and diabolical fealty known as the Pledge of Allegiance should take a gander at the website of Pledge expert Rex Curry who provides a thorough documentation and archiving of the Pledge. His site does certainly have a number of disturbing yet legitimate photos of pledge takers in the early years of this fealty.

Check out this sample as well.

Look at the abundance of material on the subject here.

The Supreme Court's 1942 Ruling on the Right to Not Pledge Allegiance to the Flag

The recent suspension of three eighth graders from the public "government" schools brings to mind an old Supreme Court ruling from 1942 -- specifically, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) -- that overturned the State of West Virginia's law that coerced the public "government" school children to stand up to salute the flag and recite the pledge.

The Court ruled the following:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

(Here's the summary of the case here and the entire opinion here.)

[H/T to courageous LRC blogger Laurence Vance for his outstanding blogging on this.]

Three Teenage Heretics Versus That Vile Pledge of Allegiance

Three small-town public "government" schoolers who are in the eighth grade have been placed on suspension for refusing to put their hands on their chests and recite the evil and diabolical Pledge of Allegiance.

Here's more on the story from the Star Tribune:

Three small-town eighth-graders in Minnesota were suspended by their principal for not standing Thursday morning for the Pledge of Allegiance, violating a district policy that the principal now says may soon be reworded to protect free speech rights.

'"My son wasn't being defiant against America,' said Kim Dahl, mother of one of the students, Brandt, who attends Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton Junior High School in northwestern Minnesota.

Brandt told the Forum newspaper in Fargo that Thursday's one-day in-school suspension, 'was kind of dumb because I didn't do anything wrong. It should be the people's choice.'

Kim Dahl said the 'punishment didn't fit the crime. If they wanted to know why he didn't stand, they should've made him write a paper.' She said her son has been declining to stand all school year, offered no reason for sitting and was not obligated to explain his actions.

The school's handbook says all students are required to stand but are not required to recite the pledge. The same is true for all four schools in the district, a school official said.

'These three [students] didn't, and they got caught,' said Mel Olson, the district's community education director. He said he backs the punishment, 'being a veteran and a United States of America citizen, absolutely.' Olson served in the Marines in Japan during the Vietnam War.

The head of the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union said that the school's actions against the students are unconstitutional, and his office informed the district of that today in a strongly worded letter.

'The school can't do that; that's illegal,' said Chuck Samuelson, the civil liberties group's executive director. 'Wow.'

Samuelson said that numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings dating to the 1940s say in 'well-settled constitutional law' that 'students who refuse to participate in the pledge cannot be punished for refusing to participate.'

The "Pledge of Allegiance" has always been, is, and always will be a government-approved, government-codified oath to the state. It is a government-mandated act of loyalty to the god known as the state, given that the state has been deified by its own collectivistic sycophants and supporters who believe that control is freedom, welfare is wealth, and the state is the savior of capitalism.

Furthermore, it is an act to centralize government and propagate its myths. It is a radical tool to brainwash and control our children who are forced to attend the government schools and individuals who attend major league sports games in order to become perpetual slaves of the state and its welfare-warfare state antics. It has become so pervasive that it has dominated every facet of our lives.

Let's remember that Francis Julius Bellamy, a Baptist minister and a Christian Socialist, is the author of this evil fealty. He wrote this in 1892 after Lincoln's War Between the States to ensure that everyone was indoctrinated with the following statist tenets:

1. God


2. Government


3. You

Should we really be surprised with this vile, social engineering-worshipping, collectivistic claptrap? This is all the more reason to abolish the public "government schools, the vile and diabolical state itself, and return education to the province of the free market.

[H/T to Lew for his original blog report on this.]

Autopsy Results from Richard and Brenda Kowalski's Bodies Sealed

Autopy results that were completed after an examination of Richard and Brenda Kowalski, the slain Osceola couple and brother of suspect Jerome Kowalksi, are now sealed. According to Channel 4 WDIV, the results of the autopsy won't be released.

Here's the article in question:

Autopsy Conducted On Slain Couple

POSTED: 5:02 pm EDT May 6, 2008
UPDATED: 6:40 pm EDT May 6, 2008


LIVINGSTON COUNTY, Mich. -- Police are not releasing the results of an autopsy conducted on an Oceola Township couple that was found dead Thursday.

Police said the one of the couple's sons went to check on his mother, Brenda Kowalski, 58, and stepfather, Richard, 65, at their home in the 5400 block of Lyngre Drive Thursday afternoon because he had not heard from them in a couple of days and found them both dead in the kitchen.

Police are staying tight-lipped and are not releasing any details of the autopsy or if they are investigating a murder/ suicide or a double homicide.

Neighbors told Local 4 they think the couple was shot to death because investigators asked whether they heard any gunshots in the area.

Neighbors said they were not aware of any personal or money problems and the couple always seemed happy.

Detectives said there was no sign of forced entry.

The home is in Livingston County, about 45 miles northwest of Detroit.

Restauranteurs Now Steamed Over Michigan's Impending Smoking Ban

Apparently a large number of restauranteurs all over the state of Michigan are up in arms over the soon-to-be-passed statewide smoking ban.

Here's the Detroit Free Press piece in its entirety:

May 9, 2008

Restaurateurs steamed up over smoking ban

By Kristofer Karol
DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

Restaurateurs are popping off at legislators after the state Senate approved a bill Thursday that would ban smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces.

The bill now heads back to the House, where it's all but expected to pass, and then it will be good-bye to smoking in many Michigan establishments.

'We have no rights,' Hamburg Pub owner Mike Mills said. 'I know it's not a healthy thing to be smoking, but who are they to tell us? It's like them telling us how much to sell our hamburgers or beer for.

'I'm all for whatever we can do to raise Cain with it.'

Mills estimates 75 percent of his clientele smokes and that he doesn't know what he's going to do to keep his customers, especially in a down economy.

Brenda Sears, manager of Lucky's Pub in Fowlerville, estimates that virtually her entire clientele smokes and that 'very few' people ever come in and ask for a non-smoking area.

'I believe it's going to hurt the business, especially if it's more of a bar-type atmosphere,' Sears said. Ninety-nine percent of the people like to smoke when they're drinking.'

Some restaurateurs say their colleagues are overreacting.

Sharon Kisak, co-owner of the Yum Yum Tree in Brighton, voluntarily made her restaurant smoke-free in 1993. It was the first restaurant in the county to do so.

'I had customers say if you do it, you will not see us again and there were some we didn't see again, but more said we'll come because it is smoke free,' Kisak said.

'(It was) maybe three months where business dropped, but then it came up again. As word got out you couldn't smoke, the non-smokers came here.'

Craig Heath, owner of Brighton Bar & Grill in Brighton, also made the switch to a smoke-free establishment in November 2006.

While he made the change, he still doesn't support the smoking ban.

'Overall, I think it has been the right thing for Brighton Bar & Grill, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing for all restaurants,' Heath said.

'Some are complete bars, some are bars that have food, some are restaurants that have some alcohol — there's all different kinds of restaurants with or without alcohol.'

State Reps. Chris Ward, R-Genoa Township, and Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township, said they will oppose the bill when it is up for a vote in the House.

'This is yet another good way to drive businesses out of the state,' Hune said. 'Who am I to tell the Bloated Goat in Fowlerville how to run their business?'

Ward said he voted against the measure before and he will again.

'I just don't understand why the market can't sort this out,' Ward said. 'It's all well and good until it's your bad habit they go after.'

While business owners are noticeably upset with the bill, Cleary's Kevin Cleary offered a silver lining.

'Everybody's got to play by the same rules,' Cleary said, adding it's not just the Howell establishment's business that would be affected.

David Beauchamp, owner of Champ's Pub in Brighton, said he has already taken a proactive approach with smoking, including adding state-of-the-art ventilation filters.

The last thing he needs, he noted, is more regulation from the state.

'This is like my family room,' Beauchamp said, 'and I should be able to run it the way, within the law, I see fit.'

Jerome Kowalski Now Charged With Murder of Brother and Sister-in-law

Jerome Kowalski, the man who was placed under arrest under suspicion of murder of his brother Richard and his wife (Jerome's sister-in-law) Brenda, has been charged with the crime of shooting and killing them in the kitchen of their home in Oceola Township in Livingston County.

As of this moment, Kowalski has been arraigned "on two counts of felony murder and one count felony firearm" in the murders and has been placed "under suicide watch" at the Livingston County jail. Interestingly enough, his bond has been denied, and a preliminary exam has been scheduled for next Tuesday. After all, he has been deemed "a person of interestfrom the beginning," as noted by one of the Michigan State Police detectives who is involved in the investigation.

What's even a red-flag raiser is that "neither the contents of the note nor a motive of the crime" have been disclosed. However, what's even MORE of a red-flag raiser is that law enforcement officials, while publicly not saying that they have a murder weapon, apparently have not found the murder weapon that was allegedly used in the crime. Oh, and let's not forget: they don't even have any other suspects on their radar.

As I noted before, the state had insufficient evidence to prove that Kowalski committed the crimes. However, now it's becoming clearer that the evidence it has on him is purely circumstantial. If Kowalski is to be charged with murder, where's the murder weapon? Did the weapon happen to have his fingerprints on it? Did or did he not have an alibi in this matter? Those are paramount questions in order to determine whether or not Kowalski is to be charged of a crime that he may have committed.

The charges pending against Kowalski is purely circumstantial at best. However, I feel the state will hound him and crucify him for a crime that he may not have committed.

Michiganders' Reaction to Smoking Ban

Apparently there is a statewide reaction to the looming smoking ban that will dominate Michigan. Some Michiganders, according to several Michigan news reports, are for the ban; others are worried about it.

Here are a few samples of the responses from people who reacted to the ban:

Chef-owner Mary Brady of Diamond Jim Brady's in Novi declared her restaurant smoke-free on Jan. 1 and said the results have been 'extremely positive' and that employees 'absolutely love it.'

She lost a couple of regular customers, she said, 'but I will say we got more people in than people we lost.'

But Brady then has a shift in tone of her attitude when he admits the following:

But in a reflection of the mixed feelings within the industry, she said that she agrees with the MRA's opposition to the ban.

The association wants the decision left up to individual owners and is especially unhappy about possible exemptions to the rules for American Indian-run casinos.

'I agree with their position. There are so many government mandates, this is just one more,' Brady said. 'And what about sports bars, where people go to smoke and drink and watch TV?

'I felt good that I could make the choice on my own ... and somebody didn't hold an ax over my head.'

The piece even reveals that other restauranteurs have been overwhelmingly relieved upon hearing news of the ban:

Co-owner Chris Johnston said he felt that he had no choice but to permit smoking, even though he dislikes it, when he and his partners opened the Emory, an attractive restaurant and bar on Woodward Avenue in Ferndale two years ago.

'Because we have mouths to feed and employees to take care of, it would have been too risky a move' not to allow it, he said. 'We're not a major chain with deep pockets. We have to do what will keep the place open.'

These people just don't get it.

If an individual owner wants to prohibit smoking on his establishment because his customers are demanding that the vice shouldn't be allowed on the premises, then the owner should be responding to market demand for his customers' business and making the decision to ban smoking on his property. After all, this is consistent with the libertarian principle of private property rights. It's his right, and he should do what is necessary to please his customers.

But when the state gets involved and decides a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone else, then it effectively destroys private property rights by making it illegal for owners to decide whether to keep the vice in his establishment. That's wrong, considering government is SUPPOSED to be protecting private property rights and not destroying them.

Besides, this is a form of state-mandated discrimination imposed upon the cigarette-smoking populace. Not only that, it's a subsidized state-mandated discrimination. How about equal protection under the law? Isn't that what we were supposed to have? No, wait, according to the collectivists, we need, "Equal treatment under the law." Translation: special rights for one group, but no equal rights for the other.

This is all done in the name of political correctness in the state, which has run amuck. So much for the socialist doctrine of "No discrimination!" in our society. This is government-approved discrimination -- not to mention socialism -- in its own worst form.

Or, as some would prefer to call it, Nanny Statism. You pick the word.

Michigan's War on Smoking Has Finally Launched

The vile and diabolical social engineers and collectivists, also known as statists, in the Michigan Senate have finally greenlighted its own anti-smoking decree. This new move will make it illegal for restaurants, bars, and even casinos to allow smoking on their own property. What's even just as bad (if not, worse) is that the bill is making its rounds to the House, which will then be heading for Governor Jennifer "Wartface" Granholm's desk.

The ban, once signed into law by Granholm and having no approved effective date for its enactment, will take place on April 1, 2009.

This is an excerpt of MLive.com's piece on the issue:

LANSING -- Now that that push to ban smoking in Michigan bars, restaurants and other workplaces has cleared a big hurdle with Senate passage, the measure could be on its way to Gov. Jennifer Granholm's desk for signature as early as next week.

In a surprisingly lopsided 25-12 vote Thursday, the Republican-run Senate approved the smoking ban narrowly approved by the House last year.

'Thousands of Michigan residents have their health placed at risk through exposure to second-hand smoke,' said Sen. Tom George R-Kalamazoo, one of two physicians in the Senate. The ban 'is consistent with our constitutional duty to protect the health of the citizens of Michigan.'

Don't these collectivistic cretins understand that, once you ban something, it will only drive the vice underground, creating a black market? This is nothing more than a war on smoking!

I'm a non-smoker, and I personally despise smoking, but no one is forcing me or anyone else to smell or inhale that smoke. Yet that's the attitude of the statists: we, the state, must "protect" its children from the Big, Bad Smoking, even if no one is forced to inhale it.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

The State's Insufficient Evidence Against Murder Suspect Jerome Kowalski

As many libertarians, paleolibertarians, free marketeers, and other politicos across the spectrum across the country may not be aware, there has been some news and print media coverage here in Michigan of a man named Jerome Kowalski, 62, who was arrested late Tuesday night (that's May 6th) for possibly having committed murder of his brother Richard Kowalksi, 65, and his wife (Jerome's sister-in-law) Brenda, 58. Kowalski, who lives in Warren, was picked up by the police investigating the death of the couple whose bodies were found with multiple gunshot wounds on their persons in their home in Oceola Township in Livingston County.

According to several Michigan reports, the couple's two adult sons, who had been concerned about them, came to their house to check up on them, only to have found them in the home and had called 9/11. The police say that there was no forced entry in the house, and, with Kowalski in custody, the man "may have" killed his brother and sister-in-law "over money." Interestingly enough, the preliminary autopsy results have not been released to the public, nor are the police going on record what conclusions the results have reached thus far. (Even more interesting, the Ann Arbor News is claiming that only one of the two sons had found the couple's bodies, which proves that the print established media can't even get its facts straight half the time.)

Here's what really bugs me about the entire story:

Police said Wednesday they found a note in Jerome Kowalski's home indicating that he killed his brother and that the murder has to do with money.

How do the police know that the murder "has to do with money"? Was there really a note found in Kowalski's home? Why would a man who has had a prior clean rap sheet, not to mention no criminal record, commit murder of his brother and his wife "over money"? How do we know the police is telling us the truth about Kowalski? And why are they so "mum" over the grim details of the killings?

More importantly, why haven't the preliminary autopsy findings been released?

There are more unanswered questions than answers, and the state is not being honest and cooperative with the public about this latest crime.

The interesting aspect of this entire murder investigation is that neither the police nor the press mentioned the fact that Kowalski is also a rent-a-cop employee contracted to work at the gate via a contract company at the Selfridge Air National Guard base. My father, a retired Ford employee and a former rent-a-cop on the base, worked with Kowalski up until last year. He said that Kowalski, even in the eyes of his fellow employees at the gate, always seemed nervous.

One of the other employees who's on good terms with my dad (and has been a good friend of his for years as well as our family) who knows Kowalski said that the Warren man had worked at the gate a day before the bodies were discovered and seemed nervous. In fact, after Kowalski was arrested, he was given a polygraph test (which is funny, considering that they are deemed unreliable and inadmissible in court). He had flunked it and seemed nervous, but then, as my dad said, "He always seemed nervous and would have flunked it anyway."

While Jerome is viewed as a suspect in the murder, he is still innocent until proven guilty. Right now what the police have is insufficient evidence, which means that the evidence collected by the authorities isn't enough to secure a conviction, let alone a sentencing at Kowalski's trial. At this point, the police might want to finger Kowalski as their man whom they think committed the crime, but DNA testing, polygraphs, and other forms of forensics are not exactly reliable forms of evidence testing. (Even the FBI's own forensic testing was officially debunked.)

For better or worse, whether Kowalski committed the crime or not, unless he gave a written confession and was properly mirandized by the state, he's innocent until proven guilty.

The story will continue to take shape in the weeks to come.

Photos of Hiroshima Are Now Newly Published Online

Here are the photos if anyone wants to see them.

The Robert L. Capp collection at the Hoover Institution Archives contains ten never-before-published photographs illustrating the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. These photographs, taken by an unknown Japanese photographer, were found in 1945 among rolls of undeveloped film in a cave outside Hiroshima by U.S. serviceman Robert L. Capp, who was attached to the occupation forces. Unlike most photos of the Hiroshima bombing, these dramatically convey the human as well as material destruction unleashed by the atomic bomb.

McCain Wants Ron Paul as His Rival in November

It appears that John McCain wants Ron Paul, in lieu of Obama or Clinton, to be his preferred rival in November. Obviously he said it in jest; however, wouldn't it be cool if Paul, a man of peace, could go up against McCain, a man of war? After all, it would be the most important race to occur on Election Day in November.

Think about it: an Austrian economist against a fascist, a man of honesty money against a man of central bank planning, a good man against a bad man.

Here's an excerpt of the Star Tribune piece on McCain's "joke":

NEW YORK - Of the Democratic presidential candidates, would Republican John McCain rather take on Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton?

'You know, Ron Paul is still in the race,' McCain joked Wednesday during a taping of Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.'

[H/T to Lew for his original blog posting on this.]

David F. Nolan: 'How They Can Win The Libertarian Nomination'

LP founder David F. Nolan, who has recently been on Mary Ruwart's side with regards to the alleged "I'm-for-child-pornography" charges made by one of Root's supporters (and subsequently Root himself) and pumped up by Christine Smith and George Phillies, writes a humorous piece on how LP presidential candidates can land the Party's nomination.

Here's the piece in its entirety:

How They Can Win The Libertarian Nomination
by David Nolan

Here, for everyone’s amusement, are plausible (OK, semi-plausible) scenarios outlining how each of the six leading contenders COULD win the LP nomination for President at the upcoming national convention in Denver. Some, obviously, are more plausible than others. Consider this speculative fiction, nothing more.

BOB BARR – Announces on May 12 that he’s really in the race. Takes fairly hard-line Libertarian stands on the issues, apologizes for past misdeeds. Receives significant coverage as a result. Places first on the first ballot with nearly 30% of the vote, crushing Wayne Root, who runs third, close behind Ruwart. Nearly half of Root’s supporters migrate to Barr on the second ballot, along with a smattering of others, bringing Barr’s total to more than 40%. Barr announces his preferred running mate: Steve Kubby. Explains that this will show the world that he is now sincerely opposed to the War on Drugs. Wins narrowly on third ballot.

MARY RUWART – Emerges on the first ballot as the preferred candidate of the “hard line” Libertarians, running a close second to Barr. Fourth-place finisher Steve Kubby announces he is withdrawing and urges his supporters to switch to Ruwart. Both Barr and Ruwart gain support on the second ballot, running virtually tied at 1/3 of the votes each. The third ballot fails to decide the contest, with Barr and Ruwart now each above 40% as Root’s support collapses, going mostly to Barr, and Gravel’s former supporters going for Ruwart. On the fourth ballot, Ruwart narrowly squeaks past 50% to win the nomination.

WAYNE ROOT – Barr announces on May 12 that he is NOT entering the race, leaving Root as the sole “right wing” contender. Root places first on the first ballot, names Phillies as his preferred running mate. Receives 44% on the second ballot, ten points ahead of Ruwart. The contest tightens on the third ballot, with Root and Ruwart virtually tied. Last-minute innuendo against Ruwart is successful, and Root narrowly squeaks past 50% to win the nomination.

KUBBY – Gives a stellar performance in the C-SPAN Presidential debate, and places a strong fourth on the first ballot. Nobody gets more than 25%. Barr and Root continue to struggle for majority support from the “right wing” faction, Gravel drops out and endorses Kubby, who narrowly surpasses Ruwart to finish third on the second ballot. The “hard line libertarians” coalesce behind Kubby on the third ballot, vaulting him past Barr and Root, who continue to split the “right wing” vote. Kubby narrowly squeaks past 50% to win the nomination on the fourth ballot.
PHILLIES – Polls 11% for a fifth-place finish on the first ballot, and slowly gains ground on subsequent ballots. Is up to 18% on the third ballot, putting him a distant third to Barr (or Root) and Ruwart. Votes remain unchanged on the fourth ballot, with NOTA preventing anyone from obtaining a majority. Bitter division between Barr/Root supporters and Ruwart/Kubby supporters produces a deadlock that results in a Phillies win on the fifth or sixth ballot.

GRAVEL – Drops his support for the FAIR tax and shows surprising strength on the first ballot, running close behind third-place Ruwart. On subsequent ballots he builds a coalition of delegates for whom opposition to overseas adventurism, civil liberties, and drug decriminalization are key issues. A surprising number of delegates see Ruwart as tarnished by the accusations against her, while Kubby is seen as one-issue candidate, so most of their support migrates to Gravel on the second and third ballots. He also picks up support from Barr voters who believe that Gravel’s credentials match or beat Barr’s, and will result in high media coverage. Wins by narrow majority on fourth or fifth ballot.

I re-emphasize: this is FICTION. Have at it!