No Toy Guns For You

A number of state legislatures have bills pending on the docket -- bills that would, if passed, make it illegal for anyone to wave a "fake firearm" -- a state-created euphemism for toy guns -- in a public place "in a threatening manner." Apparently 15 states now have proposals that, if signed into law, would crack down on toy guns that the statist law enforcement communities claim would be used in violent crime sprees and be threatening to public safety.

According to the Associated Press:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Concerns that realistic-looking toy weapons are confusing police and threatening safety have led 15 states to try going beyond gun control and cracking down on fake firearms.

Officer Micheal Hoover knows a fair amount about guns as a sniper instructor for a Tennessee SWAT team. He recalls the night two years ago when a car pulled up beside him on a highway and the passenger waved what looked like an Uzi.

'It scared me,' he said. 'If anyone is in their right mind, I don't see how it wouldn't.'

Hoover was off duty and called for police help. A 20-year-old man was charged with aggravated assault after police found a black plastic Uzi submachine gun under the car's passenger seat, but he was acquitted because jurors felt the officer should have been able to tell it was only a toy.

Lawmakers across the country are coming to a different conclusion, deciding that it is so hard to differentiate the toys from the fakes that public safety demands they take action.

Oh, it gets better. Read this next part:

Among those 15 states, seven bills limiting fake guns are pending this year and 21 have been enacted since 1990, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some states have enacted or are considering multiple measures. They range from prohibiting imitation firearms in vehicles to banning the toys from convenience stores.

Tennessee legislators are using a different tactic. This is what the AP notes about what they have in mind:

Tennessee lawmakers are considering a proposal by state Rep. John Deberry to make it a misdemeanor to intentionally display or expose 'an imitation firearm in a public place in a threatening manner.' Exceptions include justifiable self defense, lawful hunting, and displays such as a museum collection.

Remember the last part of that first statement in the above-quoted paragraph:

'[A]n imitation firearm in a public place in a threatening manner.'

What do the collectivists mean by "a threatening manner"? How do they define "threatening manner"? That's a pretty vague description. Does "threatening manner" mean that the toy gun will fire plastic bullets that will melt the alleged victim in such a way that's reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of the East in The Wizard of Oz? Really, what do they mean by this?

This is nothing more than gun control at the state levels. Do these cretins really believe that toy guns can ACTUALLY harm individuals, even be used in crimes like murder? Will the plastic pelts from the guns send a so-called victim to the ER because of multiple plastic gunshot wounds?

What's next? Do they ban plastic knives? How about plastic hammers? Oh yes, plastic toy knives will be hazardous to your health.

Microsoft to Withdraw Yahoo Bid

Microsoft is yanking its $33-a-share bid on Yahoo, saying that it will buy out the company "on its own terms."

An excerpt from a New York Times piece pretty much sums up the situation:

Microsoft insists that it would acquire Yahoo only on its own terms. Now it said that it will withdraw its offer, after the Internet giant rebuffed a sweetened $33-a-share bid.

But is Microsoft really going to walk away from the biggest deal of the software giant’s 33-year history?

The company has never denied that it would take a hard line in its negotiations with its target. In fact, Microsoft’s chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, has regularly talked tough — and may now be adopting perhaps the toughest tactic of all.

The possibility of walking away was always present. Even in February, Christopher P. Liddell, Microsoft’s chief financial officer and an architect of its Yahoo offer, has told The Times that he’s willing to play hardball. 'You have to be disciplined and ruthless,' he said. 'You have to be willing to walk away.'

More recently, Mr. Ballmer reiterated that dropping its bid was a possible strategy.

In recent weeks, many had expected Microsoft to escalate the fight by beginning a proxy fight. Mr. Ballmer has never shied away from brandishing that club, coupled with a tender offer.

But in a recent town hall with Microsoft employees, Mr. Ballmer seemed to suggest that a proxy fight was a relatively unpalatable option. 'There’s a lot of downsides and some upsides associated with that,' he said.

Mr. Ballmer’s letter to Jerry Yang of Yahoo suggests that he didn’t have the appetite for that kind of fight. He acknowledged that the Internet company would fight hard against such a move, and might take steps like linking up with Google.

The letter, to which Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer alluded, says the following in its entirety:

May 3, 2008

Mr. Jerry Yang
CEO and Chief Yahoo
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Dear Jerry:

After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!.

I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team, and Yahoo!’s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal. I appreciate the time and attention all of you have given to this matter, and I especially appreciate the time that you have invested personally. I feel that our discussions this week have been particularly useful, providing me for the first time with real clarity on what is and is not possible.

I am disappointed that Yahoo! has not moved towards accepting our offer. I first called you with our offer on January 31 because I believed that a combination of our two companies would have created real value for our respective shareholders and would have provided consumers, publishers, and advertisers with greater innovation and choice in the marketplace. Our decision to offer a 62 percent premium at that time reflected the strength of these convictions.

In our conversations this week, we conveyed our willingness to raise our offer to $33.00 per share, reflecting again our belief in this collective opportunity. This increase would have added approximately another $5 billion of value to your shareholders, compared to the current value of our initial offer. It also would have reflected a premium of over 70 percent compared to the price at which your stock closed on January 31. Yet it has proven insufficient, as your final position insisted on Microsoft paying yet another $5 billion or more, or at least another $4 per share above our $33.00 offer.

Also, after giving this week’s conversations further thought, it is clear to me that it is not sensible for Microsoft to take our offer directly to your shareholders. This approach would necessarily involve a protracted proxy contest and eventually an exchange offer. Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo! undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.

We regard with particular concern your apparent planning to respond to a “hostile” bid by pursuing a new arrangement that would involve or lead to the outsourcing to Google of key paid Internet search terms offered by Yahoo! today. In our view, such an arrangement with the dominant search provider would make an acquisition of Yahoo! undesirable to us for a number of reasons:

* First, it would fundamentally undermine Yahoo!’s own strategy and long-term viability by encouraging advertisers to use Google as opposed to your Panama paid search system. This would also fragment your search advertising and display advertising strategies and the ecosystem surrounding them. This would undermine the reliance on your display advertising business to fuel future growth.

* Given this, it would impair Yahoo’s ability to retain the talented engineers working on advertising systems that are important to our interest in a combination of our companies.

* In addition, it would raise a host of regulatory and legal problems that no acquirer, including Microsoft, would want to inherit. Among other things, this would consolidate market share with the already-dominant paid search provider in a manner that would reduce competition and choice in the marketplace.

* This would also effectively enable Google to set the prices for key search terms on both their and your search platforms and, in the process, raise prices charged to advertisers on Yahoo. In addition to whatever resulting legal problems, this seems unwise from a business perspective unless in fact one simply wishes to use this as a vehicle to exit the paid search business in favor of Google.

* It could foreclose any chance of a combination with any other search provider that is not already relying on Google’s search services.

Accordingly, your apparent plan to pursue such an arrangement in the event of a proxy contest or exchange offer leads me to the firm decision not to pursue such a path. Instead, I hereby formally withdraw Microsoft’s proposal to acquire Yahoo!.

We will move forward and will continue to innovate and grow our business at Microsoft with the talented team we have in place and potentially through strategic transactions with other business partners.

I still believe even today that our offer remains the only alternative put forward that provides your stockholders full and fair value for their shares. By failing to reach an agreement with us, you and your stockholders have left significant value on the table.

But clearly a deal is not to be.

Thank you again for the time we have spent together discussing this.

Sincerely yours,
Steven A. Ballmer

It appears to Yahoo that it got the short end of the stick.

In Microsoft's defense (and I'm not a fan of Microsoft), I think Yahoo should have taken up Microsoft's offer, if for no other reason. On the other hand, perhaps it would have been nice if Google put up a bigger bid for Yahoo and made it more of a better system than Microsoft could have handled.

The corporate world just keeps on getting more interesting as time goes on.

The Socialistic Scheme Against 'Global Warming' Is Fought At The Local Level

Apparently communities at the local level, in an exercise in futility, are organizing to fight the horrible bane we call "Global Warming" simply by "reducing greenhouse gases."

Read an excerpt from the Washington Post piece on this crud:

SEATTLE -- King County Executive Ron Sims has a simple test for every new public works project, building plan or government land purchase: Will it increase the region's total greenhouse-gas emissions, or reduce them?

'We are totally committed to reducing emissions, but it requires rethinking the way we do our activities,' Sims explained. 'People are saying, "But we've always done it this way." We're saying, "That way doesn't work in an age of global warming." '

Officials in King County and other places are rethinking the way their communities grow and operate, all with an eye toward reducing their overall carbon footprint. After decades of policies that encouraged people to move out to the suburbs in pursuit of larger homes and bigger back yards, some policymakers are now pushing aggressively to increase urban density and discourage the use of private cars.

In Massachusetts, the state demands that developers calculate and disclose the climate impact of their projects. In California, Attorney General Edmund G. 'Jerry' Brown Jr. has sued communities and power companies for failing to offset the greenhouse gases generated by their expansion plans. And Washington, D.C., officials are installing a new trolley line and bike rental kiosks in an effort to cut back on car trips within the city.

We have to thank the collectivistic clods from Greenpeace and Earth Liberation Front and socialist celebrities like Bill Maher who have successfully pulled off the Global Warming Chicken Little hysteria over this non-issue. It's not a surprise that more than 70 percent of the American people have been brainwashed by the establishment, the Left, and the envirowhackos within the Left to support these whacked "anti-Global Warming" policies.

Ron Paul: Obama Will Be President

Ron Paul predicts that Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama of Illinois will be our next president coming January 2009.

Here's an excerpt of the L.A. Times blog on his prediction:

Rep. Ron Paul, the House member from Texas who technically remains in the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination against Sen. John McCain, predicts that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.

According to the campus newspaper of Maryland's Goucher College, the 72-year-old Paul made the surprising statement during campaign remarks Thursday at a school presidential forum.

The newspaper report said the auditorium was overflowing with students and parents, who interrupted the congressman with applause nearly two dozen times during his speech.

Paul was very successful in political fundraising during the past year, amassing more than $34 million, more than twice the amount collected by more prominent candidates such as ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee.

The Praiseworthy Resignation of LP Executive Director Shane Cory

Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory announced his resignation from his post with the national LP staff this week. (The announcement can also be found from the LP's website as well.)

Here's the transcript of his resignation in its entirety:

Washington, D.C. - Executive Director Shane Cory has stepped down this week from his staff position with the Libertarian Party.

'I have come to appreciate his talent and professional performance,' says Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath, expressing his thanks for Cory's outstanding service to the LP. 'Also, as a personal friend. I wish him well and future success.'

'Shane was very productive and an excellent financial manager,' says Libertarian National Committee member Vice Admiral Michael Colley, USN [Ret.]. 'He got the Party back on the right page financially and did very well representing the Party in the nation's capital. He did well for us, and it's unfortunately been his personal decision to do something else with his energy.'

'It was a pleasure working with Shane during his time with the Libertarian Party,' says National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. 'He was an asset to the libertarian movement as a whole, and we know he will continue fighting for freedom in this nation with whatever he does next.'

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

It's interesting to note that the members of the Libertarian National Committee who commented on Corey's resignation refused to acknowledge the primary reason for Corey's departure from the national LP headquarters: his recent LP press release which implicitly attacked the Party's top presidential contender Mary Ruwart for her not-so-secret libertarian position on child pornography taken from her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions. The brouhaha, as many of the readers here very well know, was started when LP presidential candidate George Phillies, in response to several posts started by a troll on the Third Party Watch blog (who may have either been a Bob Barr supporter or a Wayne Allyn Root crony), posted Mary's question-and-answer position on child pornography. The troll, who's gone by the name Ruwarchy, has even attacked Mary for her position, and then a series of endless vitriolic exchanges between Ruwart's supporters, a certain segment of LP members disgusted with Mary's old answer on the issue, and Wayne and Barr supporters continued unabated.

Of course, this nonsense resulted in Mary, along with Bruce Cohen, David F. Nolan (the Party's founder), George Phillies, and R. Lee Wrights (Mary's campaign manager), appearing on Steve Kubby's radio show on Blog Talk Radio to discuss the matter once and for all. In a nutshell, David Nolan called LP Chairman Bill Redpath a coward and said that, if Redpath "had any cajones, he would fire Shane."

Sadly, Christine Smith, another LP presidential hopeful, endorsed Corey's press release with the following letter:

Dear Shane & Andrew,

I appreciated your press release 'Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.'

Your press release was powerful in that it illustrates how libertarians can lead government (and society) into a more libertarian direction by using such controversial issues to express a better approach. You correctly balanced your statement condoning the need for greater communication between law enforcement agencies while simultaneously focusing upon protection of privacy rights. Further, you elucidated a clear libertarian perspective contrasting victim-less crimes (and the enormous resources wasted on them) versus real crimes such as those in which the the individual rights of the life and liberty of , in this case, children, are at stake.

Thank you for having the courage to express a libertarian perspective on such a matter and for defending the integrity of the LP on this issue. The last thing our party needs is to become associated with an anarchist viewpoint when it comes to the safety of children.

Shane & Andrew, you did an excellent job, as our Executive Director & our Media Coordinator, sharing a libertarian approach to a most difficult and tragic matter in our nation.

Christine Smith

As much I had originally liked Christine Smith (although I wasn't a fan of her candidacy), I was immediately disgusted with her endorsement of Corey's press release, which has been overwhelmingly condemned by many stalwarts in the Party. As far as I'm concerned, Smith isn't worthy of my support, just for her unprincipled support of the Party's unlibertarian support for federal enforcement of laws criminalizing child pornography. Because of that, she will not receive the delegates' support or even my support on that matter.

As I noted above, it's obvious that Corey resigned for one reason, and one reason only: he, along with the Root and Barr cronies, wanted to smear Ruwart in a concerted effort to ensure that either Root or Barr secure the LP presidential nomination. As a result, the tide turned against him, forcing him to resign in disgrace.

People Are Siding With Former Michigan Inmate-Turned-Mother Being Hounded by the State

Yesterday's report of a 53-year-old mother named Susan LeFevre (who assumed an identity as Marie Walsh) living in Santee, California who was arrested for fleeing the State of Michigan 32 years ago after having served time in the state for a year on a 20-year sentence for allegedly dealing heroin has been an outrage. It is an outrage because this woman has never aggressed against any individual, never committed theft, and never committed destruction of another individual's property.

The Saginaw-Area News noted the following:

LeFevre said she agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and violation of drug laws in hopes of winning leniency, but received the maximum sentence of 10 to 20years.

Of course, since the reporting of this story, the public has increasingly swarmed to LeFevre's side, except that not everyone is sympathetic to her.

According to a piece in the Detroit Free Press:

If Susan Lefevre has managed to stay out of trouble in the 32 years since her escape from a women's prison in Northville Township, that's proof she is rehabilitated and she should be freed, according to many Free Press readers who contacted the paper via e-mail, telephone or posted their views on freep.com.

'I just can't believe Michigan's going after her,' said John Paul, 58, of Plymouth. 'This woman has rehabilitated herself and saved the taxpayers money.'

Lefevre, 53, was sentenced to serve 10 to 20 years in prison in February 1975 after being convicted of conspiracy to violate drug laws and violation of drug laws. She escaped a year later.

According to the U.S. Marshals Service, Lefevre had been living what appeared to be a law-abiding life under the name Marie Walsh as a married mother of three in California.

Subhash Kapur, 60, of Bloomfield Hills said he was so upset by the Lefevre story that he wrote a letter to Gov. Jennifer Granholm asking that Lefevre be pardoned.

'I was just very, very disturbed about it,' he said. 'I never wrote a letter to anybody, but this really bothered me.'

While I am pleased that many of the people who followed up on the story urged Governor Granholm to pardon Susan LeFevre, it is still distressing that the collectivistic, vile, and heartless scumbags who happen to be the state law enforcement officials and bureaucrats want to lock this woman away for 20 years of her life, taking away the life that she has made for herself and her family. If she had remained in that hellhole they call the Detroit House of Corrections, she would have not lived through it because of its well-known violent, gang-populated prison environment.

This isn't done to show that she "made a horrible mistake" or show that she "committed a horrible, evil crime." This is all done to make an example of a woman, just to send a message to all of us that we all must be herded like cattle so that the state can rule over us anytime, any day of the week.

That's what this evil is all about.

Ron Paul: 'Still Running'

By the way, CNN's Wolf Blitzer points out that Ron's new book A Revolution: A Manifesto is "already a major bestseller."

Border Patrol Agents Allow Some "Illegal Immigrants" Go....Again

The Border Patrol goons are allowing some "illegal immigrants" a.k.a. independent migrants go...again, thanks to a loophole in the federal government's War on Immigration.

Here's an excerpt of the USA Today piece on this story:

EL PASO — Josefa Gonzalez Loya has sneaked across the Mexican border at least 128 times in the past eight years. And each time, the Border Patrol has been nice enough to give her a lift home.

Gonzalez and a group of other women and children — all Indians from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca — have no interest in staying in the United States. All they want to do is panhandle outside El Paso businesses, using the children as lures.

At the end of a productive day, they wait for the Border Patrol to come pick them up and drive them back to the border.

Little dramas like this play out day after day, accounting for thousands of arrests but hardly any prosecutions in the past several years.

The Oaxacan immigrants fall under a loophole that gives border agents discretion to keep some adults and children together and out of jail.

'They do qualify for jail and prosecution,' Border Patrol spokesman Ramiro Cordero said. 'However, we've got to look at the humanitarian factor first if we are going to have to separate the family.'

Fed to Ban Certain Credit Card Practices

The Fed is pushing for new government regulations on the credit card industry, regulations that would ban specific practices of the companies.

Here's a snippet of what the Washington Post piece on the ban:

If they are instituted, they would constitute the most significant crackdown on the credit card industry in decades. The rules would, among other things, specify when card issuers can increase interest rates on existing balances, ban finance charges on balances that have been repaid, and prohibit late fees on customers who were not given a reasonable amount of time to pay.

Consumers have long complained about such practices. The Fed responded last year with a proposal, still under consideration, to require card companies to improve disclosure forms.

Wait a second here! Didn't the Federal Reserve, with the passage of laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Fair Credit Billing Act, help usher in the credit card industry with its expansionist pool of credit in the economy? Weren't these regulations supposed to control what credit card companies can charge via interest rates, the waiting period of consumers submitting in their credit card payments, etc.? Didn't the credit card consumers read the fine print before they signed up with the firms?

These companies are a creation of the Fed and have nothing to do with the free market. The Fed and the card companies have been in collusion for years as far as what the card companies can do with regards to charging their customers, boosting the interest rates (which are tacked onto the Fed's subprime rate) to high levels (partly because of federal intervention in the credit and housing markets and partly because of credit risks, not to mention bad decision making between the credit card companies and the credit cardholders).

These new regulations will do more harm than good, simply because they will encourage more credit risks consumers who lag behind on their payments to become more irresponsible with their spending and payment habits and unfairly penalize consumers with excellent credit.

As one paragraph in the Washington Post piece correctly noted:

Edward L. Yingling, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said the rules would restrict the ability of card companies to charge interest rates that reflect the risks of different customers, thus forcing them to raise rates on everyone, even those with good credit.

If anything, why doesn't the government get out of the money-printing and credit card business and allow private decisions be handled more effectively between the customers and the card companies? Wouldn't that be far more worth it than a bunch of never-ending regulations that are designed to fix the old regulations that failed? After all, won't the new regulations end up failing too in the long term as well?

My Endorsement of Mary Ruwart Posted on Her Campaign Website

My official endorsement of LP presidential candidate Mary Ruwart is now posted on her campaign site. I sent it in to the campaign late last night, and lo and behold -- it was featured on the site here and here.

Here's what the endorsement says on the site:

Mary Ruwart's the best choice for the LP presidential nomination. She's very honest, extremely consistent, and immensely principled. She's the libertarian Hillary Clinton, except she supports freedom completely, whereas Hillary doesn't. Equally important, her book Healing Our World In An Age of Aggression has inspired my ideas and views on human liberty. I wish there were more people like her. Honestly.

Todd Andrew Barnett, Talk Show Host of Liberty Cap Talk Live on NowLive.com, Online Columnist, and Creator of the Let Liberty Ring Blog

Free Talk Live's Ian Bernard Responds to His Collectivistic LP Sycophants

Ian Bernard, the main host of Free Talk Live on the Genesis Communications Network, shrugs off the criticisms aimed at him for his recent decision to revoke his life membership with the LP. He even announced his revocation of his membership on the show on Monday.

The time index for the announcement on his show is at 19:50. Here's the link to Monday's show.

On the criticisms fired at him, he said that he went to read the Third Party Watch blog and noticed a good portion of the comments attacking him. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said: "I'm sorry, but I'm trying to live my life. How am I hurting the Party by leaving it?"

He also pointed out that there are political organizations in New Hampshire that are advancing liberty far more than the LP has (groups like the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, for one). After all, Ian has pointed out that the LP has been battling over bylaws and platform points at its own meetings, which he believed were terribly boring. I can't say I blame him.

The Free State Project and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance have done more for liberty in our lifetime than the Libertarian Party ever will in its 30-year history.

At least Ian mentioned the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, which does its occasional gun raffles (Mark Edge, his co-host, has said he's participated in it).

UPDATE:You can hear Ian's comments on the criticisms aimed at him beginning at 46:37 of the show from last night.

NJ Considers "Sin Tax" on Fast Food

Busybodies in the New Jersey legislature are pondering over a proposal to enact a "sin tax" on fast food, because the state's hospitals are allegedly bleeding funds.

New Jersey Democratic Governor John Corzine said that the tax "could be an option to help struggling hospitals." Corzine called the idea "a constructive suggestion." Yeah, right. Translation: needed government control.

A spokesman for Corzine went on record with the New Jersey press with the following:

'The governor is open to reasonable solutions to help solve our financing problems, but there are no plans for any fast food tax.'

One Republican state legislator, Sen. Richard Codey, likens it to "a tax on the poor." I couldn't agree more.

Rather than pushing for a "sin tax," these evil collectivists need to leave these people alone and the legislature as well. That even goes for all the state legislatures and Congress as well. We don't need these people controlling our lives 24/7.

These statist actions prove my point: government is a bane, not a boon, in our lives. We need a real free market once and for all.

Michigan Man Arrested for Inadvertently Giving Alcoholic Beverage to His Seven-Year-Old Son

An Ann Arbor man, who took his 7-year-old son to see a Detroit Tigers game in Comerica Park in downtown Detroit, was questioned by a security guard. Why? Because the father inadvertently purchased a $7 Mike's Hard Lemonade bottle at a concession stand for his son who sipped it.

It wasn't until at the top of the ninth inning that the dad was stopped by the guard. The guard then went on to grab the bottle from the man at the same time the dad was trying to look at the bottle and the boy was taken away to the park's medical clinic. Within two days, the kid was taken into custody by the state and, within a week after he was arrested for purchasing the drink for his son, the father was allowed to move back into his home.

Although the boy was feeling ill and the state officials believed that the boy's nausea was caused by the drink (which actually contains 5 percent of alcohol in it), a blood test later revealed that there was no trace of alcohol in the boy's system.

Here's an excerpt of the article that will get everyone's blood boiling:

DETROIT (AP) — A son's thirst and a father's oversight at the ballpark turned an otherwise fun outing into an ordeal for one family.

Christopher Ratte of Ann Arbor recently took his 7-year-old son, Leo, to a Detroit Tigers game and stopped at a Comerica Park concession stand to buy him some lemonade. But it wasn't until the top of the ninth inning, when a security guard asked the University of Michigan classical archaeology professor about the bottle in his son's hand, that Ratte learned what puts the hard in Mike's Hard Lemonade.

'I'd never drunk it, never purchased it, never heard of it,' Christopher Ratte told Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson for a story published Monday.

Ratte said he told the guard he had no idea that the $7 lemonade contained alcohol. But when he tried to look at the bottle, the security guard snatched it — and his son was taken to a ballpark's medical clinic. The mistake three weeks ago began a two-day stay for Leo in state custody and nearly a week before his father would be able to move back into his home.

Leo was taken by ambulance to Detroit's Children Hospital because clinic officials said he reported feeling a little nauseated after drinking about 12 ounces of the drink with a 5 percent alcohol content. But a blood sample taken at the hospital detected no trace of it.

Ratte said the workers from the state's Child Protective Services unit told him that day the intervention was unnecessary but they were just following orders.

Child protection officials cannot by law discuss a specific investigation. But Mike Patterson, Child and Family Services director for the Wayne County district that includes Comerica Park, said his agency's discretion is limited once police obtain a court order to remove a child from the home.

The boy will most likely be traumatized after being separated from his father, who merely committed an innocent mistake which led to this monstruous mess.

Chrysler's Bob Nardelli: 'High Gas Prices Are Needed to Sell Fuel-Efficient Cars'

Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli went on record today with the Detroit Free Press, saying that Clinton and McCain's push to suspend the 18.4 cents federal excise gasoline tax is wrongheaded. Why? Because, as Nardelli, in a misguided fashion, believes, high energy prices are needed to sell fuel-efficient cars.

The Free Press interview began with and reported the following:

Automotive industry leaders have begun to speak out firmly against a proposal, being promoted by senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton, to suspend the 18.4 cents a gallon federal excise tax on gasoline.

The U.S. presidential hopefuls say it will ease the financial pain for Americans paying nearly $4 a gallon for regular gas, on top of an economy ravaged by a housing and credit crisis, and mounting food prices.

But Chrysler LLC CEO Bob Nardelli, AutoNation CEO Mike Jackson and others say that the nation needs the high gas prices to encourage consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles — which the federal government has mandated automakers build — as well as make other decisions that are responsible for the world at large.

'You have to have alignment,' Jim Press, the former Toyota Motor Corp. executive who now serves as a Chrysler president and vice chairman, said during a meeting this morning among Chrysler’s top leaders and Free Press writers and editors.

A day earlier, Jackson, the nation’s largest dealer with 321 dealerships and a longtime critic of the nation’s deficient energy policy, told the Free Press that suspending the gas tax demonstrated 'zero intellectual honesty' and gave Americans 'confusing signals' about energy consumption.

While I'm for relieving American drivers of regressive gasoline taxes (I'm more for repealing the gasoline taxes, but that's another story for another day), I think "suspending" the federal gasoline tax is just a shell game. How about repealing the government's involvement in the energy sector as well as the entire private sector? How about repealing all sorts of taxes, regulations, and unconstitutional spending that have helped kill this economy?

As for Nardelli, he's opposed to suspending this gas tax because it subsidizes the production, distribution, and sale of the "fuel-efficient" vehicles that are not as popular to the American public as they are made out to be. After all, since most Americans are not buying "fuel efficient" cars, what does that say to Nardelli and his precious "fuel efficient" automotive line (which happens to be hybrids, which are a rip-off anyway)?

The marriage between the automotive companies and state is a bizarre one, and it's one that needs a divorce sooner rather than later.

D.C. Madam Offs Herself in Florida

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the infamous "D.C. Madam" who was tried and then convicted two weeks ago of her up-scale illegal prostitution business, has reportedly committed suicide in a coastal town in the State of Florida.

It's interesting to note that Palfrey eerily predicted that she would "be suicided" on the Alex Jones Show, which proves, once and for all, that she meant business when she said she would kill herself.

It's not a surprise that she would do this, especially within a year later after being sentenced to approximately 55 years for operating a government-alleged prostitution ring.

The idea that the state MUST make prostitution illegal, especially when the transactions between the two parties happen to be voluntary and beneficial to them, is preposterous to the Nth degree. There are no victims when these transactions occur, so where's the crime? Therefore, laws prohibiting prostitution should be repealed.