Anyone see this story?

Man Arrested After Weapons, Map of U.S. Military Facility Seized From N.J. Motel Room

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583912,00.htm...

You have to really read between the lines to find out the important point: "Forrest said they seized ... a Middle Eastern red and white colored traditional headdress..."

That's as close as they get to saying "Islamic" or "Muslim."

Yet they have to add their obligatory "Presently, there does not appear to be a link to terrorism; Woodson does not appear to have a link to any known terrorist groups, nor a specific terrorist plot. However, the matter is still under investigation and these should only be considered preliminary findings." Haven't they had to retract that nearly every time they've said it the past year? Why say a thing like that in the first place?

Hmm, Muslim headscarf, maps of military installations, bulletproof vest, guns with the serial numbers "defaced," grenade launcher ... no, couldn't be a terrorist plot here. No way.

I hear about sites like this all the time, but if the information they gave was really valid, every tax preparer in the country would know about it and nobody would pay any federal income tax.

I've never known of a site that that made you pay for their super secret method to do anything that actually had information worth what they want your to pay for it.

I'm not keen on being the guy on point marching out to do battle with the IRS over their assertions.

You won't have less land, but you may have fewer land holders. I can't predict the consequenes, but you can't tax without consequences. It's not possible. Taxation influences behavior.

However since in my state I already am taxed in perpetuity on my land, it already feels like I don't own it. Think about it. If you really own something -- you bought it and paid for it -- it's yours and nobody can come take it away, from the loaf of bread or your shelf to the car in your driveway. If you have to keep paying on an item or lose possession of it, we call that renting or leasing.

Because my state government is allowed to tax me in perpetuity on my land (unlike other property I own), with forfeiture of the land being the result of my failing to pay my tax/rent, I don't fully own my land any more, and that's kind of sad. I will forever have to fork over my payment to my feudal master, the state, in the form of property taxes. That doesn't seem right to me in a free country.

The entire argument regarding whether a corporation has all the rights of a person is misguided and besides the point. I blame it on the utter lack of Constitutional education given to public school students in our country.

The Constitution is not primarily a delineator or guarantor of specific rights of citizens. It is, rather a document that establishes comprehensive limitations on the power of government. The focus of the document is never on "what rights do people have," the focus is, instead on "what are the defined and limited powers of government."

Note the first amendment. By its clear wording "Congress shall make no law....." the document makes moot the point of who shall benefit from this limitation, because the limitation is on Congress, not the people. It doesn't matter who or what is engaging in the free speech, the salient part, emphasized by the wording, is that Congress shall make no law that abridges that freedom. We don't have to spend a lot of time agonizing over the entity that is conducting the speech -- we can stop once we acknowledge that Congress isn't allowed to abridge it.

Furthermore, because "religion" and "the press" and "the people peacably to assemble" are generally group activities, it is implicit in the amendment that Congresses limitations extend to group activities as well as individual activities.

Much, much harm has been done to our Constitution by people who say things like "There's no right to privacy in the Constitution," or "The Constitution doesn't give people the right to _____" -- as the ninth amendment makes explicit and as is implied in the language of the entire document "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, the operating principle of the Constitution is that people have ALL rights except in those limited areas where the government is specifically empowered by the Constitution to act.

The first question you should ask when you see a new law made is not "does this violate a right guaranteed in the Constitution" but "Does the Constitution anywhere empower the government to act in this matter."

Over and over again, you will find the answer is "No."

After all this time, there really is no amount of compensation that will restore this family's destroyed lives and business.

Say it. Say it again. Remember it:

Throughout recorded history, the greatest threat to man's life and liberty has always been governments.

Why expose your poor 8-year-old to that cesspool of indoctrination. The danger of them instilling their views in him or her are too great. Homeschool.

Ironically, very ironically, it has reached the point where I have as little respect for the person and opinions of Roman Polanski as I do for Charles Manson.

It's true, I watched a ton of the classic comedy teams as a kid and I always found Abbot & Costello and Burns & Allen to be funnier than the Marx Brothers (though I do like the Marx Brothers). Laurel & Hardy were indeed tedious and The Three Stooges were off-putting to me -- not funny at all.

I always thought Ben Shapiro was a spoiled kid who thought too highly of his own opinions. Now I know.

That would be a satisfactory explanation -- if he didn't really find the book 30 years ago.