From Steve Rosile

LSOCK NEWS , August 22, 2011


Libertarians Of South Central Kansas (LSOCK) meet every Tuesday at Mike's Steakhouse located at 2131 S. Broadway in Wichita, Kansas at 6:00 PM. Supper Hour begins at 5:30 PM. All who support personal responsibility and individual liberty are invited to attend.

Contact the Kansas Libertarian Party or LSOCK at:

LPKS / LSOCK
P.O. Box 2456
Wichita, Kansas 67201

Ph. (800) 335-1776

On the Web please go to http://www.lpks.org/  or to the LSOCK Blog at:

www.libertariansofsouthcentralkansas.blogspot.com

LSOCK NEWS August 2x, 2011

1.       From The Editor

2.       Jury Rights Celebration September 6

3.       Walter Williams in Wichita September 8

4.       State Fair Volunteers Needed To staff LPKS Booth

5.       Why Would They Keep This Secret? By Carl F. Worden

6.       Officials Admit That The United States Uses False Flag Terror

1.       From The Editor

Hello everyone,

The end of summer always is a busy time for the LPKS and LSOCK with both Jury Rights Day Celebration coming up and the Kansas State Fair beginning its run the first half of September. And this year Walter Williams is giving a free lecture in Wichita to boot! I have made my reservations already and if you wish to hear Williams speak you should make yours soon as seating is limited.

The 2012 Presidential election is heating up already and many issues that Libertarians have long been concerned with are finally being discussed by at least some of the candidates and the media. The monetary system, spending and the public debt, the foreign wars, the domestic War On Some Drugs, entitlements and the free market versus the planned economy are at last getting the scrutiny they have long deserved.

Help keep these issues before the people. Talk to your family, friends and neighbors about the benefits of liberty, private property and free markets and the failings of statism. More of the public is coming to understand that government can not keep the promises it makes and that there is a better way, a freer way to live.

One with a lot less government.

For Liberty,

Steven A. Rosile

Editor, LSOCK NEWS

2.       Jury Rights Celebration September 6

LSOCK will hold a celebration of Jury Rights Tuesday, September 6, from 3:30 to 5:30 PM in front of the Sedgwick County Courthouse. Jury Rights signs to carry and literature to hand out will be provided. Please come and enjoy educating the public to the powers of the jury. For background on this subject visit the Fully Informed Jury Association website at http://www.fija.org/ and learn about this important part of our Common Law heritage.

      3.   Walter Williams In Wichita

Libertarian Economist Walter Williams will appear in Wichita to give a lecture entitled “The Role of Government in a Free Society” the evening of September 8^th at the Hyatt Regency, 400 W. Waterman. The event is presented by the Bill of Rights Institute and the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation.

There will be a reception at 5:30 PM with the lecture scheduled to run from 6:15 to 7:30 PM with a question and answer period following.

The event is free to the public but reservations must be made prior to September 2. Call 316-828-5624 or email@fmkfoundation.org to make your reservations.

4. State Fair Volunteers Needed To staff LPKS Booth
   
   
   
   

At this time, just a little over two weeks before the Kansas State Fair begins Friday, September 9, we have less that half the volunteers needed to man the LPKS outreach booth. If you have the time to meet with the public and promote the LP and spread the message of liberty and responsibility this is the best single

outreach event that the LPKS does each year.

Interest in our party and philosophy has increased dramatically over the past few years and this year is expected to be our busiest ever. If you want to help please contact Steven Rosile by calling 316-618-1339 or simply reply to this email.

At this late date it may not be possible to find a motel room in Hutchinson but former 1^st District Coordinator Mike Wilson has provided the following places nearby where rooms may still be available. Thank you Mike.

Grand Staff Bed and Breakfast
406 W. Ave. A
Buhler (a short drive North of Hutchinson)

$75 per night

contact: Becky Spencer
620 - 543 - 6518
becky@grandstaffbedandbreakfast.com

Directions from fair grounds
Highway 61 North to Medora  (4.7 miles)
East 82nd  Ave ( at the “to Buhler” sign) turn right
Buhler Rd., stop sign,  turn right
Avenue A,  turn left
bread and breakfast on left side of street in the first block. large paved driveway

And:

Sun Flower Inn of Yoder
3307 E Switzer Rd

www.sunflowerinnofyoder.com
1 - 620 -  465 - 2200

Bread and breakfast $89
very nice rooms each with a bathroom

directions from state fair grounds
17th Avenue East to Airport Road East which turns south and becomes Yoder        Road

 Why Would They Keep This Secret?

By Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes00@gmail.com

url:  http://fwatch.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-would-they-keep-this-secret.html

Found in Freedom Watch

To subscribe send an e-mail to: FreedomWatch-subscribe@topica.com

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Portugal legalized ALL previously banned street drugs just over ten years ago, and they did it intelligently. Instead of criminally prosecuting drug users and dealers, Portugal now handles matters relating to drug use as medical issues. At the time Portugal took this action, there were over 100,000 heroin addicts. Ten years after Portugal took this action, there are only 40,000 heroin addicts.

Do I have your attention?

Illegal drug dealing is deemed a crime in the United States, but it must be dealt with differently than other classes of crime. For example, the criminal justice system in the United States works fairly well by incarcerating violators who commit crimes like robbery, burglary, rape and murder, but it hasn't had any effect on the illegal drug trade due exclusively to the high profitability in being an illegal drug smuggler/dealer. For every drug dealer the cops take off the street, there are two more willing to kill each other to fill the vacancy. Portugal recognized this difference, so they decided the very first step in their plan of action would be to immediately make illegal drug dealing unprofitable. How does one do that? Simple. All they did was allow licensed pharmacies to sell those previously illegal drugs over the counter upon demand at no more than 15% over actual cost of manufacture.

The illegal drug trade in Portugal collapsed overnight! No illegal drug smuggler/dealer could possibly compete with pharmacy-grade drugs being sold by the Portuguese government at a margin of only 15% over actual cost of manufacture, because the true cost of manufacturing cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. is extremely low. To add a cherry on top, the Portuguese also prohibited advertising of any kind for the previously banned drugs, and of course they prohibited the sale of such drugs to minors.

Call it a crime if you like, but in reality, drug dealing is an obscenely profitable business, and the only way you can effectively destroy such a business is to make it unprofitable. If it takes a government to do that, so be it, but remember this Portuguese Model is not based on theory but on hard facts and solid results. You can't argue with that kind of success, so those threatened by such a prospect resort to lying, as in, "Are you going to believe what you see, or what I tell you"?

A great example of this was the debate over allowing average law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns in public. Those against the idea argued that armed people in road-rage incidents or having a heated discussion in a bar will pull their guns and start shooting wild-west style. That didn't happen, and now that over 30 U.S. states have enacted concealed carry laws, the proof is in the pudding. If you allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed gun in public, you are in fact increasing a quasi-police presence without having to pay for it. Criminals carry guns concealed as a matter of doing business anyway, so you might as well match their firepower with a bunch of carefully screened, law-abiding citizens who are packing a big surprise of their own. After all, when did you ever hear of a rape being committed with a marked patrol car nearby? Criminals try to commit crimes when the cops aren't around or cannot respond in time to stop them. Armed citizens can be found anywhere and anytime, and they aren't driving marked cars or wearing police uniforms. As such, arming law-abiding citizens not only reduces violent, public crime, but it is also cost effective.

It was a severe government financial shortfall that caused Portugal to change their street drug interdiction policy, and the results are nothing short of spectacular, so why isn't anyone with our own government pointing to Portugal as the model the U.S. needs to follow if we are to defeat the illegal drug trade permanently? In fact, why is the Portuguese Model being ignored here? When you talk to most people you meet in the course of the day, ask them if they've heard that Portugal won their own War on Drugs and you'll get a blank look in return. This, in spite of the fact the Portuguese Model has a 10-year successful track record. Of the very sparse comments I have heard spoken here of the Portuguese Model, the usual response is, "It won't work here".

My ass it won't work here! There are certain principles of business which apply to all free-market environments, and one of those principles is that a business must be profitable on its own without government subsidies. The profitability of the illegal drug trade in the United States and anywhere else is D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T upon those drugs remaining illegal, therefore it is a government subsidy of sorts which keeps the street drug trade profitable -- by L-A-W!

What complicates a rather simple remedy here are all the people employed in legal endeavors that are dependent on street drugs remaining illegal. They are comprised of the DEA and all those employed by drug interdiction agencies throughout the United States. They are attorneys, judges, prosecutors and rehabilitation facilities. They are corrections officers. They are individuals who secretly make millions from the illegal drug trade and desperately no not want to see the Portuguese Model implemented here, because they know full-well what will happen if it is. They are local and state law enforcement agencies that receive large annual grants from the feds for their interdiction efforts. I could go on and on, but whenever the media wants an interview with an "authority" to discuss the prospect of drug legalization, who do they ask? They ask the very people I've just listed here who have a stake in keeping street drugs illegal!

The usual picture these tainted souls paint is that the use of currently illegal drugs will explode. Well sure, if you just stop arresting drug dealers and let them keep pushing their poison on our kids, that could very well happen. But the Portuguese Model put those street drug dealers out of business overnight because the Portuguese Government literally destroyed their motive for pushing those drugs. For example, If a street dealer entices a new user through the usual system of distributing free drugs at a party, the new user can just go to a licensed pharmacy to buy the same drugs that are pharmacuetically pure and sold at a fraction of what the street dealer can sell them for. When you destroy the motive for selling illegal street drugs, that being the obscene profitability, you destroy the business altogether, and that business is dependent upon getting new users to enter the market.

Can you imagine the effect that would have here? The Mexican drug cartels would cease to smuggle and sell drugs, which is what all the fighting is about in Mexico anyway. The street gangs all over the U.S. would immediately lose their prime source of revenue. Burglaries in the United States would plummet, and so would insurance rates. Street crime would take a steep dive, and the prospect of somebody having to sell your bloody Rolex Watch for $250.00 for their next fix would be but a bad memory. Violent property crimes like home invasion robberies and street muggings would drop dramatically. Finally, the cost to local, state and federal budgets to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate people for drug crimes would be replaced by the substantially lower-cost remedial measures necessary to encourage current drug users to seek medical help in overcoming their addiction. After all, if current illegal drug users can go to licensed pharmacies to buy their drugs of choice, the pharmacy can give the addict information on where to go and who to contact. If the Portuguese Model produced 60,000 less heroin addicts in just ten years, it would work just as well here.

Don't hold your breath.

6.    American Officials Admit That the United States Uses False Flag Terror
url:  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/american-officials-admit-that-us.html
Preface: U.S. President James Madison said:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Everyone knows that "truth is the first casualty of war". And one of the most highly decorated American soldiers of all time said that "war is a racket".

FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials "were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power". Indeed, the former Secretary of Homeland Security - Tom Ridge - admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.
A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative". In terms of a possible "why", remember that psychologists and sociologists have demonstrated that fear of terrorism makes people stupid and easy to manipulate and control.
As I noted last year:
War is always sold to it's people by artificially demonizing the enemy:
Countries need to lie about their enemies in order to demonize them sufficiently so that the people will support the war.

That is why intelligence "failures" - such as the following - are so common:

• The U.S. Navy's own historians now say that the sinking of the USS Maine -- the justification for America's entry into the Spanish-American War -- was probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish.

• It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here).

• And two lies were used to justify the 1991 Gulf War: the statement that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies and the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (see also this article)(technically, the statement about Kuwaiti babies did not come from the U.S. government, but from a public relations firm hired by the government).

Indeed, in a newly-released documentary, U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants:

As I noted last year:

On Monday, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton told Jon Stewart that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq:

(And see this; and this excerpt from General Shelton's book).

This might seem, at first glance, like just an odd, one-off suggestion.

However, as reported by the New York Times and other newspapers, George W. Bush also suggested to Tony Blair that a U.S. plane be painted in United Nations colors so that - if Saddam shot it down - it would create a casus belli. As the Times wrote in 2006:

The memo [confirmed by two senior British officials as being authentic] also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire ....

Indeed, the former director of the National Security Agency said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

(audio here).

Former FBI station chief Ted Gundersen also says most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI:
Specific Historical Examples
The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).
As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Nine months earlier, a false flag attack was discussed in order to justify an invasion of the Dominican Republic. Specifically, according to official State Department records, Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles wrote on June 3, 1961:

The Vice President [Lyndon Johnson], [Attorney General] Bob Kennedy, Secretary [of Defense Robert] McNamara, Dick Goodwin [who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs], [head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Lemnitzer, Wyn Coerr, and Ted Achilles were here. Bob McNamara and Lemnitzer stated that under the terms of the contingency paper, they were required to be prepared to move into the island on short order if required to do so, and this, in their opinion, called for substantially more troops that we had in the area. After some discussion we considered two more aircraft carriers, some destroyers, and 12,000 marines should be moved into a position some one hundred miles off the Dominican Republic shore...
The tone of the meeting was deeply disturbing. Bob Kennedy was clearly looking for an excuse to move in on the island. At one point he suggested, apparently seriously, that we might have to blow up the Consulate to provide the rationale.
His general approach, vigorously supported by Dick Goodwin, was that this was a bad government, that there was a strong chance that it might team up with Castro, and that it should be destroyed--with an excuse if possible, without one if necessary.
Rather to my surprise, Bob McNamara seemed to support this view ...
The entire spirit of this meeting was profoundly distressing and worrisome, and I left at 8:00 p.m. with a feeling that this spirit which I had seen demonstrated on this occasion and others at the White House by those so close to the President constitutes a further danger of half-cocked action by people with almost no foreign policy experience, who are interested in action for action's sake, and the devil take the highmost ...

[At a subsequent meeting], Bob McNamara went along with their general view that our problem was not to prepare against an overt act by the Dominican Republic but rather to find an excuse for going into the country and upsetting it.

When Congress was originally asked to pass the Patriot Act in late 2001, the anthrax attacks which occurred only weeks earlier were falsely blamed on spooky Arabs as a way to scare Congress members into approving the bill. Specifically:

• The FBI was actually told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

• High-level government insiders pointed towards Iraq as the source of the anthrax, even though there was absolutely no reason to think that the anthrax had come from Iraq

Indeed, many people have questioned whether or not the anthrax was intentionally sent to scare people. For example:

• The anthrax letters attempt to link 9/11 and the anthrax attack and pretend to be from radical Muslims and be anti-America and anti-Israel

• Would Arab terrorists have targeted only Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act and other tyrannical measures? Would they have gotten that specific in their targeting? In order to terrorize America as a whole, wouldn't real Arab terrorists have sent anthrax to the Congressional leaders of both parties, regardless of their political postures towards particular legislation? Shouldn't it have been obvious to the FBI that the killer was pro-tyranny, rather than being simply Anti-American? The "war on terror" and Iraq war were largely based on the claim that Saddam and Muslim extremists were behind the anthrax attacks (and see this and this)

• Senator Patrick Leahy said:

And I think there are people within our government -- certainly from the source of it -- who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.

• The FBI gave its consent in October, 2001 for the remaining samples of the Ames anthrax strain to be destroyed, thereby permanently destroying crucial "genetic clues valuable to the criminal inquiry". Why would the FBI allow the Ames samples to be destroyed, other than to prevent fingers from being pointed toward the real killer, someone who worked for the U.S. government and had access to U.S. bioweapons?

• The American bioweapons expert who actually drafted the current bioweapons law (the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989), who holds a doctorate of law magna cum laude and a Ph.D. in political science, both from Harvard University, and teaches international law at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-92) and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court, and who "advised the FBI in its initial investigation of the anthrax letters", is convinced that the anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the Patriot Act and the later Military Commissions Act. He has said:

Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks.

Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
As Chris Floyd and many others have noted, this plan has gone live.
United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

There is substantial additional evidence of hanky panky in Iraq.
We're not alone. Countries around the world have played this terrible game for thousands of years.
If We Don't Learn Our History, We're Doomed to Repeat It
Indeed, many former high-level officials are warning that it could happen again:

• A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

• A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

• Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship

• Scott Ritter, the former UN Weapons Inspector (an American) - who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction - is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government

• And a member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically

Postscript: Most serving in our military are good and honorable people who want to protect America and her people. It is only rogue elements within civilian and military circles who carry out false flag attacks.