Despite No Money, Michigan Lawmakers Plan Free College

Democratic lawmakers in Michigan, it seems, have taken the message of youthful 99 percenters to heart, their answer to the “everything should be free” crowd: How does free college tuition sound?

With a plan that teeters on being nothing more than public school for grown-ups, the lawmakers hope to raise $1.8 billion to pay for every student in Michigan to attend a two- or four-year college. The proposal would make every Michigan high school student eligible for a grant of $9,500 per year for educational purposes upon graduation for up to four years, according to CBS Detroit.

The lawmakers say they can pay the hefty price by closing tax loopholes, taxing Internet sales and cutting back on State contracts by 6 percent. They claim that the plan will not cost taxpayers in the State a cent, but it is expected to slash tax credits from many businesses.

According to recent news reports, Michigan’s unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent.

As the legislators look at ways to provide free education for students in the State, some cities such as Detroit, where economic distress has become the norm, are cutting back on basic public services. Police in the city recently unveiled a plan to restructure 911 services and advised residents not to call unless they are certain they will otherwise lose their life.

GOP Establishment Continues Assault On Paul

The mainstream media began by pretending he didn’t exist; when that didn’t work, they began to say he has an unpopular message or tried to brand him as a racist. Now, they simply lie about GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s success in the 2012 primary season.

Paul recently mused about the fact that he draws crowds of thousands of supporters and his fellow candidates routinely draw only a couple hundred at best.

“Quite frankly I don’t think the other candidates get crowds like this, and we get them constantly” Paul said, after an event in Missouri.

Paul said he has a hard time understanding how the crowds he draws — especially in comparison to those of his fellow candidates — don’t equate to popular vote victories. The candidate stopped short of alleging voting fraud on the part of the GOP because he said he had no proof.

The candidate secured his first caucus victory over the weekend, winning 29 percent of the popular vote among the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands. The media, however, claimed that Mitt Romney actually won the contest because he stands to come away with more delegates.

Curiously, the Paul campaign has pointed out that the popular vote does not always reflect the number of delegates obtained in each State that has already held a caucus or primary. Only when Paul won the popular vote in the territory did the media change how it reported the results.

The Republican Party of the U.S. Virgin Islands reported the results as 112 to Paul (29 percent), 101 to Romney (26 percent), 23 to Santorum (6 percent) and 18 to Gingrich (5 percent).

Researchers: Reconsider LSD For Medical Use

Norwegian researchers studying the results of studies conducted more than 40 years ago say there is convincing evidence that the powerful psychedelic LSD should be re-examined as an option for treatment against addiction and other mental conditions.

The researchers examined six different studies of LSD and alcoholism that were scientifically sound by today’s standards, in which patients were randomly assigned, as if by tossing a coin, to receive either LSD or a comparison treatment. They combined all the data from these studies, involving a total of 536 people. They contend that, to date, this is the most comprehensive study of these experiments conducted from 1966 until 1970.

In the studies some of the alcoholic patients were given a large dose of the drug on one treatment day and some patients were given a small dose of LSD, while control patients received a low dose of LSD or a stimulant drug — or nothing.

“In independent and standardized follow-up examinations, ranging from one to twelve months later, all of the studies showed that the patients who had received a full dose of LSD fared the best. On average, 59 per cent of full-dose patients showed a clear improvement compared with 38 per cent in the other groups,” say Teri Krebs and Pål-Ørjan Johansen, researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

By 1971, LSD was banned for non-medical use. Although the drug was and is still permitted as an experimental medical treatment, it became increasingly difficult to conduct clinical trials. Despite the promising studies, LSD was claimed to have no demonstrated medical use. There may be several reasons for this, the researchers explained.

In an era when 10 percent of all Americans are taking prescription antidepressants and more battling various forms of addiction, Krebs and Johansen are among a growing number of mental health professionals advocating research of unconventional psychological treatments.

Goodbye, 5th, 6th And 8th Amendments; Hello, Tyranny

Here’s a quick test. Pictured below are two people who were featured in the news last week, can you name them and why they made the news?

If you are a victim of the mainstream media propaganda machine, your answer is predictable: The woman on the left is, of course, Sandra Fluke, so-called champion of women’s health and the target of crude remarks made by radio shock jock Rush Limbaugh. You likely have no idea who the man on the right is, but you should.

Asked whether or not the Administration of Barack Obama’s assertion that the Federal government can murder American citizens suspected of terrorism for the greater good of the Nation extends to targets on U.S. soil, the man on the right replied, “I’d have to go back, I, uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”

The man pictured on the right, by the way, is the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller.

While mainstream media spent last week writing headlines like The Washington Post’s “Limbaugh, Fluke and the GOP’s ‘war on women’” — a controversy oddly, and conveniently, coinciding with International Women’s Day — something much more frightening than Fluke’s having to forgo luxuries while in college to pay for birth control was afoot.

A week ago, Attorney General Eric Holder told an audience at Northwestern University Law School that the President of the United States “in full accordance with the Constitution” can kill American citizens that pose a threat to the Federal government.

Holder added something else that may actually account for Mueller’s confusion: The President’s authority to murder U.S. citizens without due process, trial or conviction is “not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan” because “we are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.”

Not to worry, though. Since the Obama Administration and the Federal bureaucracy have opted to do away with three Amendments included in the Bill of Rights, they have offered their own due process of sorts. Three conditions must be met prior to the murder, according to Holder: First, the target must pose an “imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S.” Second, capturing the target is deemed “not feasible” by the Administration. Third, the Federal government must engage the American citizen they intend to kill in a manner consistent with the rules of war: target must be deemed hostile; no excessive collateral damage; the manner chosen for the murder must not inflict unnecessary suffering.

To condense the previous paragraph, it could be said that Holder’s list of requirements for murdering American citizens deemed hostile is the martial law equivalent of what once were the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. The Supreme Court offers no concrete definition of the term “martial law,” but most historical and legal experts contend its implementation is marked by things such as: military authority over civil and criminal laws, suspension of Habeas Corpus and the elimination of civil liberties such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association and freedom of movement. Under this martial law however, public knowledge of an individual’s prosecution is eliminated, as is fate determined by his peers and the guarantee of protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Liberty-defender Judge Andrew Napolitano put Holder’s explanation of why it is acceptable to kill Americans without trial into perspective in a recent FOX News interview, “His [Holder’s] argument is that there is a substituted form of due process. That if the President and his advisors carefully consider the danger of a human being and conclude that that human being needs to be stopped before that person causes anymore danger, then the President can kill him. That’s their argument. There is no case law that stands for that, there is no statue that authorizes it and it directly defies the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.”

Napolitano also notes that the last time the Federal government said it could kill American citizens was during the Civil War, and “even Lincoln said it could only be done during combat.”

“This Federal government, this Administration says it can kill Americans when they’re riding with their children in the car in a desert,” said the Judge.

Most Americans do not believe that any of the above-mentioned information even applies to them and adhere to an “I don’t do anything against the law so why should I worry” mantra. That is a tough argument to back up considering recent developments such as the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, initiatives by the FBI and the Department of Justice to flag mundane activities that many Americans take part in each day as possible indicators of terrorist activity, legislation focused on logging Americans’ every keystroke and Internet search and about 4,500 Federal laws (some of which you could be breaking at this very moment) on the books. How can anyone determine with absolute certainty that the Federal government will not target and kill them — if even by mistake?

Due process is eliminated and the target will be dead once deemed a threat; there is no chance to defend innocence after the fact. Consider the patsies that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are continually baiting into terror plots by trolling extremist websites and providing dummy weapons to bolster the alarmist agenda and assault on liberty: What if the Feds could get the “We Got Another Terrorist” headlines without any effort? What if it were as easy as locating any American who disagrees with the Federal agenda and murdering the person before releasing information to the tune of “President Obama heroically authorizes the killing of extremist John Doe averting thousands of deaths in terror plot”?

The authorities have no shortage of possible targets. With the help of alarmist neocons continuing to push the Muslim-terrorist stereotype and the liberal left in the mainstream media and government painting American patriots as a growing legion of domestic terrorists, the perpetual-fear society is alive and well from sea to shining sea.

Add the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the dead or dying 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments, sit back and wait for the rest of the Constitution to follow.

There is one bright side to all of this for those who are so very concerned about Fluke’s contraceptives, Limbaugh’s poor choice of words, the right-left paradigm and any number of nonsense social issues: When the Federal elitists finish the job, they will stop using nonsense to divert Americans’ attention. How you feel about those issues will be decided for you.

Krugman Attacks GOP Over College

Keynesian-leaning economist and columnist for The New York Times Paul Krugman opined in a recent piece that advising students who are exploring college options not to attend institutions beyond their economic means by taking on massive student loan debt is anti-intellectual.

Krugman writes that members of the Republican Party harbor hostility to education which is “embodied in the personas” of GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

Referencing recent statements made by the candidates wherein Santorum referred to colleges as “indoctrination mills” and Romney advised a student to shop around for colleges with good programs rather than simply attending the most expensive, Krugman writes:

Wow. So much for America’s tradition of providing student aid. And Mr. Romney’s remarks were even more callous and destructive than you may be aware, given what’s been happening lately to American higher education.

For the past couple of generations, choosing a less expensive school has generally meant going to a public university rather than a private university. But these days, public higher education is very much under siege, facing even harsher budget cuts than the rest of the public sector. Adjusted for inflation, state support for higher education has fallen 12 percent over the past five years, even as the number of students has continued to rise; in California, support is down by 20 percent.

Krugman goes on to suggest that by putting less importance on government-funded college tuition assistance, Republicans will hold back less affluent and minority children and are taking a step away from an American tradition.

The National Inflation Association, which released the film “The College Conspiracy” in 2011, argues a case very opposite Krugman’s, saying that college is the largest scam in U.S. history. One NIA press release says:

If 70.1% of high school graduates enroll in a college or university, how does a college degree give you an advantage over the rest of the population? Back in the early 1960s, Americans didn’t need to go to college. We were a creditor nation with a strong manufacturing base. With an unemployment rate of only 5%, jobs were available to almost everybody. Less than 50% of American high school graduates enrolled into college. For those who did attend college and graduate with a degree, it was actually something special that made you stand out from the rest of the field, because not everybody had one.

American college tuition inflation has been out of control for the past decade. During the financial crisis of late-2008/early-2009, almost all goods and services in America at least temporarily declined in price. The only service in America that continued to rise in price throughout the financial crisis, besides health care, was college education. Despite real unemployment in America reaching 22%, students were brainwashed into believing that if they were lucky enough to be blessed with the privilege to get half a million dollars into debt to obtain a college degree, they will be on a path to riches and have a guaranteed successful career; whereas those who don’t attend college are destined to be failures in life.

View a portion of the NIA film below:

Public, Private Educators Have Differing Views Of Obama

A majority of college presidents, except for those in for-profit higher education, say they plan to vote for President Barack Obama this fall, despite the fact that most believe he has failed to deliver on higher education promises.

According to a survey conducted by USA Today’s Inside Higher Ed, 65.1 percent of college presidents say they plan to cast a vote for Obama this fall. Support for the President was strongest in public higher education with 75 percent at public doctoral and master’s institutions, 85 percent at public baccalaureate institutions and 66 percent at community colleges. The lowest level of support was in for-profit higher education, where only 29 percent of presidents said they plan to vote for Obama.

Responding to whether Obama has “fulfilled the promise that many in higher education” saw for him four years ago, only 36 percent of presidents answered yes. The figure was lowest in the for-profit sector with only 18 percent believing so. Private colleges have clashed with the Obama Administration several times in recent years over stifling Department of Education mandates.

USA Today contends that heavy support for Obama among public college presidents stems from a lack of a pro-education agenda among the Republican candidates. Only 10 percent of all college presidents believed that the Republican candidates have offered a higher education vision. Though nearly half, 44 percent, of presidents at for profit institutions believe that the Republicans have offered pro-education policy.

Patriots Are Radical, Racist, Hate-Filled Terror Suspects

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act’s indefinite detention provision and Attorney General Eric Holder’s unfortunate “the U.S. government has the right to kill you” speech and while the word “terrorist” is used ever more loosely, left-wing activists groups are ramping up their campaigns against those who believe in smaller government.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (also known more accurately as the Southern Preposterous Lie Center here at Personal Liberty Digest), long known and called out for its shameless exploitation of race for profit, has released its latest report profiling hate in America: “The ‘Patriot’ Movement Explodes.” The word “patriot” as defined over the course of about 3,000 words by the author, however, varies a bit from Webster’s definition and the likely definition of most people who feel patriotic: “One who loves and loyally or zealously supports one’s own country.”

The author instead likens the word “patriot” to any person who is affected by “superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories, the changing racial makeup of America, and the prospect of four more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.” The author also, interestingly, describes the “Patriot movement” as something that began in 1994 as “a response to what was seen as violent government repression of dissident groups at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and near Waco, Texas, in 1993, along with anger at gun control and the Democratic Clinton Administration in general.” The “Patriot movement,” as defined by the SPLC author, peaked in 1996 “after the Oklahoma city bombing” and then faded as the new millennium began.

Following the alarmist introduction, the author tells his readers that the so-called “Patriot movement” is again on the uptick, growing from 149 groups in 2008 to 512 in 2009, and again in 2010 to 824, and then, last year, jumping to 1,274. The title of the report and the groups contained under the author’s definition of “patriot” likely alarm the everyday conservative who may spend time on weekends organizing for like-minded political candidates, lecturing friends about the value of our Founders’ vision laid forth in the Constitution of the United States, decrying the continual expansion of an ever-stifling Federal bureaucracy or waving signs on the local courthouse steps with Tea Party peers.

Following are some of the subgroups into which the alarmists at SPLC divide patriots:

  • Anti-Gay: Patriotic Americans as defined by SPLC can be members of one of 27 militantly anti-gay groups that are involved in “efforts to ban or repeal marriage equality and what seemed to be an intensification of anti-gay propaganda in certain quarters.”
  • Anti-Muslim: The author contends that people who consider themselves to be American patriots may be involved in one of the 30 groups that exist throughout the Nation that vilify and commit hate crimes against Muslims.
  • Black Separatists: Black Americans who consider themselves patriots, have an unfavorable view of President Barack Obama or who believe the Constitution is an important document are likely members of the small portion of African-Americans belonging to the greater sovereign citizens movement, according to SPLC.
  • Christian Identity: Patriots who are also Christians may believe that Jewish people are direct descendants of Satan and people of color are “soulless mud people” in SPLC’s view.
  • Ku Klux Klan: The SPLC believes that the growing Patriot movement also coincides with a growing number of Ku Klux Klan members in the country.
  • Neo-Confederates: Centered on the Alabama League of the South, a group founded in 1994 with the alleged goal to organize a second Southern secession, there are 32 neo-Confederate organizations that SPLC says American patriots may belong to.
  • Racist Skinhead Groups: SPLC believes that American patriots could belong to any number of racist skinhead organizations — groups that have been defined over the past several decades as being fond of punk rock, anarchy and racism.
  • White Nationalist Groups: In SPLC’s view, patriotic Americans may be white nationalists, similar to those who protested school integration and racial equality during the Civil Rights era.

Having known many American citizens and politicians who define themselves as Tea Party Patriots, or simply patriots, and having attended Tea Party events where signs emblazoned with patriotic messages are proudly waived, this author has never encountered a member or supporter of one of the above-mentioned groups. Furthermore, it is probably safe to assume that most of those reading this article who are Constitution lovers, Tea Party activists, Ron Paul supporters, patriots, etc., have never been affiliated with or known someone who is affiliated with one of the hate movements. That’s not to say there is no hate or extremism in the United States; there is. But SPLC covers only one side of the political hate spectrum — hence, the moniker we have given it– in an effort to retain its extremist liberal donors; the unfortunate consequence, however, is the organization must label people who are not extremists as such so they have something to write about.

The SPLC has given conservative Americans a valuable lesson in liberal semantics with its latest report, a perfect demonstration of the reason liberal mouthpieces get away with saying things similar to things for which conservatives are attacked. With reports like this, the SPLC makes it fine for Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to say the “Tea Party can go straight to hell,” union thugs like Jimmy Hoffa to declare war on Tea Party “sons of bitches” and mouthpieces like Bill Maher and The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd to make disparaging and unsolicited remarks about prominent conservative women while conservative shock-jocks like Rush Limbaugh are attacked vehemently by the liberal media for the same behavior — even when commenting on women who flaunt their own premarital promiscuity before the U.S. Congress. It is excusable, because in the SPLC’s view all Tea Party members, conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots are likely involved in any number of hate crimes and reprehensible acts.

The latest report (which, by the way, was a top headline for the liberal Huffington Post on Thursday) is only the latest installment in the organization’s ongoing campaign against conservatism for financial gain.

Wesley Pruden, former editor of The Washington Times, credited the organization with inventing the new racism, writing in one editorial: “Campaigns of smear and guilt by association have always proven lucrative in terms of fundraising. Realizing the decline in the size of their most lucrative opponent, the SPLC quickly concocted a new one. Immediately, a new racism was to be found — racists, nativists, xenophobes and hate-mongers were suddenly to be discovered lurking under every rock. Particularly attractive targets were immigration reformists who wanted American laws enforced and illegal immigration halted. A new McCarthyism was born.”

With the help of eager liberal allies from the media, the halls of Congress and the White House, SPLC will continue to rake in money from donors terrified of villainous, prejudice anti-government conservatives. All the while, those who believe the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, those who love the Nation, call themselves patriots and believe it is the duty of the people to keep Federal tyranny in check, become the ultimate victims: the new face of terror in the United States.

Judge: 4th Amendment Does Not Extend To Cellphones

Does the protection of the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” provided by the 4th Amendment mean information contained on your cellphone is safe from government snoops? No.

Even though Americans keep vast amounts of personal — and perhaps, unwittingly, self-incriminating — information on their cellphones, and even though most modern cellphones are more like tiny computers than phones, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has ruled that it is legal for police to search them without a warrant.

Stemming from a case wherein Indiana police arrested a drug dealer and obtained information about his activities from his cellphone, the latest assault on the Bill of Rights is simply another liberty victim of the War on Drugs. Judge Richard Posner ruled that police would not have time to obtain a warrant for cellphone searches in many circumstances because suspects could wipe the devices clean in minutes. The judge likened cellphone searches to another case, United States vs. Robinson, in which it was ruled that a “container” on someone’s body at the time of arrest could be searched for evidence relevant to the crime for which he was arrested.

A portion of Posner’s opinion reads:

It’s not even clear that we need a rule of law specific to cell phones or other computers. If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner’s address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number. If allowed to leaf through a pocket address book, as they are, United States v. Rodriguez, they should be entitled to read the address book in a cell phone. If forbidden to peruse love letters recognized as such found wedged between the pages of the address book, they should be forbidden to read love letters in the files of a cell phone. There is an analogy (implied in United States v. Mann, and cases discussed there) to the requirement that wiretaps “minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception.”

It is unclear whether removing the cellphone’s battery, completely turning off the device or protecting it with a password would be an effective way to avoid a warrantless cellphone search.

‘Doomsday Bunker’ Show On Discovery Channel

A new show that premiered on Discovery Channel yesterday follows the day-to-day activities of a company that specializes in building bunkers for disaster scenarios.

Dallas-based Deep Earth Bunker owner Scott Bales and his engineers show exactly what goes into making intricate survival bunkers. In each episode of “Doomsday Bunkers” viewers get a start-to-finish guide to building a bunker. Whether power grid failures, nuclear disasters, shooting sprees, tsunamis, earthquakes, terrorist attacks or economic collapse are his customers’ concerns, Bales can build a shelter to suit.

“The series takes a really interesting look into this subculture or movement, from radical folks who really take these precautions to an extreme, to the average person who is using their common sense and taking responsibility for what could happen,” executive producer Anna Geddes told FOX News. “The core focus is really on how Scott built his business – he is an engineering genius with an incredible passion for design, and is always dreaming up ways to improve something.”

During the show, Bales and his team go to great lengths to test their bunkers by trying to blow them up and set them on fire and by shooting and hurling objects at them.

“Some of these bunkers can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with radiation infiltration systems, booby traps, gun vaults, decontamination rooms and high-tech software to counter security breaches, while others are much more simple,” said Geddes. “It might seem extreme to pile guns or food in anticipation for disaster, but we’ve become so dependent on infrastructure and most of us aren’t self-sufficient anymore.”

Are All Airline Employees Taking Notes From The TSA?

A woman from Burbank, Calif., was arrested after a flight from Los Angeles to Houston because she painted her nails on the airplane.

According to CBS News, Jeanie Daniels was on the flight on Feb. 26 to see her boyfriend, who lives in Houston. Daniels asked passengers on both sides of her if they would mind her painting her nails. They said they would not; a flight attendant, however, took issue.

“I thought it was all going well until the attendant came over and was very upset I was painting my nails, saying it was offending everyone around me,” Daniels told the news station.

The passenger then went to the plane’s lavatory to finish where she was accosted by another flight attendant.

“She said, ‘Weren’t you just told not to paint your nails?’ and I said, ‘Actually, I wasn’t. I was just told it was offending people around me so I did the right thing and went to an enclosed area,’” Daniels said.

When she went back to her seat, the first flight attendant continued to reprimand her, prompting the passenger to ask her to shut up and calling her an expletive.

The disagreement resulted in police officers arresting Daniels when her flight landed and her subsequent detainment for 10 hours before it was deemed that no charges would be filed.