who's your nanny?

It's Hard out Here for a Pimp

Just in case you were worried that the Bushbama depression would cause the federal government to pinch pennies along with ordinary Americans, have no fear. While companies are laying off employees, Uncle Sam's workforce is growing.

If we don't coerce taxpayers to fund wasteful government boondoggles, the terrorists will win.

What Does an Abortion Look Like?

I know what you're thinking. For all the effed up shit that comes out of my head and ends up as a scribble on this blog, I didn't just go and type that headline. Well, folks, I did.

As I was clicking through the links of Brutus's last post, the very last one took me to this page, where the author, Jill Stanek, writes about a convicted abortionist who is now a principal in a Chicago public school. As the proud father of a handsome one-year-old, it was a little tough to look at a photo Stanek included that clearly was a depiction of a late-term abortion.

But that was nothing. Included in Stanek's web links was a path to The Abortion Gallery, which, as you may have already guessed, speaks for itself. (I'm saving the link for the end, and in any case you'll have to scroll to see the photos, so you're not barraged right off the bat.)

It's at this point that I'll warn all readers of the extremely graphic nature of the photos the website contains. If you think you can stomach it (and there's no shame if you can't), these are pictures every adult should see. They're not so much unsafe for work as they are unsafe for pro-abortion politicians, who most certainly want voters to remain ignorant of what really goes on in abortion clinics.

Obviously there are few issues as touchy as abortion, but this gallery is a must-see especially for people who happen to be on the fence.

As a radical, anti-state libertarian, I oppose the government's regulation of abortion on the face of it. But the state notwithstanding, I am anti-abortion. I believe in the non-aggression principle, which states that it is immoral to initiate or threaten violence or fraud against someone else's person or property.

Some libertarians argue that a baby in the womb fetus is deserving of no property rights (i.e., the right to its own life), that it is actually the property of the mother, who has the right to determine whether her baby lives or dies because it is simply a parasite feeding on a host.

Well, given that this parasite has a heartbeat emanating from an organ belonging to the same species of mammal as its host, I reject this argument out of hand. It is entirely illogical to argue that a mere physical barrier -- in this case, the amniotic sack or uterine wall -- is an appropriate determinant for the morality of taking a human life.

In short, to believe that it's moral to abort a baby inside the womb but immoral just as long as it's lucky enough to make it out of the birth canal is as absurd as believing it would be OK to shoot someone as long as he were standing inside his house, but not if he were standing on his front porch.

But here I go trying to rationalize. As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words. The ones at The Abortion Gallery should leave you speechless.

It's Good to Be King

William Grigg comments on our new dictator's decision to crank up the White House thermostat because our fearless leader "hates the cold." But the story gets better. The Holy One had the temerity to berate Sidwell Friends Academy for closing down due to the cold weather:

"[W]hen it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things," lectured The One during a White House meeting today. "We're going to have to try to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town."

But it gets even better. A reader sent this comment to Mr. Grigg concerning The Prophet's behavior:

"The new president's propensity to crank up the heat certainly appears at odds with his declaration last year, 'We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.'

This blatant hypocrisy is a side of Obama I hadn't really seen up till now. Put this together with the fact his education secretary ran a public school system in Chicago that Obama refused to put his own kids into, and the parallels with Soviet leaders who could shop at special stores stocked with Western goods get mighty uncomfortable."

I have heard that they who live in glass houses should not throw stones. They should also not build their houses on fault lines.

Just Another 'Happy Little Accident'

If you didn't know better, you'd think police departments were headed by incarnations of Bob Ross. Drug raids, especially those of the wrong door variety, obviously aren't perceived by the state and its cronies as activities that consistently put the lives of innocent human beings at risk.

Consider the flip attitude of Gwinnett County (Ga.) police spokesman John Bankhead in response to a botched no-knock raid that terrorized the family of a young woman while she was at work (i.e., raising tax revenue for the state so it can afford to pay thugs to trespass on her property).

“We are doing a complete review of what happened,” Bankhead said. “We will make corrections about procedures and will do additional training if necessary.”

Yeah, that oughta help. Plenty of consolation for the attempted murder of five people, including an infant baby.

(Thanks to Ron Holt for the story)

The Police Sure Are Innovative

They continually find new lows to stoop to and crimes to commit. J.D. Tuccille links to a story in which Texas Sheriff William Keating plead guilty to extorting sex from a woman, the price to avoid potential drug charges. Oh, but the story gets worse.

Keating was allowed to roam the streets until Judge Robert K. Roach decides what to do with him. According to news reports, Assistant U.S. Attorney Rick Calvert "said he did not oppose Keating's remaining free until the sentencing because this crime and other alleged misdeeds happened when he was acting as the sheriff..." 

Let that quote from U.S. Attorney Rick Calvert roll around in your head for a while. Keating can remain free because he committed this crime and other alleged misdeeds while he was sheriff.

All of a Sudden, the Wars Are A-OK

I've been meaning to comment on this for the past week, but today Manuel Lora beat me to it. Whereas anti-war marches abounded during the Bush administration, he notes the peculiar absence of Democratic/liberal outrage about the murders that Obama has already carried out.

Lora quotes a friend:

Let's see how many anti-war protest marches there are, how big they are, how many anti-war bumper stickers there are in two years, and how vocal places like Daily Kos (or other ... leftist rags) are about war. Let's see. But as for me, I'm calling it this way right now: the majority of Americans support foreign wars, or at least are not actually anti-war. The ones who were in the last eight years were simply anti-Bush, and I think Obama is going to prove me right on this.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

To Denis and Trish

Four years already.

 

Lovers of life. Lovers of scotch. No wonder we got along so well. I'll be drinking to you tonight.

Rest in peace, my friends.

Schooling at the Point of a Gun

Fellow Examiner blogger Andrea Hermitt writes today about states that pay for college.

Why would people be interested in sending their kids to schools funded with money stolen from coerced taxpayers? Oh yes...because Americans are among the biggest welfare kings and queens the world has ever known.

Jon Stewart Rocks!

Here's the change you can believe in.

The Persecution of Terry Clarke

Last week I wrote about a legal battle being fought by Terry Clarke, a Southern Maryland business owner who was arrested last April for firing a rifle in the direction of three men who were hunting by a pond near his house.

Instead of simply charging Mr. Clarke with assault, the state put the thumbscrews to this man by exploiting a drug conviction Clarke received back in 1987 and, because conviced felons cannot legally own firearms, subsequently ran up a litany of weapons charges as well. Facing 41 counts of assault and weapons charges, Clarke was offered a plea deal last week by state prosecutors that could, absurdly, still land him in prison for up to 75 years. I learned yesterday that Clarke decided to accept the deal and plead guilty, hoping the judge will show mercy given that he harmed no one during this incident.

Before I continue, I want to point out that up to this point I've assumed that the three hunters were trespassing on Clarke's property. The report last April mentioned that the incident occurred at a "pond outside his house," but the state alleges the land does not belong to Mr. Clarke. This is irrelevant in any case because it is illegal to initiate violence against someone else even if they're on your property, and it's legal to defend yourself against threats or acts of violence even if you're not on your own property.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an acquaintance of Terry Clarke's. I don't know him well but as he's the owner of arguably the most popular bar in Southern Maryland, I've spoken with him on several occasions and consider him to be a very cordial and humble person. Therefore, when I first heard of this incident I had a hard time believing this guy would just starting ringing off rounds at people for no apparent reason. Well, a conversation I had yesterday with Clarke's close friend and employee put everything in much better perspective.

According to Clarke, the hunters actually hit his house with buckshot. I have no reason to believe this was done intentionally, but Clarke apparently went outside to tell the men to leave so it wouldn't happen again. When they didn't leave, he shot at some ducks about 40 yards away from the hunters and said something to the effect of, "There, now you have nothing to shoot." It was at this point that the men left and called police, telling them they were shot at.

If this explanation of events is accurate, it is ridiculous that Mr. Clarke was charged with first-degree assault in the first place, as it would be clear that he didn't shoot "at" anyone. Of course, given that we know how much effort the police here in our neck of the woods put into investigating alleged crimes, it comes as no surprise to me that they would simply take the hunters' word alone and immediately charge Clarke, leaving him to deal with the legalities of the matter.

But police couldn't just stop there once they realized Clarke was imprisoned over two decades ago on a cocaine charge. Instead, they tacked 34 weapons charges onto initial charges of assault after confiscating other guns from Clarke's house. Even though none of the weapons was used in this alleged assault. Even though Clarke was originally convicted of a nonviolent offense.

It's tyrannical enough that the state prevents nonviolent felons from protecting themselves for the rest of their lives using the most efficient means known to man; it's outright unconscionable that the state of Maryland is seeking to put Mr. Clarke behind bars for the rest of his life on charges that have nothing to with the case at hand, and despite the fact that Clarke harmed no one (!). The putrid "war on drugs" is about to claim the life of another man by essentially forcing Clarke to pay once again for a crime whose sentence has already been served.

To give you an idea of how despicable these charges against Clarke really are, consider the fact that even if he had accidentally killed one of the hunters absent a prior drug conviction, he'd probably only be looking at five to ten years with the very real probability of serving only a couple.

Plea deals might be great if the police are dealing with guilty suspects because they ensure that actual criminals will pay in at least some capacity for their crimes. But as I mentioned in last week's post, the state's game centers around trumping up charges as much as possible with the intent to get defendants to plead out -- regardless of innocence or guilt. Despite what anyone tells you, cops and prosecutors don't give a hoot whether you're innocent or guilty. Contrary to every sense of justice, their merit is judged by the convictions they obtain.

There is no "right" choice in a plea arrangement if you're innocent. If you decide to take your chances with a jury, you might be acquitted, but there's a very real possibility the state will prevail. After all, they will lie and cheat in the attempt to get their almighty conviction. On the other hand, if you decide to take the plea, as Terry Clarke has, you are compelled to admit guilt, in which case attempting to convince a judge of your innocence is futile.

Under such circumstances Mr. Clarke's guilty plea hardly "proves" his guilt; it merely proves that the state has succeeded in getting a man to surrender in a no-win situation. Even if Clarke were guilty of assaulting the hunters, it is not immoral to merely possess weapons that have not been used to cause tangible harm to someone else -- no matter what the state and its laws claim. In a just society, crimes are only committed when one intentionally initiates violence against someone else's person or property.

Coincidentally, I'd also like to point out that Clarke has appealed to both the St. Mary's and Calvert County sheriffs, whom he has supported while in office and also during their respective campaigns. Both have refused to vouch for Clarke's character in court by saying that such a measure would be "too political." So there you have it, folks. If the head of a police force doesn't care to speak out in support of justice for someone who's actually backed him financially and in the voting booth, do you really think he cares about anyone else?

In closing, I'll leave you with a story about Terry Clarke and his business partner, Pat Donovan, as relayed by a friend this morning.

Last summer, Terry and Pat were approached by a local Calvert County deputy, who was also a member of the Fraternal Order of Police. A fellow officer was paralyzed during an accident involving his police cruiser and would never walk again.

The FOP wanted to have a fundraiser for the officer and his family, and the organization hoped to raise money to help purchase a handicapped-accessible van. Terry and Pat not only sponsored the benefit at their bar with all the officers, but they also purchased the van for the injured officer. 

During the benefit, both Terry and Pat asked not to be mentioned as the ones who bought the van. They just wanted the benefit to be about the injured officer. This gesture meant the world to the injured officer and his family, but to Terry and Pat, it was just another way to help someone in need.

Even if you don't know Terry Clarke, maybe you know someone who's been through a similar ordeal. Or you realize that the state disguises persecution under a cloak of "justice" every day, and you could be next.

Whatever the case, Mr. Clarke is now the one in need of some help. You can call the St. Mary's County state's attorney's office at 301-475-4590 if you'd like to tell them he deserves leniency from the judge.

My Next Cell Phone Will Have a Camera

JD Tuccille has found more video showing that Oscar Grant was assaulted before he was shot. Another camera phone shows a police officer punch Mr. Grant in the stomach while being detained by another officer without provocation. Given the amount of outrage in this case, I think the police officers involved will pay for their crimes. All government power rests on consent and a case like this threatens to erode the State-centered ideology of the masses. Thus, it is in the best interest of the State to prosecute these officers to the fullest extent of the law. However, the State will make sure to paint these accused officers as bad apples which have not spoiled the bunch. They will meticulously describe how the officers did not follow police procedure and explain that BART police are not trained this way. This will deflect the masses attention away from the fraudulent nature of police protection. They will not question the legitimacy of the State. Thus, the State can continue its instutionalized robbery and protection racket unabated.

While I believe that these officers will pay for their crimes, this is only because the assault and shooting were videotaped. If the Sean Bell or the Amadou Diallo shooting had also been videotaped, those officers may have been found guilty. If the Grant shooting had not been videotaped, we would have the word of the eyewitnesses against the word of the police. Given that many Americans love their police state, the BART officers chances of getting away would be good.

Obama Opposes Citigroup Jet

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday at a press briefing that President Barack Obama "doesn't believe" using private jets "is the best use of money"-- at least not if that money is from a federally financed bailout package.

Writes a friend in response to the report: "Barry is telling Citigroup they can't buy their new playtoy. Lesson: When you are on the government dole you become the government's b*tch."

Indeed. That's the entire reason the feds fork out all our money in the first place.

No Such Thing As a Government 'Stimulus'

The bankrupting of the country continues apace as Barack Obama attempts to woo starstruck Republican senators into voting for a so-called economic stimulus package that's approaching $900 billion.

The perversity of such a measure should not go unnoticed. Not only can the federal government not afford to fund this package using existing tax revenue -- the national debt currently exceeds $10 trillion -- but just about half of this bill consists of tax cuts and increased subsidies for existing welfare programs. To wit:

The economic stimulus package proposed by Democratic House leaders totals $825 billion and includes three broad pieces: a $365.6 billion spending measure for such brick-and-mortar projects as highways and bridges; a $180 billion measure to boost jobless benefits and Medicaid, among other things; and a $275 billion tax-relief package, which includes a plan to give a $500 payroll tax holiday to all workers, a proposal from Mr. Obama's presidential campaign.

While the tax breaks are little more than sops to lawmakers to ensure the bill's passage, they also indicate that taxation essentially is irrelevant to government spending. Instead of taking tangible measures to raise revenue (which tends to elicit angry emails from taxpayers), politicians instead opt to fund their boondoggles using more discreet methods like borrowing the money or firing up the printing presses. Though borrowed money eventually needs to be repaid and inflation is nothing more than a hidden tax that manifests itself in higher prices, both are very successful in disguising the evil of government spending from those who fail to see or understand their long-term effects.

Under this Keynesian framework, the idea is that spending drives the economy. What one person spends becomes income for another. Therefore, if a recession causes a decrease in consumer demand for goods and labor (and hence spending), it's the government's responsibility to step in and increase spending in order to bolster the economy. This in turn leads to more jobs and overall wealth.

While this theory might sound good, its tragic flaw lies in the fact that the government cannot create wealth. All government spending is the result of taxation (in one form or another), which is to say the forcible extraction of real wealth from productive members of society. Government can merely redistribute this wealth from taxpayers to tax eaters; it is seized from its creators and diverted to less productive ends. As Henry Hazlitt explained in his outstanding book, Economics in One Lesson, subsidies mean that taxpayers must lose presicely as much as other people gain.

The only way the government can pay for its projects and programs is by robbing others of the wealth they've generated. Indeed, the state's very existence is dependent upon wealth destruction. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that the government can create wealth. And if it cannot create wealth, it most certainly cannot "stimulate" the economy. It can only weaken and eventually destroy it.

But, of course, reality is rarely an antidote to the poison of doublespeak. According to one report, Obama defended his non-stimulus plan in a meeting with Republicans by saying, "I would love to not have to spend this money."

Well, thankfully for him he won't.

Understanding the Symptoms...

but not the cause of the condition. This Examiner editorial points out of much of the profligate spending by the State, but suffers from a naive view of the State which afflicts most conservatives. That is, conservatives generally believe that the people who are elected really do care about the public good and the future wellbeing of the nation.

The editorial asks whether The Holy One would be willing to make the "tough choice" to cut government spending. The answer is, "Of course not." As Hans Herman Hoppe has pointed out, in a democracy the rulers are not owners of the capital stock. They are only caretakers who are allowed to generate an income. But since they don't "own" the country and cannot pass it down to any heirs, they have no incentive to take care of the nation. Their incentive is to loot the country as fast as possible because they only have four or six years in office to do so.

Moreover, our rulers are not liable for the debt they run up. They can borrow and inflate as much as they want; no one holds them responsible. No one will force Bush to pay back the billions of dollars he spent during his eight-year reign. If you give a person the ability to borrow or print as much money as he wishes and absolve him of the consequences after he leaves office, what do you think he will do with this power? You would have to be an angel to resist using this power.

A final point for this post is that the editorial completely ignores the mindset of our rulers in office. The agents of the State never believe that they have to sacrifice anything, ever. If they cut programs, it is only because such programs do not fit their ideological interests; they simply cut that program and spend the money on a program they like. The individual States are also having "budget crises" but the reason they catoregorize this as a crisis is because the State agents do not want to give up their cushy jobs. They do not want to give their plunder back to the rightful owners. They believe that they are entitled to the production of the private citizens and will persuade the sheep to sacrifice their own lives, property, and standard of living so that they will not have to sacrifice theirs.

Until conservatives see the State for what it is, their goals of freedom will never be realized. As long as the State is a territorial monopolist of law and order, and is the ultimate judge of conflicts including conflicts involving itself, it will pervert law in its own favor. Constitutions which are designed to limit the State are useless as long as the State is the ultimate judge of this constitution. Just as the pigs in Animal Farm constantly rewrote the Seven Commandments to exempt themselves from the laws, the State will reinterpret the laws arrogating the power to decide when it has violated our rights. Even a law as clear as the First Amendment which is supposed to protect our right to criticize the State was perverted so that the State could, in fact, decide that some speech was too dangerous and could be regulated by the State.

There comes a time when we must put off childish things. This myth that the State can be limited is one of them.

Obama's Half-Truths on Foreign Policy

According to the AP, Barack Obama's first formal televised interview as president aired today on an Arabic network.

Obama cited his Muslim background and relatives, practically a taboo issue during the U.S. presidential campaign, and said in the interview, which aired Tuesday, that one of his main tasks was to communicate to Muslims "that the Americans are not your enemy."

That's true. "Americans" aren't anybody's enemy. The American state is. But I'm guessing Mr. Very Important Voice will prove to be all talk and no action.

For instance, Obama hits the right notes by saying that American diplomats need to "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

Well, no kidding. But he made this comment in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is hardly the United States' biggest problem. If the new president really wants to "repair relations" with the Muslim world, he could begin by pulling U.S. occupying forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And that would only be the beginning.

Until then, I'd expect the recipients of American genocide to be influenced more by troop withdrawals than by lofty rhetoric.

Bush, Obama, and the American State

Must-read article from Anthony Gregory about our journey on the road to serfdom. An excerpt describing the change we can expect from our new dictator:

Obama once railed against Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, but then he voted to legalize it and make it far worse. He has ordered the shut-down of Guantanamo, the black sites, and torture policy, and for this he tentatively deserves credit. This is beyond mere symbolism, but short of an undoing of the Bush detention policy. Obama seems to want to create an alternate court system here at home without the constraints of due process. His Attorney General pick, Eric Holder, has a consistent history of antagonism toward the Second Amendment and the rights for the accused. His Vice President and Chief of Staff stand out as monster drug warriors even among prohibitionists. He might erode the Bill of Rights slightly more slowly than Bush did, if we’re lucky, but that is hardly a victory. We will likely remain less secure in our privacy and due process rights than we were at the end of the Clinton regime. And then there’s the fact that he and his team keep talking about national service, which could be a euphemism for federal slavery.

As for foreign policy, Obama, to his credit, was good on Iraq when it began, but he voted for war funding as Senator and picked Hillary Clinton, from whom he distinguished himself most of all in terms of good judgment in foreign affairs, to head up foreign affairs. He thinks the military needs to be bigger. His plan for withdrawal might take a year or more and he would still leave behind a military presence bigger than what the neocons said would be needed to democratize Iraq in the first place!

Abolish the SEC

From the "The Government Can't Protect You" File, Example Number ... well, pick a number. This time, though, it's the Securities and Exchange Commission failing to protect private investors from fraud allegedly committed by Bernard Madoff.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has faced heavy criticism over its failure to discover the $50 billion Ponzi scheme allegedly run by Madoff, the prominent Wall Street figure and money manager now fallen into disgrace -- despite credible allegations against him that were brought to the agency over the course of a decade. Against the backdrop of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, the SEC also is accused of contributing to that disaster with lax oversight of Wall Street and the markets, and lawmakers of both parties are calling for a shake-up of the agency to help restore investor confidence.

Writes a buddy of mine: "Thank the lord we graciously and willingly give so much of our tax money to the SEC.  So they can ignore 10 years of warnings with respect to Madoff.   Seriously...how much worse would it be without them?"

The fact of the matter is we will be much better of just as soon as we learn to place less trust in government regulatory agencies, not more.

Just as it was the market, not the SEC, that discovered Enron's shenanigans, so too the Madoff debacle. But there's no shortage of outrage from politicians and bureaucrats, who pretend that the Fed's expansion of money and credit, in addition to federal regulations giving investors a false sense of security, have nothing to do with corporate fraud.

The state represents tyranny, which is the polar opposite of freedom. Therefore, whenever there's a problem, a good rule of thumb is to do the exact opposite of what the government suggests. Whereas the scandals at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom led directly to the putrid Sarbanes-Oxley Act, don't be surprised if federal lawmakers exploit the Madoff case to add even more layers of auditing requirements to regulations that are ineffective to begin with.

Increased competition between private investment firms, not heightened bureaucracy in the form of tighter reporting requirements and disclosure rules, is the remedy if the actual goal is a freer market. Sadly, I'm hardly confident that's the case when it comes to the state.

All Hail O-baah-ma!

Shame on anyone who would willingly enslave his own children to the state.

The new president has pulled off the perfect lobotomy. Watching the hordes worship at the altar of the Obaman Oracle these past few weeks has convinced me of just how certain I am that we have become a nation of sheep, baahing to our slavemaster as we march entranced to the slaughter.

Laws for Thee but Not for Me

Timothy Geithner has been confirmed by the Senate to be Obama's treasury secretary. He's the guy who caused a bit of a stir when reports surfaced indicating he "owed" back taxes at the time of his nomination.

While no one owes the state even one thin dime and Geithner was most certainly under no obligation to apologize for his "error," one is tempted to ask whether you or I would have received similar concession from the Internal Ransack Service.

Slavery to the State

Americans have no problems with slavery in the abstract. That is, Americans have no problem with the idea that some people should be forced to work against their will. When Americans say that slavery is evil, what they mean is that the chattel slavery of Africans owned by private citizens is evil or, to a lesser extent, women forced to live as prostitutes by private individuals is evil. To be enslaved to the State, however, is not evil. In fact, it is patriotic.

UPDATE: JD Tuccille has a much more detailed commentary on the Examiner blog. The very first comment insinuates that those who oppose this program are "spoiled." Fortunately, the majority of comments so far favor liberty. But remember, people like "Chris" vote and appear to have no problem voting themselves to be slaves to others. As I wrote a while back, slave masters could only dream about indoctrinating their slaves to the point that they would want to be kept in bondage.

Friends of Liberty in Surprising Places

Jim Fedako has a very good article about a weatherman in Ohio who questions anthropogenic global warming and is a friend of liberty.

Maryland Sinking under Tax-and-Spend Governor

Just as fines are de facto taxes on behavior the government doesn't approve of, taxes are fines on initiative and production.

An editorial in today's DC Examiner reports that the Tax Foundation ranks Maryland as the sixth worst state in the country in which to live or do business.

Maryland’s “remarkable drop” - from 24th in 2008 to 45th place this year – is attributed to last year’s passage of the largest tax hike in state history, coupled with other major tax policy changes that also put the Free State dead last in the personal income tax category. . . .

High rates of taxation and spending are hardly Maryland's only problems. Gov. Martin Owe'Malley's O'Malley's fine marriage of government theft and nanny-state legislation like the state smoking ban and a forthcoming ban on trans fats is enough to keep entrepreneurs out of the state altogether.

Hiking taxes might provide a spike in revenue in the short term, but over the long haul it will devastate an economy -- parasitic politicians will always continue to spend, but their taxpaying hosts will ultimately take measures to protect their own property from the thieves. For Maryland, that means individuals will either take their families and businesses elsewhere or refuse to set up shop in the state in the first place.

It's long past time for Maryland to reconsider its moniker as the Free State. For anyone but the tax eaters in Annapolis and all their friends on the dole, it's anything but.

No 'Change' to Evil Drug War under Prophet Obama

I must be tripping because I could've sworn federal DEA agents conducted violent raids on nonviolent marijuana businessmen during the eight blissful years of the Bush administration.

Apparently not, however, because I just read that Obama's drug enforcement agency has raided a medical marijuana dispensary in California, where such shops are legal under state law, in order to prevent peaceful, voluntary trade between entrepreneurs and customers expressing personal choices in pain relief.

I'm overcome with all this "Change!"

So Much for 'Change,' eh Barry?

Well, that didn't take long.

Unsurprising to most libertarians, Barack Obama has proven there's not much difference between him and fellow war criminal George W. Bush, as he has apparently just overseen the murder of at least 16 innocent civilians, including two women and three children, in Afghanistan.

I know, I know. The terrorists hide amongst the civilian population, they all look the same, blah blah blah.

The Myth of National Defense

I have just started reading The Myth of National Defense, edited by Hans Hermann Hoppe. There is an essay by Walter Block which argues against defense as a public good. His argument that the very idea of State-provided protection is inherently fallacious was truly an eye-opener for me.  As a libertarian/classical liberal, I believe that the greatest threat to life, liberty, and property is the State under which we live. I have approached this argument through philosophy and theology, but Walter Block gives such a simple answer, I can't believe I did not think of this before.

The ostensible purpose of the State is to protect life, liberty, and property from aggression. However, the State is a territorial monopolist of law and order with the power to tax. The very first act of this institution designed to protect our lives, liberty, and property is, in fact, an act of aggression against our lives, liberty, and property. It robs us of our property through taxation, it robs us of our liberty by demanding that we seek protection from no other producer of security (and in some US cities this includes producing our own security), and will rob us of our lives if we do not pay the tax or seek protection from other producers of security. This act occurs before any other threat is realized from domestic criminals or foreign States.

If the first act of the State is to aggress against those it is supposed to protect, it should be clear that the greatest threat to life, liberty, and property is, indeed, the very State which claims to protect us. Criminals and foreign States may attack our lives, liberty, and property, but such attacks will be sporadic and unpredictable. Our own government, on the other hand, is an institutionalized aggressor; it threatens us every year, every month, every week, every day, every hour, every minute, and every second with jail or death if we refuse its protective services or fail to pay taxes. Therefore, our own government is always the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, and property.

Blind Gov Has an Eye for the Lookers

Gov. David Paterson has selected Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to succeed Hillary Clinton as New York's junior senator.

No word yet on whether Paterson taxed his decision.

UPDATE: Read J.D. Tuccille's spot-on analysis of the newest senator.

Arizona County Scraps Speed Cameras

Arizona's Pinal County has put an end to its speed-camera program.

"I'm against photo speed enforcement completely," [Pinal County Sheriff Paul] Babeu said, walking the three-member panel through a detailed PowerPoint presentation. "Here in Pinal, it's failed miserably."

Why is Sheriff Babeu so opposed to photo speed enforcement, you ask? Is it because he doesn't agree with government restrictions on freedom of travel? Is it because the program has failed to prevent traffic accidents? Fatalities?

No. In fact, accidents and fatalities have actually increased. The program has simply failed to generate enough revenue for the county to make its continuance worthwhile.

Babeu said most of the total $134,199.43 in fines and fees from the paid citations covered administrative and operational costs, leaving the county with a net profit of $12,391.58 that Babeu dismissed as paltry.

Moreover, Babeu said, total motor-vehicle accidents increased by 16 percent in the same time period, and fatal collisions in the Queen Creek area doubled from three to six.

The sheriff said he couldn't be certain that speed cameras were to blame for the crashes, but he believes they were a factor.

I suppose Babeu deserves credit for at least tacitly revealing that these cameras were used mainly to create easy revenue for the county. They're intended to be just another form of taxation. And if you can get a public official to actually admit that he believes the cameras "were a factor" in motor vehicle accidents and deaths, you can bet they were the primary cause.

The government can't protect you. And don't expect any of the county supervisors or the sheriff to be held to account for a program that cost the lives of innocent civilians, either. The government does not care about your "safety"; it cares about keeping you in line and getting as much of your money as it can.

After all, what's Sheriff Babeu's new plan? Why, installing red-light cameras, of course!

Against Intellectual Monopoly

Jeffrey Tucker has written an excellent review of the new book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, authored by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, who argue that copyright and patent laws run counter to a free market and are little more than government grants of monopoly.

To prove their mettle the authors have made their book available for free on their website. I've just now begun to read it and so far I'm very impressed.

The supposed legitimacy of intellectual property laws has been ingrained in our psyche for so long that it's difficult for most people to even consider the notion that their primary function is to serve as legal prohibitions on competition, much less to imagine that without them the world would be freer -- their absence would lead to more innovation, productivity, and profit.

Don't feel bad if you have trouble understanding the true nature of IP laws. I only began to see the light after reading Stephen Kinsella's landmark essay Against Intellectual Property. The only shame is in ignoring the truth.

The War on Drugs: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Last April I wrote about the arrest of Terry Clarke, an owner of the Tiki Bar in Solomons, Maryland who was arrested on 41 counts of assault and weapons charges for shooting a rifle in the direction of three hunters trespassing on his property.

Yesterday the state of Maryland offered Clarke a plea deal that could still result in 75 years (!) in prison. (For these charges, you'd think he was actually accused of shooting at an almighty police officer!)

A copy of the agreement filed in court lists the maximum penalties that could be imposed for three counts of second-degree assault, a single count of reckless endangerment and eight weapons violations, and states that three counts of first-degree assault and 26 more weapons charges in the indictment would be dismissed.

This is how the criminal state works. Prosecutors trump up as many charges as possible to intimidate defendants in the chance that they'll plead guilty to lesser charges. This allows the state to boast its "leniency" even as it knows innocent suspects willingly accept prison sentences in hope of avoiding a life behind bars for crimes they didn't commit.

I'm not necessarily suggesting Clarke shouldn't pay a penalty for his actions if, in fact, he violently threatened people who were not threatening him. Even in a stateless society, it would be immoral to threaten lethal force against someone who does not initiate violence. If it weren't, there would be a lot more reports of girl scouts and vacuum cleaner salesmen being shot on people's doorsteps.

In short, one cannot do tangible harm to someone else simply by walking onto his property and ringing a doorbell. Similarly, even if the three hunters trespassing on Clarke's property did so knowingly but in the process neither threatened nor caused harm to Clarke himself, Clarke would not have been justified in initiating violent measures to get them to leave (if this is indeed what transpired). In contrast, Clarke certainly had the right to order trespassers off his property, and if they had failed to leave, that in itself justifiably could have been viewed as a threat of violence against Clarke. Moreover, Clarke also could have been entitled to damages if the hunters shot wildlife on his property without permission.

Unfortunately, however, these details essentially are neither here nor there. Clarke is being run through the mill by the state for the supposed "crime" of possessing illegal firearms as a result of a prior felony conviction. To wit:

The indictment filed last spring by grand jurors alleged that Clarke, now 45, illegally possessed the rifle – along with an Israel Military Industries model UZI B 9mm rifle, a .44-caliber Desert Eagle handgun, an IMBEL .45-caliber handgun, a Kel-tec CNC Industries sub-2000 9mm rifle and four shotguns — after being convicted of a felony narcotics trafficking offense.

The indictment accused Clarke of unlawfully receiving ammunition clips, participating in illegal weapons transactions, and participating in a ‘‘straw purchase" of four of the weapons, a term commonly referring to a gun sale to a third person on behalf of someone who cannot legally own a firearm.

In reality, Clarke probably should be happy he isn't also facing federal "racketeering" charges -- bogus crimes alleged by the government in order to punish mere behavior (such as paying a third party to obtain goods the state deems illegal).

But as for the matter at hand, the state of Maryland isn't even really going after Clarke for his alleged assault -- the plea offer eliminates charges of first degree assault, which under Maryland law means that a person has caused or attempted to cause "serious physical injury" to another. Absurdly, prosecutors are trying to lock this man away primarily on charges associated with a nonviolent drug conviction over two decades ago.

In any just society, the accused would only stand trial or pay reparations for acts or threats of tangible harm to others. In the case of Clarke's alleged assault, if he wanted to avoid trial or even admit to mishandling a rifle, he would in all likelihood be able to pay the men to settle the issue and that would be that. That's what should happen if indeed one violates the rights of another. Locking someone up in a cell and forcing taxpayers to foot the bills to house and feed people who are either innocent or simply guilty of making a stupid decision accomplishes nothing.

Keep in mind that Terry Clarke caused no tangible harm to any of the three men hunting on his property. Also consider the fact that charging papers state that the rounds he discharged landed a full 40 yards from the hunters. Clarke's insistence that he was shooting at birds to scare them away from the hunters seems just as plausible as the hunters' contention that Clarke was shooting at them.

At most, Clarke should be facing three counts of assault and a reckless endangerment charge, and given the specifics of the case it would be foolish to assume that prosecutors could automatically obtain a jury conviction. But of course the state knows this, so it has also exploited immoral drug laws just to increase its chances of getting its man. There's the state's idea of justice for you!

I'd love to see Clarke tell prosecutors to stick it on principle alone, but you could hardly fault him for succumbing to the state's iron fist in hope of eluding a prison sentence that could find him confined to a government cage for the rest of his life. However, if I were looking at a possibility of 75 years even with a plea, I think I'd rather take my chances that a jury wouldn't punish me nearly as severely as a judge would in the event I were compelled to admit guilt.

I don't know whether Terry Clarke actually assaulted those hunters or not, but one thing is clear regardless: He couldn't possibly have acted as criminally as the state is right now in its efforts to convict him.

I Pledge

To think twice before doing anything that will improve these bozos' Nielsen ratings.

On second thought, I too pledge to do everything I can to help end 21st century slavery -- and that starts by rebuking our new slavemaster, Barack H. Obama.

Obama Could Take the Oath 100 Times

And he still wouldn't come close to upholding the Constitution.

I Apologize for Not Submitting to Robbery

In my essay There Is No Middle Ground, I wrote:

The State as the most efficient criminal gang humanity has ever created has masked this robbery. People do not see the gun because the robber hides it in his cloak of Red, White, and Blue. It is not until the tribute is not paid that the guns are pulled; but the minds of the people have been so corrupted, they believe that the guns are justified. They have come to the perverse conclusion that it is immoral not to pay taxes. Does any one think it immoral to refuse to hand over money to a bandit? Surely it may not be wise to resist for the bandit may kill you, but this does not mean that it is immoral to resist robbery. Yet this is what many people feel about tax evaders; they are criminals because they refuse to pay the tribute.

Here is an example of this perverse idea that to not submit to robbery is immoral. Secretary of Treasury designate Tim Geithner has apologized for not paying his taxes:

"I have paid what I owed," Geithner said under grilling from Grassley. "I apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues."

Actually, Mr. Geithner, you don't owe anything. To apologize to the State for not paying taxes is like apologizing to a robber for not handing over your wallet fast enough. You may do so in an attempt to save your life, but you know that you are one being violated. Of course, Mr. Geithner is trying to gain entry into the State, so he must apologize to the mafia for withholding payment. But the masses will read this article and think, "Good. I'm glad to know he feels sorry for breaking the law." This brainwashing of the masses is simply the best form of slavery any oppressor could wish for.

The Government Can't Protect You

Not even a full day into his term and Obama has already reneged on a campaign pledge. And it's kind of a biggie. Instead of closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Obama has ordered a four-month suspension of prisoner prosecutions.

Interestingly enough, the order raises questions about how the military is to proceed with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who has a hearing scheduled for today.

The U.S. government has had Mohammed in custody for almost six years. First captured in March 2003, he wasn't even charged with war crimes until February 2008 and is still on trial. Not only was the federal government unable to protect Americans on 9/11, but if it hasn't even been able to wrap up a conviction yet for a man considered to be one of al-qaeda's top operatives, what do you think the chances are it'll actually be able to prove the guilt of the 200-plus suspects currently detained at Gitmo?

If this failed despotic experiment isn't enough to prove the government is more interested in exerting control than "protecting" anyone, nothing is.

UPDATE (11:00 p.m.): Barry, like, so reads my blog. (Of course, if that's true he's probably got a special Gitmo just for me.)

There Is No Middle Ground

Stephen Carson links to an very good piece by Sheldon Richman on the transfer of power. Richman writes in part:

Apologists for government undertake bizarre mental contortions to show that we have consented to be taxed. Balderdash. I was never asked to consent, and I’m sure you weren’t either. I refuse to accept the nonsensical argument that by not vacating the parcel of land I purchased, I have signaled my “tacit consent” to be plundered and bullied. That implies the government owns the territory it rules and therefore can set the conditions under which it is used. That sounds like feudalism. Are we merely tenants of the governmental landlord?

Richman's feudalism analogy illuminates a philosophical truth which has evaded the masses. Many people think that we can give up some of our rights in order to secure liberty. However, there is no trade off between freedom and security; there is no middle ground between the slavery and liberty; and there is no balance between the rights of the State and the individual. Either my rights are inalienable and antecede the State or the State is the granter of my rights. Either I own my property and can dispose of that property however I wish, limited only by neighbor's property rights, or I do not. If I own my property, my land and my house, then the State has no right to impose a tax on my property and threaten me with violence if I do not pay. On the other hand, if the State does have the right to tax my property, then I do not own my property. The State owns my property and has the final say in how I may dispose of it. If you were a billionaire and the State taxed you for a penny, you would not own the remaining $999,999,999.99. If the State has the right to threaten you with violence for one penny, it is simply allowing you to keep the remainder; it can demand from you a portion of the rest or all of it at any time it wishes.

Of course, if you were a billionaire and the State demanded only a penny, you would hand it over gladly. You would not think this were a robbery, but see this as a price paid for services rendered or even patriotic. But suppose I held a gun to your head and asked for a penny? Would you then say that you are not being robbed because I asked for only a penny? No, of course not. You would be grateful that I only asked for a penny because you would be quite aware that I could have asked for more. But you would be quite aware that a horrible violation of your rights took place. You may feel lucky that I did not ask for more, but you would not tell your friends that you donated a penny to a mugger. You would say, "I was robbed, but the robber only asked for a penny."

Inauguration Day Prayer

Dear Lord,

On this day the Remnant asks that you strengthen us for the challenges that are before us. We, the Remnant, understand that you are king and Lord and that we owe no fealty to any man for we were created equal. We realize that we are not equal in intelligence or ability; but we understand that as humans created in your image, no man has the right to rule his brothers with coercion or force. We understand that your Son showed us this way of relating to others for he never coerced anyone to do anything he did not wish, even if this individual disobeyed a direct command from your Son. We understand that the initiation of violence is never right and strive to live this way each day.

We, the Remnant, hope that you will fortify our minds and encourage our spirits for we know that the times before us will be dark. The liberty which follows from your relation with your creation is under attack from enemies everywhere; many of your children have rejected freedom for slavery to the State. And on this day some of your children have forsaken you and turned to man as his savior. However, the Remnant will heed the advice of the Psalmist:

Do not put your trust in princes,
       in mortal men, who cannot save.

  When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
       on that very day their plans come to nothing.

On this day, a day where liberty dies to thunderous applause, we ask that you strengthen our minds, our spirits, and our resolve to be free from human rule.

In Your Son's Name,

Amen

Why Obama?

I'm obviously not pioneering any new territory here by observing that America's infatuation with Barack Obama primarily is due to the fact that a person of color has finally gotten a seat at the table in what was formerly the country's premier white male's club.

But if the goal simply is to elect a minority to the presidency, why not just open up a phone book and start throwing darts at it?

I've never bought the argument that Obama isn't "qualified" to be president due to some supposed lack of "experience." As a product of the Chicago political machine this claim can probably be discounted on its face, but even a cursory glance at a list of bills sponsored by Obama gives you an idea of how ambitious he really is. Not to mention, a politician's legislative ambition almost always has an inverse relationship with his tolerance for freedom. (There's a reason the congressman nicknamed Dr. No is far and away the most pro-liberty politician statesman in the country.)

So while America coronates its first black president today, you can cheer if you like. Just be sure you realize that Obama has demonstrated no intention of, among other things, taking action to defund America's public schools, ease onerous federal regulations on everything from entrepreneurship to gun ownership, reign in the police state, or abolish the murderous and outright tyrannical war on drugs -- all of which limit individual liberty in general and tend to have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks.

Mr. Obama, I Want Out

Dear Barry,

Tomorrow you will take your place as America's next tyrant-in-chief. Heretofore you have made it very clear that the lives of ordinary Americans should revolve around the state. Like the vast majority of your predecessors, your vision of the federal government comprises the severely misguided notion that coercion and violence can be used as forces for good.

Your mantra of "change" is tiresome at best, mostly because I haven't heard you mention any federal agencies or programs you would eliminate upon taking office. Indeed, you will simultaneously be the most popular thief and thug in the United States, as were the men you will follow.

If you actually wanted to be different, you could begin by pushing for repeal of the 16th Amendment, thus eschewing the notion that the property of all those workers you claim to care so much about actually belongs first and foremost to the state. Instead, you've already promised to continue the time-honored tradition of deciding how much treasure will be pirated from the serfs before leaving the balance of this hard-earned booty to its rightful owners. And as if that weren't bad enough, you plan to "spread the loot around," punishing the most productive members of society in order to prop up the least.

You also intend to couple this fleecing of the citizenry with the expectation that we should not only accept such totalitarian behavior, but literally serve the state with a smile as well. You foolishly admonish us to "take responsibility" -- not for ourselves and our families, mind you, but for perfect strangers, under the guise that we can "make government work."

Well, sir, I want no part of it. The government can provide nothing that can't be provided more efficiently and proficiently by individuals taking responsibility for themselves.

In the immortal words of Murray Rothbard, the state is a gang of thieves writ large. Theft, which is rightly illegal in private, cannot suddenly become a moral affair simply because a group of people decides to get together and call it "taxation"; involuntary servitude -- slavery -- is hardly legitimate just because a government refers to it as a "draft" or, better yet, "civilian service"; economic fascism isn't proper just because it's better known as "regulation."

You get the point. Therefore, if it's all the same, you are not "my president." Don't take that the wrong way -- I simply don't view my neighbor as my provider, government police as my protectors, or the president as my savior. We shall simply peacefully coexist, with no mutual assumptions of responsibility toward one another. You won't compel me to live my life according to your standards, and I won't expect you to live yours according to mine.

Just so you understand, you will absolve me of any responsibilities to pay income taxes, adhere to federal gun regulations, obey onerous drug laws, toss my mouthwash if I decide to board a plane, display a passport if I leave or enter the country peacefully, refrain from shooting birds or other vermin that destroy my property -- or generally act in any nonviolent manner that would otherwise get me shot in the face by government goon squads if I failed to obey the state's many tyrannical edicts.

In short, I'll go my way and you'll go yours. And if you were to argue that you cannot honor the terms of our new agreement because there would be a chance I'd, say, use government services along the way even though I'm no longer paying for them, I'll simply remind you that I've never asked for them. In fact, by quickly putting an end to them outright you will be able to eliminate the possibility of incurring this problem in the first place.

I can think of no better change than removing myself from the menacing grasp of the state. Given some of your recent comments, I trust you understand why I want to help "heal this nation" and "seize my future."  Yes, yes I can!

Will you let me?

Unity Through the State?

With all of this talk about unity and becoming one people through the State, J.D. Tuccille has a good post revealing the inherent nonsense of this meme. He writes in part:

Is there any good reason why conservatives and liberals, fundamentalist Christians and atheists, family traditionalists and polyamorists, free-marketeers and socialists, can't just get along, living alongside one another without turning every interaction into mortal combat? I mean, sure they have different ideas about life, but why shouldn't people live according to their own values without worrying about how the neighbors get along? There's no reason they can't, is there?

Sure there is! That reason is government. Government promises to give us all the power to boss around our neighbors and, unfortunately, it delivers. That means that rather than live side-by-side with people who share differing values, we all too often expend our energy organizing the state, lobbying the state and getting people elected to government office in order to send men with guns to intimidate the folks next door into changing their wicked, wicked ways.

One of the most frustrating and annoying phrases being repeated as the Holy One proceeds to the apex of power echoes this belief that a president can bring together a divided nation. Presidents can only bring us together by threatening to kill those who wish to separate. And given that the Holy One plans to use Lincoln's bible to take his oath, this signals to me that the use of such measures remains on the table. Either the majority of people do not recognize that the State is pure violence or the majority do realize this and simply are more willing to fight to control the State so that they can enslave others than live and let live.

I also recommend reading Michael Rozeff's comments on this unity nonsense.

Someone Should Tell Obama the Campaign's Over

Just for laughs yesterday, a couple buddies and I tuned in to CNN to watch the "Obama Express" roll into Baltimore to the delight of 40,000 slaves to the state comprising the crowd.

After listening to Our Holy Savior blather on for about fifteen minutes, the three of us just looked at each other and rolled our eyes at how little this guy actually says during these seminars on hero worship. He just spouts the same old campaign B.S. about how this is a land of "freedom" and "opportunity" -- and then proceeds to talk about all the ways his government will trample these ideals by putting the state in charge of our lives.

But Barack the Beneficent needs no substance. It's clear from the tears in the crowd that the vast majority of his supporters are either statists who buy into all the class warfare rhetoric or malarkey about "change" as they await their forthcoming handouts, or they're simply enamored of the fact that the guy's got a higher melanin count than all previous presidents. Or both.

As I've said before, I appreciate the fact that people identify this moment as historic when not too long ago the state turned its fire hoses and dogs against blacks for having the temerity to protest segregation. But it was the state that was responsible for this morally outrageous injustice in the first place (notwithstanding the actions of private organizations like the KKK) -- the very same state that the naive are foolishly legitimizing at unprecedented levels today.

Well, live it up while you can, folks, because the only thing that's really going to change over the next four years is the skin color of your oppressor.

Killing Kindness

I'll be forgoing one of the best football days of the year to accompany my wife and kid to the mall and I'm running late getting out of the house. I want to spend much more time on the badly misnamed Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act -- a new law requiring lead testing of all toys aimed at kids under 12 -- but for now I will just reprint a quick story of a friend of mine who was told yesterday that his good will can no longer be tolerated.

I saw this story a short while ago saying that thrift stores will be exempt, but that may not be the case. Per my buddy:

apparently there is some new CPSIA law taking affect 10 Feb  see below link for some references...

http://greenmeadowlane.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-cpsia-law-affects-everyone-as-of.html

that prevents reselling of toys for kids under 12 that have not been tested for lead.    hmmm...what exactly is a toy for a kid under 12? 

i told them i don't care about the tax deduction, i just wanted someone to use the toys...anyhow, i guess i'm off to the dump to shitcan 100s of $$ of toys so that the govt can give away money to bail out poor folks who can't pay their mortgage b/c they can no longer buy thrift shop toys for their kids....   wtf?

As I said, more on this later. Right now, time to pray for a few TVs at the mall.

Say No to the Police

A good article by William Buppert at Lew Rockwell.com on the imminent police state.

Your Weekend Vice Crackdown Roundup

The state's war on vices continues apace:

- Police in Mississippi kidnap two children from the home of 27-year-old entrepreneur Leonard Roosevelt Buckley.

- From the "cops are allowed to buy drugs but you're not" file: a man and pregnant woman were arrested in East St. Louis yesterday for engaging in non-violent free trade with consenting adults.

- Two people arrested in Arkansas for non-violently serving the needs of their customers.

The gang of thieves known as the state will do anything to prevent us from evading its extortion payments it likes to call taxes. It will stalk, rob, and kill us for having the audacity to try to make a living without submitting to its coercive mandates -- even if in the process that means murdering other people by mistake (for which, of course, it is almost never held accountable, even when the police have been caught in lies and cover-ups after the fact).

And then, to add insult to injury, it honors and rewards its own criminal behavior when its victims attempt to protect themselves from its violence.

Chesley B. 'Sully' Sullenberger: Hero of Flight 1549

From the inestimable Lew Rockwell, who responds to fellow LRC blogger Karen DeCoster:

...the heroic Sully Sullenberger--who has the white hair I hope to see in the cockpit of any airliner I am taking--pulled off the only ditching with no deaths (and no serious injuries!) in the history of commercial aviation. I notice that he is being hailed by the state media as a product of the federal government, since he is an air force vet. Of course, there they train you to machine-gun, rocket, and bomb strangers on orders--not quite the same thing.

And notice how individuals organized immediately to save all the passengers and crew stranded on the sinking plane? No coast guard, no homeland security, no cops. Oh, the NYPD did send three helicopters to circle the wreck and blow more frigid air on the victims. Then pompous government officials told us the geese were probably not members of al-qaeda. But the private pilot went through the entire sinking plane twice, after he thought everybody was out, to make sure no one was trapped.

I know this may sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but keen observers will keep in mind that, at best, government regulations did nothing to prevent this accident; at worst, they were directly responsible.

One commenter at my Examiner blog had this to say in reference to my post yesterday:

As a former TSA officer who suffered under the tyranny of management rules forced on us by President Bush, I'm proud that union workers were on the scene to fly that plane, serve as flight attendants and of course, the proud union workes of the FDNY.

Sure. It's the fact that the airline employees were unionized that there were no casualties -- not because they were employees of private companies (save for the FDNY), where competition weeds out the incompetent.

You can also bet your last nickel that tyrannical TSA management will hardly be improved under Our Holy Savior. Tragedy was averted yesterday despite the government and its coercive meddling and mandates, not because of it.

A Dip in the Hudson, Courtesy of the State?

I have a relatively small following on this blog, but there's little doubt that the quality of its readers more than makes up for the lack in quantity.

I wrote a quick post yesterday on the U.S. Airways plane crash into the Hudson River, rather sarcastically pointing out that government regulations protecting waterfowl probably didn't do much to prevent a flock of birds from nearly killing over a hundred people.

Well, frequent reader and commenter Kramer, who also happens to be an accomplished pilot, briefly elaborates on just how responsible the government may actually be for this near-catastrophe.

Eight Reasons You Should Never Talk to the Police

Trevor posted this video at JD Tuccille's website in the summer, but given the latest assault on the remnant of rights we have left, I thought it a good idea to remind people that they do not have to talk to the police and it is best not to. This was supposed to be a debate, but the police officer agrees with pretty much everything Prof. Duane says. The officer then explains how his department would encourage people to talk because they may eventually admit doing something our rulers have deemed illegal. The job of the police is not to protect you; their job is to enforce the tyrannical rules that our rulers create.

First the TSA, Now This

I know I'm not the only person who refuses to fly (forced family vacations notwithstanding) because of the petty tyrants who staff the TSA. But that aside, I have a pretty solid fear of flying in general. Or more to the point, a fear of falling.

This pretty much sums it up.

NEW YORK – A US Airways pilot ditched his disabled jetliner into the frigid Hudson River on Thursday afternoon after a collision with a flock of birds apparently knocked out both engines, but rescuers pulled all 155 people on board into boats as the plane sank. There were no immediate reports of any serious injuries.

Honestly, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather just explode immediately than be forced to tread the cesspool known as the Hudson, but, thanks to the skill of the pilots, everyone survived the crash. Endless federal aviation regulations are bad enough, but I think we can all agree this is a perfect example of why air travel should never be socialized.

Good thing we protect all those birds. I wish the pilots luck in dealing with the impending onslaught from PETA.

The Objective of the State

The Government Cometh Not...But for to Kill, to Steal, and to Destroy by Bill Huff

 

The Supreme Court Hearts the Police State

This post is dedicated to all you conservatives out there who actually believe your Roberts-led Supreme Court majority will "restore" rights abducted by liberals, or even preserve individual liberties that, quite literally, are fleeting by the year. (Hint: The high court will never overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Rights to life, liberty, and property are not "granted" by any government. They simply exist naturally and ubiquitously. They are your rights no matter what. Therefore, governments can merely suppress them. Unlike the burglar who steals your wallet, the state can't even "give back" your rights after it's "stolen" them; these rights are still in your possession even if the state and its jackbooted thugs initiate limitless violence to prevent you from expressing them.

Case in point: Yesterday's appalling Supreme Court decision to allow evidence collected by police during an unlawful arrest to be used against a defendant. According to USA Today's Joan Biskupic:

When police mistakes that lead to an unlawful search arise from "negligence … rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," evidence need not be kept from trial, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority in the case from Alabama.

He was joined by the four other conservative justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The four liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — dissented. They said that because the search violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the evidence should have been excluded. "The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database," Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters.

I'm the first to admit there's not much to like about any of the robed totalitarians who sit on the Supreme Court, but Ginsburg hits this one on the head given the specifics of the case, which Biskupic explains thusly:

A warrant clerk in Coffee County, Ala., mistakenly told a police investigator that a warrant from a nearby county was out for Bennie Dean Herring, who had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff's Department to get something from his impounded truck. The Dale County computer error was quickly discovered. But by the time the warrant clerk alerted the police investigator, Herring had been arrested and found with an illegal pistol and with methamphetamine in his pocket.

Given the fact that police didn't even have a valid warrant to search Herring in the first place, they most certainly didn't have a warrant to search for guns or drugs. What's more, this search wasn't even conducted by federal investigators; Herring was searched by county police and only then indicted on federal gun and drug possession charges, which ultimately accounted for his case being heard by the Supreme Court.

Worst of all, even though the feds are well on their way to controlling everthing we do by turning just about any behavior they disapprove of into a federal crime, this ruling could very well be enforced against every state in the union via the putrid incorporation doctrine. Yay, freedom!

No doubt there are conservatives and liberals alike who cheer this decision, if only in support of the evil drug war. However, despite immoral laws and tyrannical politicians and prosecutors, each of us has the right to do what we like with our property so long as we do no tangible harm to anyone else -- and that includes the right to pollute our own bodies with drugs or carry firearms down the street.

Instead of upholding the natural rights of all citizens, the Supreme Court has violated them once again -- and in the process rewarded police negligence, which will result in more and more sanctioned abuse of the innocent at the hands of the state. And to take Justice Ginsberg's admonition a step further, such abuses won't merely be restricted to computer glitches and to innocents who've already been arrested; warrants will now essentially be meaningless, as they will be written narrowly and applied broadly as police will have license to search for anything and everything once they've gained legal access to your home. Indeed, what few protections the Constitution originally afforded are long, long gone.

This case was a no-brainer for anyone willing to apply a literal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to obtain, via probable cause, a warrant for any person or thing that is to be searched or seized. It does not give police the right to seize any property they just happen to stumble upon while searching for someone or something else.

Well, until yesterday anyway.

New Jersey Abducts Adolf Hitler and Sisters from Home

Remember when 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell made the news last December when Wal-Mart honored a customer request to write the little boy's name on a birthday cake?

Well, he and his sisters are in the spotlight again. This time it's because they've been kidnapped by the state of New Jersey. For their "own good," no doubt.

Sgt. John Harris with Holland Township Police was asked to escort staff from the NJ Division of Youth and Family Services to the Cambell’s home in Holland Township, N.J. last Friday.

Harris said they had come to investigate a complaint related to the Campbell’s three children – Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell.

In the end, the agency chose to remove the children from their parents’ care, but they assured Harris it was not because of the children’s names.

“They assured me that removing the children had nothing to do with their names or the birthday cake incident. There were other factors that we were not privy to,” Harris told NBC10’s Doug Shimell Wednesday.

Yep, nothing to do with their names. Nothing at all. Promise.

(Thanks to John)

Don't Run A-Fowl of Maryland's Hunting Laws

I sure hope there aren't any Marylanders out there who need to take advantage of hunting natural wildlife so they can more affordably feed their families. You know, bustling economy and all.

Effective for the 2008-09 game bird hunting seasons, anyone hunting migratory game birds in Maryland must obtain a Maryland Migratory Game Bird Stamp -- even if he's hunting on his own property (!).

Moreover, it is illegal to hunt waterfowl with bait -- corn, wheat, or other feed -- and an area is considered baited for 10 days even if all bait has been removed.

But it gets better:

... waterfowl may not be hunted in areas where seed-producing plants (natural or agricultural) have been manipulated (e.g., mowed, knocked-down, etc.). It is also unlawful to hunt waterfowl in areas where small grains have been top sown or broadcast on top of the soil, leaving the grain available to feeding birds.

If I'm interpreting these laws correctly, they are as much an attack on farmers and homeowners as an attack on hunters. What this essentially means is that if you're trying to grow grass in your lawn or plants in your field, you're not allowed to kill flying pests that swoop in and eat all your seed, thus destroying your property.

You may, however, hunt waterfowl on land where any seeds have germinated and plant growth has occurred -- in other words, where birds are unlikely to be in the first place unless you bait them (which, as we all know, is illegal).

I've saved the very best for last:

Maryland’s baiting regulation is more restrictive than federal regulations. In Maryland’s migratory bird baiting regulation it is not necessary for a hunter to know that an area is baited to be in violation.

But of course. How's the ol' saying go? Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. "Ignorance of the law excuses no one." Very convenient for our friends running the state!

So remember, friends, countrymen, fellow unfortunate schmucks like me who live in the People's Republik of Maryland: The statist hacks in Annapolis and their environmentalist enablers care much more about plant and animal life than they do about you. And they've got the guns to prove it. 

Say, what kind of bait works best for politicians? (Oh, just kidding, Big Brother... ya know I love ya!)