who's your nanny?

A Taser Twist

A Pennsylvania student could serve almost two years in jail for using a police officer's Taser against her as she tried to arrest him.

Twenty-year-old Jeremy Spisak, of McDonald, was sentenced Monday after pleading no contest in January to disarming a law enforcement officer and other charges.

I can't comment on Spisak's actions without knowing the specifics of the incident, but there are any number of circumstances under which this kid's actions could have been legitimate -- say, if he was defending himself against an illegal arrest or protecting his person from an officer who simply initiated physical violence for any reason.

Of course, given that the government's goon squads are virtually entitled to operate above the law -- even in plainclothes but especially when fully costumed in state garb -- Spisak would almost certainly have faced jail time even if his actions were morally justified. After all, notice that it's apparently against the law to disarm a law enforcement officer no matter what.

The biggest problem here is that way too many people believe that arrests are legitimate as long as they're made in conformance with the laws. However, this assumes all laws are just when nothing could be further from the truth. Any law that criminalizes nonviolent behavior is unjust, meaning that while it may be legal it certainly is not necessarily moral.

Therefore, if the police officer who was tased was in the processes of detaining Spisak in response to a legitimate crime, Spisak's actions may very well have been criminal. Even in an anarchic society -- i.e., one in which police forces and courts were privatized -- there would likely be some point at which private forces would have to detain suspects who turned out to be innocent of the charges against them. But the difference between that hypothetical environment and that which exists today is that the state's enforcers cannot be held accountable for detaining the wrong people, whereas private law enforcement forces could be.

Now let's assume Spisak was targeted mistakely by the female officer who was attempting to arrest him. Should it be considered a criminal act to use any reasonable means possible to escape this unjustified attack? After all, remember that the state insists Tasers are non-lethal weapons. If I knew I was being forced to submit to the will of someone who really didn't know whether I was innocent or guilty, I may very well choose to put up with the abuse in the hope that the matter would resolve itself without further harm to myself, but certainly I would be under no moral obligation to oblige such violent treatment -- especially considering the state is a criminal gang in the first place, given that it could never exist without first stealing from the innocent to fund its exploits.

An even simpler exercise would be to apply this logic to a situation where a cop initiated an arrest (violence) in response to a nonviolent act that was merely deemed illegal by a legislative mob that enjoyed majority rule. For instance, let's say I refused to put on my seatbelt after being ordered to do so by an officer. I can assure you such spirited opposition to an unjust demand would eventually be met with 50,000 volts of state "justice," and that's probably if I was lucky. However, if the officer so much as laid a threatening finger on me, I would be entirely morally justified in removing it, even though in today's society I would almost certainly be facing the prospect of using a commode in front of perfect strangers immediately henceforth.

Even if we assume Spisak acted illegitimately in tasing the female officer, it doesn't obviate the fact that state abuse is ingrained in our pysche these days; and what's worse, it's actually encouraged by scores of delinquents who put "safety" ahead of their own freedom. The vast acceptance of public police forces proves this point. But in actuality, crimes by the state would almost be bearable in this pitiful reality in which we live if the police could merely be held accountable for their own misuse of their weapons, too.

(Thanks to Wolf, who really needs to blog more often!)

Weekend Roundup

I apologize for being out of blogging commission for the better part of the weekend. I was preoccupied in just about equal parts by a pre-4th of July party and a trip to the emergency room, but it seemed that no matter where I was, I couldn't escape the fact that our society is driven by sheer ignorance and stupidity.

On Saturday I went to my friends' party along the Patuxent River, in the middle of which my buddy Randy set up a barge with about $10,000 worth of real fireworks that he ignited around 9:00 p.m. Interestingly, I waited an entire year to witness this show because Randy's collection was confiscated by Maryland police during last year's party because he didn't have a government permit to discharge fireworks.

Well, not one to suffer fools, Randy decided to beat these guys at their own game and obtain a license several months ago to become a certified pyro in the People's Republik of Maryland. I know that I for one felt a whole lot safer knowing Randy was forced to jump through any number of bureaucratic hoops just to put on a show for his friends and family. In fact, I hear that when you whip out your almighty fireworks permit the wind stops blowing and fire stops burning!

Interestingly, one of the fire marshals told Randy that although this year's display was in full compliance with the government's rules and regulations, his display last July was actually configured in a safer manner. But I just don't believe it given that he was operating outside the purview of our masters last year. Everyone knows you're not safe until the state says you are.

Then there was Sunday. My son had had a low-grade fever for a couple days, but yesterday his temperature spiked to almost 103 early in the afternoon. Sadly, my wife and I know of two young families who've lost children two or younger in the past year due to sudden illness, so considering my son appeared to be lethargic we figured we'd leave nothing to chance and just take him to the emergency room.

But of course, as soon as you get to the ER you realize you're still rolling the dice. We waited for more than two and a half hours before we were even seen, and I'm sure most people have had a similar experience. All I kept thinking was that when Barack the Beneficent's health care "reforms" are pushed through, wait times will only increase. To make matters worse, I had to listen to a Fareed Zakaria interview on CNN with Paul Krugman and John Taylor on the community tv that seemed to go on for infinity.

Because I was trying to avoid gouging my eyes out with my thumbs I really don't remember any specifics, save for Krugman assuring us that he's the smartest man in the universe and a later segment in which some brain-dead chick argued that further regulating health care would actually account for increased competition and lower costs. It's virtually impossible to find data suggesting this has ever happened, yet the vast majority of Americans will swallow this garbage hook, line, and sinker.

To top everything off, I had to listen to a bunch of reporters on the BET Awards red carpet droning on about the death of Michael Jackson. One guy literally repeated himself about three times following commercial breaks when he said he never thought he'd see the day Jackson died. Riveting journalism there. And some 20-something actress from Benjamin Button actually said the world's most notorious plastic man made the greatest strides for blacks in history. Hey, I'm not saying Jackson wasn't influential, but I guess this girl's too young to remember Jackie Robinson or MLK.

Of course, this was nothing compared to one lady from Idaho (I think) who said Jackson really "touched me." Let's just say I wasn't the only one in the waiting room who laughed at that one.

Another Reason to Not Trust Juries

Last year I wrote an essay arguing that coercive jury duty lowers the quality of justice since many jurors who serve would not do so except that they face fines and jail time for refusal to serve. Another reason why jury duty is a poor method for providing justice is because there is a very good chance that the 12 individuals who compose the jury will be brainwashed, trained monkeys who privilege the State.

William Grigg reports on a jury which acquitted a police officer for felony gross begligent discharge of a firearm and a misdeameanor cout of displaying a firearm in an "angry manner." Writes Grigg:

The charges arose from a March 2008 “road rage” incident in which White shot Rachel Silva and her eight-year-old son. Silva had cut off White and backed into his car. She was shot twice in the arm and her son was hit once in the knee.

White, who was off-duty at the time and accompanied by his wife, initially claimed that he fired in “self-defense.” He later claimed that he fired his gun when Silva refused his demands to get out of her car. White never displayed a badge or identified himself as a police officer; witnesses to the shooting didn’t recognize the incident as a traffic stop or other enforcement action, but thought it was a domestic squabble.

Larry Ludlow, who has covered this case in the past, informs me: “During the trial, [White] lied several times and was caught in these lies, but the military-worshiping jurors didn’t care. They even swallowed the `fear of death’ excuse despite the difference in the size of the two vehicles — with [White's] vehicle being much larger.”

The case was also distorted by a grotesquely lenient charge: White should have been prosecuted for felonious assault with a deadly weapon, rather than “negligence.” In any case, owing to the fact that White was one of the state’s sanctified armed enforcers, he was acquitted of all charges and reinstated on the force.

Rachel Silva, on the other hand, admitted to being intoxicated and had the book thrown at her. She pleaded guilty to felony child endangerment and misdemeanor DUI charges. The only potentially positive aspect of this case is that Silva’s son will grow up with a usefully cynical attitude toward our tax-devouring “protectors.”

Another Form of Concealed Carry

My wife took this picture a couple weeks ago while we were up in Baltimore. We were on our way to Hooters in the Inner Harbor when I decided I'd exercise a little civil disobedience and conceal my bourbon and diet in a Starbucks cup I found in my hotel room.

 

I know. I'm a badass. Especially with my son's diaper bag over my shoulder.

Ducks Are Stupid (But Probably Smarter Than We Are)

I'm in a little bit of a funk. I really couldn't care less about Mark Sanford's affair or who his mistress is; or the cause of Michael Jackson's death, or his funeral arrangements; or Kim Jong's "vows" (again) to nuke the U.S.; or a "climate change" bill that would further wreck the economy; or the neverending propaganda from the state insisting there's a swine flu epidemic.

No, what I really thought was interesting this morning was that there were two mallard ducks -- one male, one female -- sitting in the middle of my street who really didn't care one way or the other whether I ran them over or not. Seriously, it wasn't until I drove right up to them and stopped that the male began to think about standing up. But by that time you know I coulda ... ka-blam!

Which got me to thinking. Are these ducks so stupid that they honestly don't know they should move out of the way of two tons of steel? And if so, what's that say about the PETArds who defend such idiocy?

Or, since mallards (like virtually all waterfowl) are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, have these creatures simply come to entrust their safety to the state so completely that they actually believe a stupid treaty will spare them a fate that is all too predictable for anyone who makes a habit of playing in traffic?

Of course, I swerved around these two lovebirds this morning. But I may just have to teach them both a lesson on my way home from work tonight if they're still relying on that silly treaty. After all, according to the state's logic, it'd be for their own good.

Who Polices the Police?

From William Grigg at the LRC blog:

Officer Paul Abel, a veteran of counter-insurgency warfare in the Regime’s illegal occupation of Iraq, was deeply drunk last June 28 when somebody punched him at a stoplight.

Abel, an eight-year veteran of the police force, “drove around the block, until he spotted [21-year-old Kaleb] Miller, whom he knew from the neighborhood,” recounts the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “Witnesses said the officer hit Mr. Miller on the neck with the butt of his Glock and the gun went off, grazing Mr. Miller’s hand.”

Miller strenuously denied that he was the one who struck Abel, and two witnesses to the event confirmed that the victim “looked nothing like” the guy who punched the drunken off-duty cop.

Abel, 35, was put on unpaid suspension (a rarity) and was brought up on charges of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and DUI. He waived a jury trial, which is generally a good idea for the defendant in cases of criminal conduct by police.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning insisted that the case turned on a single question: Was Abel arresting a suspect, or acting in retaliation? The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrated the latter, beginning with the fact that no evidence was presented, other than Abel’s alcohol-distorted recollection, that Miller was the one who threw the first punch.

Abel maintained that the violence he employed was “necessary” because Miller wouldn’t obey commands to lie on the ground. Bear in mind, first of all, that Miller had done nothing wrong, and secondly, that as far as he could tell, Abel was simply a deranged, drunken individual wielding a weapon, rather than a deranged, drunken, armed individual clothed in the supposed majesty of state “authority.”

Predictably, Judge Manning ruled in favor of Abel, insisting that while the off-duty officer’s conduct was “inappropriate, imprudent and ill-advised,” it was still justifiable, since police enjoy broad discretion in the use of force. Apparently that “discretion” extends to driving under the influence of alcohol, in addition to pistol-whipping and shooting a completely innocent bystander.

“It is not the obligation of this court to police the police department,” pronounced Manning as he placed his imprimatur on Abel’s unprovoked assault on an innocent man.

Police union official Dan O’Hara insists that Abel is simply an “aggressive” officer, and insists that his critics are out to “crucify” him.

Those critics include three Pittsburgh residents who have filed official complaints against him for abusive conduct in other incidents: One involved an off-duty fight in which Abel was reportedly the aggressor, but the other antagonist was put on trial (and acquitted of all charges but disorderly conduct); another reports that Abel assaulted a local resident whose grandfather was threatened with a Taser; and the other alleges that Abel pressured his wife into making false claims of sexual abuse against the grandparents of her children.

Nonetheless, Judge Manning’s ruling has cleared the way for this, ahem, hero of both the homefront and the Mesopotamian Campaign to return to the police force.

Apparently, even the most corrupt and sociopathic police have an unqualified right to employ violent or lethal force, and submitizens have an unqualified duty to submit. (emphasis added)

This is yet another consequence of having a monopoly on justice. No one should be surprised that the judge in this case ruled in favor of the police officer. The judge and the police officer work for the same entity; the State acts a a judge in its own case. But I was surprised that Judge Manning would be so candid.

The Non-Issue That Is the Gov. Sanford Affair

The mainstream media and conservative blogosphere are all over South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for cheating on his wife, even though his personal life is none of our business.

But the fact that he's the top administrator of a state that relentlessly steals from citizens and pulls its guns on nonviolent gamblers and drug users? Eh, whatevs.

Just Another Case of the Government Looking out for You

New tobacco taxes have forced a cigar manufacturer to close down a plant in Tampa, resulting in the termination of 495 employees.

Perhaps Our Holy Savior Barack the Beneficent (hallowed be thy name) has some bailouts in mind for these poor souls.

'Operation Dry Water': A Boatload of Hysteria and Abuse

American pirates who go by the names "Coast Guardsmen" and "Natural Resources Police" will be joining forces this weekend to ramp up their harassment of boaters who might be operating vessels while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

According to its website, "Operation Dry Water" -- be sure to check out the fancy police-state artwork in the logo -- is a government initiative ostensibly "aimed at reducing the number of alcohol-related accidents and fatalities" amongst boaters.

Certainly it has nothing to do with increasing the scope of the state's authority in its attempts to control us and generate revenue. Per one report out of Maryland:

"Nationally, one in five boating deaths are directly caused by operating under the influence of alcohol," said Capt. Mark O'Malley, the Captain of the Port of Baltimore.  "That equates to between five and 15 people who are at risk of being injured or killed this year within Maryland state waters. That's unacceptable. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the NRP, we're going to get ahead of this problem this year," he said.

[...]

"We will be out in force looking for boat operators who are operating a vessel while impaired by alcohol or drugs," said Sgt. Art Windemuth, the public information officer for NRP. "Impaired boaters caught this weekend can expect penalties to be severe. In Maryland, they include one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first offense."

Unless death is perceived to be a lesser penalty than a year in jail or a $1,000 fine, I'm not sure how any serious person could feasibly believe that this increased enforcement has anything at all to do with preventing alcohol-related deaths.

Moreover, one wonders how the police are going to detect those who are boating under the influence. Boats generally rock from side to side, so maybe they'll just wait for our vessels to touch one of the yellow or white lines painted on the waterways. Given that marine police need no probable cause to detain boaters, we can expect these floating fascists to conduct even more random inspections than usual.

As I pointed out in an article a few years ago as Maryland was contemplating a statute that would have required all boaters to wear life vests while underway, the percentage of boaters killed in Maryland in 2004 for any reason was virtually zero. I wrote:

According to Boating Statistics 2004, published by the U.S. Coast Guard in September 2005, there were 206,681 motorboats registered in Maryland in 2004 and only 16 boating fatalities.

According to a Maryland Natural Resources Police report for 2008, there were nine boating fatalities last year throughout the entire state, with only three attributable to alcohol. Three. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of boating expeditions that took place all year?

Furthermore, per page 4 of the same report, only 3 percent of boating accidents can be blamed on alcohol in the first place. Considering that "operator inattention" (9 percent), "operator inexperience" (12 percent), and good ol' "human error" (6 percent) account for 27 percent of all accidents, clearly the state of Maryland needs to just cut to the chase and ban boating altogether!

The only plausible conclusion one can draw when assessing the state's hysteria over "boating under the influence" is that this is an undeniably safe activity -- you don't need to be sober to realize the statistics prove that alcohol consumption on the water is a non-issue.

Indeed, the biggest threat to American boaters is the heavy-handed, civil liberties-trampling state itself.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 4-Feds Are On-Line

This is the fifth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.

On April 30, 1789, George Washington became president. North Carolina and Rhode Island still had not ratified the Constitution. Royce suggests that one reason the Federalists wanted a much more powerful government was because they would be in charge. Of the 49 living delegates, 39 of them (80%) would hold an office under the Constitution (including 2 Presidents, 1 Vice President, 5 Justices, 11 Senators, and 8 Representatives). Only ten refused or were not appointed. Yet American myth suggests that the drafters of the Constitution wanted a limited government with expressly delegated responsibilities because they feared centralized power.

I should point out that the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution when Washington took office. This is important. When modern Constitutionalists extol the benefits of the Constitution they are wont to point out the Bill of Rights as a protection against the Federal government. Furthermore, they use the Bill of Rights as evidence that the drafters really did fear a strong government. But this story is not accurate. The Bill of Rights was added two years later on December 15, 1791.

After the Constitution was ratified there was still restlessness among the people. They did not trust this new government and the Federalists had to do something to quiet the discontent. Thus, the Bill of Rights was added to give the impression that the Federal Government would have some explicit limits. But the Bill of Rights was written in "alarmingly equivocal language." Royce points out, for example, that the second amendment contains "an unnecessary subordinate clause" which has caused confusion even to this day. The fourth amendment bans "unreasonable" search and seizures, but if the definition of "unreasonable" is left to the federal government, nothing is truly "unreasonable." As we all know today, the Supreme Court consistently interprets the Bill of Rights as broadly as possible. The Bill of Rights, comments Royce, were "ten speed bumps in the road to Tyranny."

If Only the State Had Intervened...

I would not have picked up that first cigarette, so says the Holy One. When I was still a warmongering conservative reading the National Review because I agreed with their writers, I remember an article arguing against drug legalization. The author cited a story of a junkie telling a police officer that he hoped drugs would not be legalized because he did not want more people to end up as he had. But why stop there? Every day people make bad decisions which wreak havoc in their lives. Perhaps we need a marriage czar to prescreen potential couples to minimize divorce. Why the hell is it so hard for so many people to simply accept responsibility for their own lives? 

More Cuts, More Freedom

One significant benefit of economic crises is that they usually force bloated states to cut their budgets and subsequently become more efficient (well, efficient for monopolies, anyway).

In California, Guv-nuh Ah-nuld is faced with the prospect of cutting billions from proposed spending plans in order to balance the budget.

Slammed by an epic housing bust and massive job losses, California faces a $24 billion budget deficit and could run out of cash by late July if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature cannot reach a budget deal.

To balance the budget, the governor has proposed closing more than 200 state parks, releasing prisoners early, selling state property, laying off state workers and cutting health care.

Under the governor's plan, K-12 schools and community colleges would lose $5.3 billion over the coming year - on top of billions of dollars in recent reductions and payment delays.

The state would spend $7,806 per K-12 student in 2009-10, almost 10 percent less than two years ago, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

These cuts would only result in more economic and political freedom for California residents. Closing state parks and selling off property is a great way to repudiate debt immediately. Eliminating state programs has the dual benefit of saving taxpayers money in both the short- and long-term -- everyday maintenance costs disappear along with the state workers who would otherwise draw government-funded health and pension benefits. And many of the prisoners likely to qualify for early release would no doubt be those who have committed nonviolent "crimes" and who never should have been locked up in the first place.

Of course, you can never cut state spending without the teachers unions wailing the loudest and hardest. But despite complaints from school officials who argue that less funding will "shortchange" students and result in lower acedemic proficiency, laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and cutting funding for educational fads will force the state to economize, which could allow it to become more productive if it took a few lessons from the private sector.

Generally, schools will weed out teachers beginning with those who don't have tenure, which is a formula for retaining many who are unmotivated and unproductive. However, if the governor instructed the districts to make these decisions based on merit (I know, fat chance), it would allow the state to weed out the worst teachers and keep only the best.

After all, this apparently is indicative of what California schools have been churning out so far:

"I think we won't be able to learn as much [if budgets are cut]," said freshman Andrew Taylor, 15. "They should put more money into schools. If you take money away from schools, you're going to end up with more people going to jail."

Seriously, folks, I'm pretty sure the only direction the state can go is up.

No License, No Fun

Police raided an Ohio bar last Friday night and arrested four nude dancers because the club is not licensed as a "sexually oriented" business.

Thank goodness we can rely on the state to put an end to peaceful behaviors that take place in private establishments.

But that's not all. If you click on the link you'll notice that a topless 14-year-old was among those arrested. According to the story, "The bar's owner and manager have been charged with illegal use of a minor in a nudity performance and with child endangering."

Because there was a minor involved, there's a good chance most people will not only disregard the fact that the state has no moral right to prevent consenting adults from engaging in voluntary association, but that they'll also endorse the raid altogether. However, while it's taboo to suggest that parents actually be responsible for their children or that individuals bear responsibility for their own behavior, the only point of concern should be whether the 14-year-old was coerced or acting on free will.

This is one of those issues that usually gets libertarians accused of being child molesters, but if the girl freely chose to remove her top in front of bar patrons, I'd say that's her deal. If, on the other hand, she was forced to dance against her will, that's another story entirely and the aggressors should be prosecuted -- though I'd guess that the girl's father would have his own sense of justice in mind and have little need for the state anyhow.

But let's proceed under the assumption that the girl knew what she was doing and chose to nude it up, even if only for the purpose of carrying this philosophical discussion a bit further. If a 14-year-old girl is choosing to associate sexually with grown adults, it's pretty likely she's got some issues. Certainly someone in her past could have caused her physical or emotional harm that manifested itself in this type of destructive behavior. Maybe she grew up without the benefit of responsible parents. Who knows? The point is that in this particular instance, the only thing that matters is whether she was the victim of tangible harm at the moment police raided the bar.

By the way, I'm not arguing in defense of the character of the onlookers in the bar if they actually knew the girl was only 14 -- she wouldn't be the first kid to have used a fake I.D. to gain access to a club -- I'm arguing that the girl was probably in no more harm dancing topless in front of arguably seedy drunks than she is right now while in the custody of the state.

More to the point, the state's efforts to collectivize all of us is a direct reflection of its abhorrence of individuality. If it were to admit that there are some 14-year-olds who are more mature than a lot of 30-somethings, it would immediately invalidate its claim to an entire class of human beings.

Police lieutenant Rick Edwards has said that officers on the scene never even witnessed the 14-year-old interacting with customers, an admission that indicates there was probably no harm whatsoever brought to the girl. Of course, like everyone else I can only go by the information present in the brief news account, but this looks like yet another case of the state prosecuting nonviolent individuals merely for the potential to do harm. That is, the government likely has once again initiated violence against people who themselves have done no such thing.

Tasah Tasah Tasah!!

Gee, a guy who refuses to cooperate after being treated worse than a rooster at a cockfight. Go figure.

And check out the sucker punches toward the end of the video.

Four police officers and all of them too pussy to just jack the guy's arms behind his back if they really needed to handcuff him so badly.

(Thanks to Manuel Lora)

You Can Stick Your Slavery Apology

So the Senate's backing a resolution that would generate a formal federal government apology for slavery. Unanimously, even. Whee.

Forgive me if I don't get all giddy in anticipation of what would amount to little more than eye candy -- or ear candy, as it were -- should the American superstate "apologize" to today's enslaved masses for past actors who sanctioned chattel slavery.

As Brutus has correctly pointed out on several occasions, the state's putrid physical enslavement of blacks was atrocious and unforgivable, but the difference between political slavery and chattel slavery is merely one of degree and not kind.

From bevies of taxes, fines, and fees to regulations and arbitrary diktats governing virtually every waking minute of our days, the leviathan state we live beneath today is every bit the slavemaster it was in previous centuries when its intentions were simply more apparent.

If our rulers really want to apologize for slavery, they can pass their resolution, clock out one final time, and close the doors on every one of the federal buildings in the federal cesspool known as Washington, D.C. Only then will each and every one of us truly be set free.

Another Example of Conservative Fecklessness

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) released a report critizing the Holy One's stimulus plans. In the beginning of the report, Coburn writes

There was no question that the nation’s economic condition demanded bold action. Nor is there any question that the massive amount of stimulus spending so far has created some new jobs. Yet, as recent statistics have shown, the jobs that may have been created or saved from the stimulus are not offsetting the millions of jobs that our economy is still hemorrhaging. In my estimation, Congress chose the wrong approach to stimulating the economy by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. Real stimulus includes lowering the tax and regulatory burden on hardworking families and businesses, which creates good jobs for the long term. (emphasis added)

The fact that he says "Real stimulus includes" is his way of saying "some spending is necessary." But if lowering tax and regulatory burdens creates good jobs for the long term (and it does), why does the government need to spend any money at all? Why not make a principled economic argument that spending is not necessary to combat the recession and in fact makes things worse? Spending money during a recession in hopes of stimulating the economy is like, to paraphrase Robert Higgs, taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end with the expectation that the water level will rise.

Coburn continues

For example, what kinds of jobs are being created? Are these permanent jobs or seasonal and temporary jobs that will soon be gone when the project is completed? What are the merits of projects being funded with stimulus dollars? Will these projects make real improvements in the lives of taxpayers and communities or are they simply pet projects of politicians and lobbyists that never got off the ground because they are a low priority? Are some stimulus projects actually making matters worse for ordinary Americans?

All government jobs are temporary in the sense that none become self-sufficient. All government jobs depend on taxation and inflation because they don't produce goods and services which are traded on the free market. This does not mean that there would be no market demand for some of these goods and services. People would still demand roads, schools, and arbitration services. But the State prohibts or hampers competition in these areas. It forces people to use its arbitration and justice services and its roads. It makes private schooling expensive because families have to pay for both the private schooling out-of-pocket and public schooling out of taxes. But since these services are not traded on the free market, the only way to fund them is through the coercive power of the State, i.e., taxation and inflation.

Moreover, some of these goods and services would not even exist because there is no viable market for them. The only way such goods and services can continue to exist is through the coercive power of the State. They could not survive on their own.

Coburn then says in the introduction

By offering 100 examples of questionable stimulus projects, worth $5.5 billion, this report does not attempt to prove that the stimulus is not working. Rather, the intent is to educate taxpayers, policymakers and the media on lessons that can be learned from some of the early missteps and prevent other questionable projects from moving forward. (emphasis in original)

So now we see the real purpose. Coburn is not happy with the projects the Obama adminstration is spending money on. In his mind they are waste. The Obama administration responded to Coburn's critique with a point-by-point rebuttal, but for our purposes, this doesn't matter. By accepting the premise that some government spending is necessary to stimulate the economy, Coburn has already given away the principled high-ground. The debate is now about which projects should get the money which is pure politics which will continue in perpetuity.

If conservatives really want restore prosperity to the US, they must diabuse themselves of their belief that the State should intervene in a free market for any reason. A free market must be free from coercion in order to be free; any intervention by the State will produce unintended results which will lead to more interventions which will lead to more untended results, etc. This will middle-of-the-road policy will lead to socialism. As long as conservatives accept the premise that the State, i.e., a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making, should play any role in the market, they will always traveling on the road to serfdom.

'Are you wanting to shoot a politician over your asphalt-less driveway?'

This is a question sent by Gretchen in response to my cross-post yesterday at the Examiner about Toledo politicians who have passed a law preventing homeowners from parking in their own driveway if it isn't paved.

Here is my response:

Gretchen-

I don't condone the initiation of violence, even if it's directed at criminals who legalize state violence. If nothing else, this would merely empower the state to increase the scope of its own force in retaliation.

Of course, it could easily be argued that it is the politicians who are initiating this violence - indeed they are - and one would merely be acting in self-defense by using force to prevent property theft. However, I believe lethal force should primarily be used to prevent immediate mortal harm. For example, when the state's goons invade private homes with guns drawn looking for marijuana plants, one has every moral right to use lethal force in self-defense. (Of course, this would either get one shot or thrown in jail because the state is unjust.)

However, I have a question for you: Do you believe it was immoral for American revolutionaries to finally say 'enough's enough' and forcibly remove the tyrants of their day from power?

Property Rights Are Obsolete

I honestly wonder how so many politicians avoid getting shot.

Some Toledo, Ohio residents are being ticketed for parking in their own driveway because of a law making it illegal to park on any road surface that isn't paved.

By passing such a law the Toledo government is assuming ownership of people's property, meaning residents essentially rent their land and homes from the state. Pseudo-property owners are forced to pay their own mortgages, but it's up to the government to determine how property is to be used. This is fascism.

Of course, I am just a little jealous of the people of Toledo. The fascists comprising my corps of county commissioners prevent me from parking on asphalt driveways by making it illegal to pave my gravel road without a permit. And, of course, it's six years and counting that they've refused to issue a permit.

(Thanks to Dan)

All Government Laws Are Backed by Violence

"[G]overnment interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." Ludwig von Mises

This is the inference I drew while reading J.D. Tuccille's latest post.

I ♥ Karen DeCoster

There are times when the intellectual battle against the State wears me down and leaves me discouraged. I seriously doubt the freedom which Trevor and I espouse will ever be realized in our lifetimes, but we continue on because we believe freedom is better than slavery. But for those times when I am worn down by the collectivism of the masses in "the land of the free, home of the brave", I stop by Karen DeCoster's blog for inspiration. And she always delivers. Here's a recent tirade against the public education system:

The public education system, which is a disastrous, wealth-destroying, failed endeavor, is held up as the standard by which we must all live. You go where they tell you to go, stay at the educational level they put you at, advance when they tell you to advance, slog through what they put in front of you, believe what they tell you to believe, and finish your "education" at a chronological age that somebody somewhere determined should be the age when you should be set free to live out your life. Your innate ability, your desire, your interests, your foundational knowledge - none of that matters because public education is set up to equalize and collectivize children so that they are all on the same pre-determined schedule. Still, people are surprised each time they hear about a 15-year-old attending college or an 18-year-old graduating from college. They were taught that children should all advance together through the education system based on chronological age and do exactly what every other kid their age is doing. The masses never question the irrationality of such nonsense. And you wonder why the American educational system is producing mostly professional consumers, couch potatoes, and TV-watching, amusement-demanding, non-reading robots.

Priceless!

What the US and North Korea Have in Common

From Not-a-Lemming:

Most essays about North Korea begin with pointing out how the KWP (the nominally communist Korean Workers Party) control everything. And they do. Lemmings, lemmings everywhere. If you aren't in the KWP you can forget it politically. But they are democratic as their name implies. Every leader is elected to office by the people. Of course there is ever only one candidate on the ballot, the party sanctioned KWP candidate. So when Kim Jong-il gets elected as Chairman of the Party, or head of the National Defense Commission, the ballot contains only his name.

As Americans we tend to laugh at this. But is our 'system' really much better[?] They get on[e] party supplied candidate. We get two party supplied candidates. At best our electoral system is only twice as good. Especially when it produces candidates like Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, and John McCain. The occasional independent candidate is pilloried in the press by both sides. They have one party, we have two. As far as our political system is concerned, we're only twice as good!

Read the whole essay.

HT Manuel Lora

Thankfully the Media's Got Its Priorities Straight

CNBC is pretty impressed with Barack Obama's ability to kill pestering flies during interviews.

No word yet on when it plans to focus its attention on his willingness to kill the economy, innocent foreigners, or casual drug users.

Obama's 'Deeply Troubled' by Iranian Violence

Because security forces open fire on peaceful citizens protesting a corrupt election?

Yes, it is quite appropriate to be bothered by this behavior. But apparently the American president is blissfully unaware of the violence visited upon nonviolent American citizens by our domestic police forces on a daily basis.

UPDATE (6/17): To clarify, I don't use the term "corrupt" to imply that the Iranian elections were somehow rigged or fraudulent -- Paul Craig Roberts argues they almost certainly were not -- but merely evil or depraved. As in, the evil of democracy is that most people mistakenly believe that free elections confer upon the majority the right to coerce the minority.

DTV Bites...But That's Not a Bad Thing

Last Friday, the transition to DTV was made. I don't know about anyone else's experience (especially since almost all of my friends have cable or satellite), but mine has been miserable. The digital picture freezes and I can no longer get some of the channels I could easily view in analog. I also hear a buzzing noise on every channel that I can actually see. I'm considering getting limited basic Comcast just so I can watch the few shows I like namely football and So You Think You Can Dance. I wonder if the cable and satellite companies played a role in this transition because they knew bad reception would urge more people to demand their services.

But truthfully I really don't watch much TV at all anymore. In January 2008 before the presidential election, I decided to actually educate myself rather than listen to the theater of the presidential debates. That turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made. I read Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and How Capitalism Saved America; Thomas Woods' The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History; and Robert Murphy's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. Those books led me to Lew Rockwell.com which then led me to Mises.org. Through the Mises library and book store I read H.L. Mencken's Notes on Democracy, Albert J. Nock's Our Enemy, the State, Frank Chodorov's The Income Tax-The Root of All Evil, Hans Hermann Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense and Democracy-The God That Failed, and Etienne de la Boetie's The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. I downloaded podcasts from Mises daily and listened to them at home, at work, and in the car.  

Were it not for LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute giving away this information for free, I doubt that I would be as radical as I am. I don't think I could have fully understood the root problem of the State without listening to Hans Hoppe or Robert Higgs or reading Murray Rothbard; I would not have been able to understand the fundamental flaws of modern economic theory without listening to Hans Hoppe's lecture on praexology; I would not have been disabused of the idea that we need a central bank without reading What Has Government Done to Our Money and The Mystery of Banking. I would not have purchased several of the books I read online in PDF form provided by the Mises Institute. I would not have emailed a note of solidarity to Trevor last year when I read his Examiner post "The Logic of the State" because I would not have understood the pejorative use of the term "State" by radicals. That initial email is why I am a co-blogger today. There would be no "Brutus" adding his intellectual ammunition in the war of ideas against the State. I probably would still be a libertarian-conservative thinking that the Constitution could be restored; that the State could be limited; that the US government acts to protect us from foreign enemies; that the police work to protect us from crime; and that we must have a central bank.

I realize that I am digressing from my main point about DTV being horrible. But without my education from LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute, I would have had no reason to even question why the government made this transition. I would have had faith that the Federal Government was really trying to do something to improve the lives of the masses. The transition may or may not work, but I would not have questioned the government's intentions.

Maybe I'll just keep my TV as is. I could do a lot more for liberty by reading Socialism or the Anti-Federalists Papers than watching snowy reruns of Family Guy (no offense, Family Guy fans).

More Police Impunity

Last week William Grigg posted a story about a New Jersey State Trooper who ran a stop sign and killed two women in a minivan while pursing a speeder. Trooper Robert Higbee was acquitted of a vehicular homicide charge. The court dimissed charges of careless driving and failing to stop or yield at a stop sign, downgrading the offense of a single charge of “unsafe driving.”

In Washington, DC, the family of a pedestrian who was killed by a D.C. police cruiser nearly two years ago is suing the city, claiming wrongdul death and that an officer altered the scene of the collision.

George Thomas Riggs, 70, was “lawfully” crossing Wisconsin Avenue at Norton Place at noon on Sept. 24, 2007, when he was hit “suddenly and without warning” by a police car headed southbound, according to the suit, which seeks $3.3 million in damages.

The police report noted that Riggs was on foot in the crosswalk “when he ran into the right side of a marked police vehicle” driven in the far left lane by Officer Henry Lee. The report makes no mention of the speed Lee’s cruiser was traveling (empahsis added).

The intersection has no signal. As the pedestrian, Riggs had the right of way under D.C. law.

From the view of the police state, Mr. Riggs was at fault for lawfully using a crosswalk and running into Officer Lee's squad car. Such is the logic of the State.

Officer Lee was not charged. Investigators reportedly concluded that Officer Lee's view of Riggs was blocked by another vehicle at the crosswalk. The lawsuit also alleges that the officer who arrived on the scene "directed that the site 'be altered, changed and destroyed' before Lee’s 'negligence and culpability could be ascertained.'"

Of course, had one of us serfs killed a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing the street, there would be calls for more speeding cameras, larger fines, and longer jail sentences. And I bet that the police report would not say that the pedestrian ran into the driver's car.

Robert Higgs on the Feds' Financial Fiasco

This is an excellent essay by Robert Higgs on the Obama administration's reforms for the financial system.

The State Is Torture

An Australian man picked up allegedly for drunk driving was killed by police when he was "cooked" to death in the back of a prison van with faulty air conditioning. According to the report, temperatures reached 122 degrees.

The hearing was told that when Ward eventually arrived unconscious at hospital in Kalgoorlie, his body was so hot that staff were unable to cool him down. After an ice bath, which failed to save him, he had a body temperature of 41.7 degrees Celsius as opposed to a normal temperature of 37 degrees Celsius.

I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that Australia's animal cruelty laws prohibit private citizens from treating dogs and birds the way Mr. Ward was. But hey, it was just an accident, right? The gov makes the laws, it doesn't have to abide by them. They're for the common folk. And after all, Mr. Ward was just a menace to society anyway! So...meh.

Another Example of How Much I Distrust the State

Today is the much hyped transition from analog to digital TV. If you don't have cable or satellite, you have to purchase a DTV converter to continue watching TV. I have yet to read a reason as to why this change is being made. But since I believe the State is a band of criminals writ large, let me offer two reasons which the mainstream would find foolish, unpatriotic, and dangerous.

The first reason is simply money. The FCC "put 4,000 operators on standby for calls from confused viewers, and set up demonstration centers in several cities." That's a good reason to demand more money from taxpayers. Plus, the $40 coupons for the converter boxes also helps the manufacturers of these converter boxes who may not have sold any of these were it not for the artificial demand created by ending analog signals. The government also made a bundle of money ($19.6 billion) selling some of the freed-up frequencies. This is to be expected since robbery is the primary purpose of the State.

But my Spidey sense suggests that there are ulterior motives. One of the first things any State does to stay in business is to monopolize communication. If analog signals are primarily own by the State, it can communicate with its agents and be unconcerned about eavesdropping. This would be of great importance if martial law were declared. Of course, my knowledge of the science of digital communication is rudimentary at best, so I may be incorrect about this point (I do think I am correct about the first point, though). But I don't think that this switch initiated by the State was done for the common good.

Confiscation through Regulation

Now wait just a minute...you mean to tell me that when the government passes laws rendering people's property useless, they'll just throw it out?

Americans have been creating up to 50 million tons of e-waste in recent years as they upgrade their technology. Now that tens of millions of old TVs have little or no value, they, too, may get tossed.

Who knew??

For Father's Day

I'm usually not a huge fan of gift-giving for every little holiday or life milestone -- and yes, that goes over just about as well as you're thinking -- but for this Father's Day I might just have to ask for the new Murray Rothbard flask. After all, what better combination than anarchy and liquor?

 

Per Mises.org:

We all know it is coming; the new prohibitionism. Some might say it is already here, with ever more age restrictions, driving restrictions, taxes and regulations, and outright bans here, there, and nearly everywhere.

Mises himself summed up the case. A government that tells you what you can drink will not hesitate to control what you are permitted to read and what you are permitted to do. Liberty is all of piece. You take some away and you establish a basis for taking it all way.

So here we are: the flask that not only fights back against these trends in public life but makes a strong ideological point. Sporting the profile of that famed fighter against all prohibition, Murray N. Rothbard, the flask says that its owner is an enemy of the state.

Enemy of the state indeed.

Update on My Prophecy

Here's an article detailing the downward spiral of accused museum shooter James von Brunn. As I predicted, the media continue to conflate hatred toward the State with hatred toward Jews and blacks as they investigate the life of von Brunn. Some quotations:

Von Brunn had talked about giving up "precious things" — even the computer from which he spread his angry diatribes against Jews, interracial dating and the government, said fellow white supremacist John de Nugent....

On his Web site, von Brunn said he is a descendant of German immigrants who became convinced Jews controlled the government.

After he got out, he became a regular in white supremacist circles and soon had his own file with watch groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. He wrote an anti-Semitic text and maintained his conspiracy theories on the Web site....

"I was stunned to have met anyone who acted like that. I don't remember encountering anyone that bigoted before in my life," Riley said. "He was right out there for all to know and see and he was just so angry, it was kind of alarming to be around him."

The reader is left with the impression that this man so seethed with hate toward blacks, Jews, and the government that he went to the Holocaust Museum to murder Jews. So clearly if an individual expresses hatred toward racial minorities, Jews, or the government, he must be planning to kill. If he believes in conspiracy theories, like those anti-patriotic 9-11 Truthers who do not trust the government, then he is a ticking time-bomb. Thus, we need the government to watch these people more closely, especially those people who are angry at racial minorities, Jews, or the government. The government may even need to just put those people in jail to preempt any future attacks. And the government is once again our savior.

Yes, these are interesting times for the Remnant.

The Worst of Two Evil Isms

Thomas DiLorenzo writes about our new economic system: Fascialism.

Generally, I'd Say I'm Not a Big Believer in Fate

But I have to admit this makes me think twice.

I've always been intrigued by the Final Destination movies, but I'd prefer to keep them confined to fiction, thank you very much.

Help Me Become Self-Employed

I'm not sure exactly when the ICS is going to get around to updating its website with winners from the May 16 DC101 Chili Cook-Off in the nation's capital, but the National Kidney Foundation has published its press release.

Celebrating its 30th anniversary in style, the DC101 Chili Cook-Off benefiting the National Kidney Foundation raised more than $1.5 million to fight kidney disease in the Washington, DC area, making it the National Kidney Foundation Serving the National Capital Areas’s largest one-day fundraiser in history!

As mentioned previously, yours truly took home rookie of the year honors and first place in the esteemed "ICS Red" category, and I'm in the process of gathering sponsors for the world championship to be held Oct. 9-11 at a venue yet to be determined (last year it was in Vegas and it has been covered by the Food Network). If you or your company is interested in advertising with me, please contact me here.

Moreover, I'm thinking about trying to market Stiff Willi Chili t-shirts, chili spice mixes, hot sauces, and maybe even get the ol' cookbook back in print now that I can boast "award winning" chili. Cafe Press will print my book on demand and manage payments and shipment, and I can even use them for anything from t-shirt to apron to coffee mug sales. So my question is, how do I actually tie in my political rantings with a prospective food and merchandise business? Or don't I? Do I sell my current and future cookbooks through the same online store as my chili-related products and keep the libertarian blogging separate?

I need to credit my friend Holli for getting me to think about pioneering a little chili merchandise business, for at my victory party last Saturday she was coming up with variations of my Stiff Willi Chili slogan ("...it'll leave you screamin'!) for new t-shirts and aprons. If you knew Holli, who's generally very professional and polite, you'd never have guessed that one of her ideas was for an apron that read, "ASK ME ABOUT MY MEAT."

Hey, I know this isn't necessarily for everyone, but you have to admit there are any number of slogans that would fit nicely with a cartoonish semi-phallic chili pepper logo. And what's more, if I have to sit behind a desk for the rest of my life, I really don't want to have to do it at someone else's office anymore.

Weigh in with comments...please! Is this futile or am I onto something here? More the merrier.

Sheriff "Denounces" Tasering of 72-Year-Old Woman

Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton has distanced himself from Deputy Chris Bieze who tasered 72-year-old Kathryn Winkfein. In a statement released June 10, 2009, the Sheriff stated:

On May 11, 2009 the Travis County Constables Office arrested Kathryn Winkfein and charged her with Resisting Arrest. During the incident the deputy constable used his electronic control device, commonly known as a Tazer. The incident was recorded on the officers in car video camera and has since become a favorite video for media to incite responses to their programs.

As Sheriff of Travis County, I want to make two things perfectly clear. First, the deputy constable does not work for my agency. The Constables Office is a separate office with the Constable elected to office by an individual precinct. Second, I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy constable as they are shown in the video. When I look at the video I am in awe of what happened.

I would feel better about this situation if the Sheriff had condemned this behavior in much stronger terms. There simply is no excuse at all for a male police officer to taser a 72-year-old woman for not signing a ticket. None whatsoever. To say "I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy" diminishes the brutality of the Officer Bieze's actions. No society which condones such behavior can call itself decent, moral, exemplary or "exceptional."

Dear Envirofascists:

We won't go down without a fight. (But we will go down on your mom -- d'oh!) 

    

"Global warming": 31,478 scientists deny it.

(Thanks to my wife for snapping this today in the BJ's parking lot.)

Dumbest Phrase Ever?

I was driving home from work last night behind a van belonging to an animal shelter. On the rear door was lettering advocating the spaying/neutering of dogs and cats, followed by the phrase, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Can't you be neither?

What if I don't even have a pet? Clearly if I don't own a dog or cat I can't be accused of propagating the species, so therefore I can't be part of any perceived problem and I likewise have no obligation to be part of any so-called solution to overpopulation.

Note to everyone from animal activists to warmongers: There's such a thing as neutrality. If you don't cause problems in the first place, there's no need for solutions. But I'm guessing this sort of logic falls on deaf ears for anyone who needs an "enemy" to scapegoat in order to legitimize their own special interests.

Is My Prophecy Coming True?

There was a shooting today outside of the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC. The headline reads "Suspect has ties to hate, anti-government groups." The suspect, 88-year-old James Wennekter von Brunn, may have been the same von Brunn who was convicted in 1983 of a plot to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board. Apparently a racist, anti-Semitic web site and a book named Kill the Best Gentile were attributed to von Brunn.

Just as an article on the murder of Dr. George Tiller conflated anti-abortion extremists with anti-government groups, this article conflates anti-Semitic extremists with anti-government groups. When I wrote the post on the Tiller murder, I predicted that

future reports will detail which groups [murder suspect] Mr. Reoder joined, if that information can be discovered. The reporters do not have to make explicit connections. They need only mention "suspected abortion doctor killer" with "anti-government" or "anti-tax." The incessant repetition, as Hitler pointed out, will eventually become true in the minds of the masses.

This is not an anti-abortion shooting, but remember that anti-Semitic hate groups were listed in the MIAC report just like anti-abortion groups. Both articles link violent actions of hate with anti-government. There is nothing accidental about this. Expect any future shooting, beating, or murder by a racist or anti-abortion zealot to be linked to anti-government groups. The sheeple, fearful that extremism is on the rise, will give the State permission to clamp down on this behavior. The State will then use its new powers to brand anyone who criticizes it as a threat to national security. These may well be dark times for the Remnant.

The Martial Law Mindset Continues

Apparently 72-year-old women who have the temerity to resist "protection" can also be tased. Kathryn Winkfein was tasered by Texas Deputy Chris Bieze after a traffic stop. Ms. Winkfein was cited for driving 60 in a 45-mph-zone. Under Texas law a driver is supposed to sign the ticket and be arrested if he resists (Which is ridiculous and should demonstrate to people just how absolutely corrupting power is. Are we really to believe that placing someone in handcuffs for not signing a piece of paper is even a remotely justified use of force? You don't have be an anarchist to see the inherent immorality of such a law; you only need to have a sense of decency and morality, which quite frankly a lot of people in this country don't have. And if you don't believe me, just read some of the comments).

This is yet another example of Martial Law Mindset. Our "protectors" believe that if we serfs do not comply with their demands with celerity, such disobedience is to be interpreted as a threat. The officer is then authorized to use any force he deems necessary to compel submission. It matters not whether you are a woman or elderly or a child. If you resist, you may be beaten, tased, and/or killed for noncompliance. And the lovers of our police state continue to cheer on such behavior by our "protectors".

Richard Ebeling on Our Collectivist Economy

Maybe It's Good Some Dems Want Universal Mental Health Insurance

'Cause I'm sure as hell gonna need it after this bill passes.

Do You Really Want Freedom...

or are you just kidding yourself? asks Wilt Alston in this excellent essay.

Hat tip to Manuel Lora

Just 'Following Procedure'

That's the excuse a police officer in Ohio gave after he shot and killed a family's ... Chihuahua.

A family from Blue Ash, Ohio is outraged after finding out the police shot and killed their dog.

[...]

Apparently the dog got out of their backyard and the two officers couldn't catch him.

Cops say they had him cornered on the front porch but when they reached out to pick him up, the dog bit one of the officers.

That's when they shot it three times.

Police state? What police state!?

Dogs Are Great (As Long As They're Not Disturbing Drug Raids)

In one of the more perverse stories you'll ever read, Baltimore police commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III has honored Officer Syreeta Teel for coming to the aid of a pit bull that was reportedly set on fire two weeks ago.

Teel was on routine patrol last month when she saw smoke, turned a corner and saw the dog injured in the middle of Presbury Street. She said onlookers watched but did nothing, and later refused to help police identify an attacker. Teel used her sweater to put out the flames and quickly got the dog help.

Kudos to Teel for doing what any decent person would have done. But why all of a sudden do the police give a crap about the welfare of dogs? Certainly these creatures are paid no regard should they find themselves standing between (or running away from) violent SWAT invaders and their nonviolent owners during tyrannical drug or gambling raids.

And then there's this:

"We are incredibly honored by her service, and the city is better for it," Bealefeld said.

Good lord. How in the world is Baltimore better off because a police officer tried to comfort a burning dog? This is the kind of meaningless tripe that illustrates the overall intelligence of government police. Come to think of it, maybe we should actually be thankful.

But, seriously, the dog didn't even live and the commissioner sounds as if Teel yanked a human being from a burning vehicle. And considering the primary objective of the state's costumed services is "officer safety," I'm not too confident we'd find many cops willing to do that these days.

The Martial Law Mindset in Motion

William Grigg writes, "Under the martial law mind-set, civilians are to give instant and unqualified obedience to any armed individual in a state-issued costume." Here is yet another example of this mindset. A woman is forcibly strip-searched by female and male police officers. If you really wish to see how far along we are in the battle for men's minds, click on the link and read some of the comments. Many Americans still love their police state.

For more details on this case see here.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 3-The Slam Dunk

This is the fourth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2.

In Chapter 3 Royce tells the story of how the Federalists got the Constitution ratified. The first clever idea was the method of ratification itself. Since all but two of the 13 States had a bicameral house, there would have been 24 separate house debates to win a majority. The Founders circumvented this by sending the proposed constitution to one ratifying convention in each State. This simplified their work greatly. In no State except Rhode Island was the constitution actually put directly to the citizenry-at-large. This is a very important point. The Founders not only cut their work in half by having one convention, but they also kept the document from the people from approval. If the point of the Constitution was to provide for a limited government for the people of the US, why not let them vote on it directly?

The Federalists understood that the Constitution would not be ratified if the people actually read it. Gouverneur Morris told the Convention on August 31, 1787, that given time "the state officers and those interested in the state governments will intrigue and turn the popular current against it." Conventioneer Luther Martin observed that the people would not ratify the Constitution "unless they are hurried into it by surprise." Royce writes,

"According to the haughty federalists, it was to be "this [Constitution], of nothing" and Americans had a duty to cultivate "a spirit of submission to the counsels of the great patriot band" of Conventioneers. Madison gravely warned, "Either we grant these powers or let the Union be dissolved" (3/3).

The anti-Federalists, however, were quite alarmed at this urgency and advised caution.

It is natural for men, who wish to hasten the adoption of a measure, to tell us, now is the crisis...This has been the custom of tyrants and their dependents in all ages--Letter from "Federal Farmer": October 8, 1787

But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority.--"Brutus": October 18, 1787

The conspirators, aware of the danger of delay, that allowing the time for a rational investigation would prove fatal to their designs, precipitated the establishment of the new constitution with all possible celerity:...--"Centinel"; January 23, 1788

Royce also cites an October 22, 1788, letter by "John DeWitt" and a June 5, 1788, speech by Patrick Henry to the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

The Constitution was ratified easily in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, George, and Connecticut. In the other eight States, however, the question of ratification was deeply divided, especially in Massachusetts, Virgina, and New York. In response to the anti-constitution essays, the Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote The Federalists Papers to convince New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution. Royce calls The Federalists  "a fantastic propaganda effort."

The Federalist appealed primarily to contrived fears and "dangers" while blasting all who held even the slightest reservation of the new constitution. To Hamilton, there were no mere sincere differences of opinions on this crucial subject but rather (in #1) "errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears" or a "torrent of angry and malignant passions" or " an over scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people" or "enthusiasm of liberty...infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust" (3/8).

Royce points out that the open-ended nature of the Constitution was of great concern to many delegates. The Federalists scoffed at this fear, arguing that the government would have no authority unless the Constitution expressly delegated it. The anti-Federalist "Federal Farmer" was not deceived:

The first point urged (by federalist James Wilson) is that all power is reserved not expressly given: that particular enumerated powers only are given, that all others are not given. But the Constitution does not appear to even respect it even in any view. To prove this, I might cite several clauses in it (I:9 states) 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by Congress.' Were this omitted, what power would Congress have to make titles of nobility? In what part of the Constitution would they find it? The answer must be [according to Wilson's reasoning] that Congress would have no such power, that the people, by adopting the Constitution, will not part with it. Why then by a negative clause restrain Congress from doing what it would have no [expressly delegated] power to do?

This clause, then, must have no meaning, or imply that were it omitted Congress would have the power in question, either upon the principle that some general words in the Constitution may be so construed as to give it, or the principle that Congress [does indeed] possess the powers not expressly reserved.

Apparently the Wealthy Are Unemployed

I love the first paragraph of this Bloomberg story discussing hypersocialist Barack Obama's plan to tax the "wealthy" to overhaul health care in the U.S.

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

It truly is remarkable how effortlessly the communists are able to shape their class warfare debates. It's always "the wealthy" against "the workers," as if people who don't wish to rely on the state for their own well-being don't work for a living. And if "the wealthy" aren't workers, how in the world did they become wealthy in the first place?

This is not a profound idea. You'd figure some reporter would think to ask someone like the president to explain exactly what more affluent Americans have done to deserve to be robbed so politicians can continue to perpetrate this myth.

And as far as this whole health care business is concerned, it's only a matter of time before Obama and the Democratic Congress completely socialize health insurance. Less than 20 percent of Americans are uninsured. So since Obama always talks about providing health care for those who don't already have it, be sure to ask yourself why those who already do will nevertheless be forced to partake in federally-managed programs too.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the state seeks to control every waking minute of our lives.

Our Injustice System

Writes Bill Anderson:

It is my belief that there are no excuses at all -- none -- for wrongful convictions. The forensic science is there to use, and everyone in the system is well aware of the real pitfalls in eyewitness indentifications. However, the problem is twofold. First, prosecutors rarely care. They are the products of law schools that preach winning at all costs, and since most of them either are elected or have political ambitions, being "tough on crime" is a requisite item on their resume, and being reflective and being thorough to make sure no errors are made simply is not "being tough."

Second, prosecutors can operate under cover of immunity. In most professions, people who make serious errors of judgment that result in real harm done to others are held accountable for their actions. Prosecutors, on the other hand, are protected by immunity.

Yet another clear reason why law and justice should not be provided by a monopolist.

The Great Thief

Uncle Sam, of course. The federal government has invoked eminent domain to confiscate 500 acres of private land in order to install a memorial for United Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Penn., on 9-11.

Among those who will lose property is a man whose father had purchased land there during the great depression and a pastor who owns a cottage there where he planned to retire. Landowner Randall Musser told the Associated Press he served on the committee that helped establish the memorial's boundaries and said that back in 2002 landowners were promised that eminent domain wouldn't be used.

Eminent domain is a criminal statute used by the state to steal property from private citizens under penalty of death. There is no negotiation, discussion, or debate. You either get out of the way of the wrecking ball or you become part of it.

The passengers of Flight 93 believed they were defending their country from foreign invaders. Unfortunately, however, it seems they were merely defending parasitic politicians in the nation's capital who would eventually turn around and exploit their bravery as an excuse to plunder innocent civilians.

Roughly 30 percent of all the land in the U.S. is owned by the federal government, yet instead of erecting a memorial on property it already maintains, the scumbags in D.C. would rather build it in the middle of nowhere as long as it presents another opportunity to add to its own booty at the expense of private property owners.

Instead of celebrating these victims of 9-11 the federal government is tarnishing their memory. You cannot honor the dead by disgracing the living.

This Article Doesn't Really Need Comment from Me

I'll just highlight the good parts.

From today's Washington Examiner:

MontCo Reviewing vehicle privileges after drunken driving arrest

Montgomery County officials are reviewing county employees’ driving privileges after police arrested a Department of Economic Development employee who they said was driving drunk at 8 a.m. in a county-owned sport utility vehicle.

The employee, Cynthia Harrison, has six prior convictions for driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated, according to police and court records. Her criminal record also includes convictions for assault, trespassing and violating a restraining order, court records show. 

She is required to have an interlock device, which is designed to block drunken driving, in her personal vehicles, according to a police report.

A county spokeswoman said the county should have been aware of Harrison’s driving record before allowing her access to a county-owned vehicle.

“Clearly, something needs to be strengthened in our policies,” spokeswoman Donna Bigler said.

The county’s chief administrative officer, Tim Firestine, is putting together a work group to consider whether new rules or background checks are needed to prevent a similar incident, Bigler said. The county manages a fleet of more than 2,200 cars and SUVs. 

Bigler said that Harrison, whose job is to help local businesses become more profitable, was permitted to use a county vehicle for business purposes, but had violated county policy by taking a county-owned vehicle home. 

Harrison was arrested in March after cutting off traffic while leaving a McDonald’s drive-through in Damascus, about eight miles from her Mount Airy home. 

Harrison has been on paid leave for a month and could not be reached for comment. Her arrest was first reported in the Gazette newspaper.

Bigler said Harrison makes $79,578 a year and has worked for the county for 10 years.

Harrison’s arrest is the third reported incident in recent months involving county employees who were accused of driving drunk while operating county-owned vehicles.

Former Assistant Fire Chief Greg DeHaven caused a four-car pileup when he was driving back from a Washington Redskins game in a county-owned SUV in November, according to county records. The Examiner first reported the accident, and that a junior police officer on the scene thought he may have smelled alcohol on DeHaven’s breath, but a police sergeant and captain said they did not. The crash and the county’s response have sparked several investigations.

Montgomery County Police Officer Fernando Martinez has been assigned to administrative duties and had his arrest powers suspended while awaiting a July court date for charges that he crashed a marked police car while driving drunk, according to a county spokeswoman.