who's your nanny?

Strong-Arming the Swiss

Fantastic article today by J.H. Huebert about how the criminal U.S. state is bullying the Swiss in the attempt to obtain private bank records from private citizens who have the audacity to try to protect their private property.

I also wrote about this last month here.

Why Public Schools Must Die

Karen DeCoster is back from vacation (thank God) and is on fire as usual. In her post entitled "Invisible Masters", I found this quote from John Taylor Gatto:

Almost all Americans have had an intense school experience which occupied their entire youth, an experience during which they were drilled thoroughly in the culture and economy of the well-schooled greater society, in which individuals have been rendered helpless to do much of anything except watch television or punch buttons on a keypad.

Before you begin to blame the childish for being that way and join the chorus of those defending the general imprisonment of adults and the schooling by force of children because there isn’t any other way to handle the mob, you want to at least consider the possibility that we’ve been trained in childishness and helplessness for a reason. And that reason is that helpless people are easy to manage. Helpless people can be counted upon to act as their own jailers because they are so inadequate to complex reality they are afraid of new experience. They’re like animals whose spirits have been broken. Helpless people take orders well, they don’t have minds of their own, they are predictable, they won’t surprise corporations or governments with resistance to the newest product craze, the newest genetic patent — or by armed revolution. Helpless people can be counted on to despise independent citizens and hence they act as a fifth column in opposition to social change in the direction of personal sovereignty.

Gatto wrote The Underground History of American Education which I have heard is an absolute must-read. Similar to Robert Higgs who argues that there is no failed policy, Gatto argues that the idiocracy in which we now live was intentionally designed; the founders of the modern public school wanted to create a population which would be loyal to the State. This is exactly the world we live in. Just mention secession to most people, and they will immediately recoil in horror. They will insinuate that you are a neo-confederate or racist or unpatriotic or a crank or all of the above. The United States is a great country, they will argue. "Who are you to wish its demise? Our unity makes us strong." Such reactions are a result of the education of the masses who have been indoctrinated with collectivism.

Ron Paul Pwns Ben Bernake

Don't Let People Get Naked in Your Own House

Or drink a beer. Or smoke a plant. Or do anything else they choose to do of their own free will absent harm to anyone else.

Cuz the state, boy, it's comin' for you!

Will Grigg on The Menace to Society aka The Police

Will Grigg has yet another excellent pieceon the police and the "obey us or suffer the consequences" mentality which infects law enforcement and its defenders. Grigg cites several police officers and we should all pay close attention to their words. The police in this country really do believe that they have the right to arrest, tase, or shoot you for any reason. It is not unlike the racist mindset of whites in this country until about 1970ish who thought that they could do anything to non-whites. When one group of people genuinely believes that it is superior to another for any reason, abuse will inevitably follow.

Grigg also makes this excellent observation regarding Obama's about-face in his comments directed toward Officer Crowley:

Accordingly, police unions now have sufficient political influence – due in no small measure to the tendency of conservatives to fetishize armed bureaucrats in uniform – to stare down the President. Witness the success of Sgt. James Crowley, the officious dweeb who needlessly arrested Henry Gates, in extracting – with the help of his comrades in the police union – what amounts to an apology from Barack Obama.

Observed the Christian Science Monitor: "[T]he union's hard line – successfully staring down a president – is a window into the so-called Thin Blue Line – the 'Band of Brothers' mentality that draws police departments closer in time of crisis." Or, in this case, fuses them together in bonds of adolescent petulance in confronting their critics when one of their number abuses a citizen.

We've reached the stage in our imperial decline in which the bearer of the Imperial Purple has to take care to keep the Praetorians on his side. Obama is particularly vulnerable in this respect, not only because police unions see him as a cultural outsider but especially because his agenda for forcible reconstruction of American society will depend heavily on the organs of official coercion.

All government power rests on consent; even the most heavily armed governments such as the former Soviet Union or the current regime in North Korea are dependent upon the consent of the soldiers. If the soldiers decide not to shoot, then the dictator's orders are meaningless. If Obama's plans become law, they will require a massive expropriation of wealth from the public. In order to steal such a massive amount of wealth, he will need the cooperation of police officers in every county of every State; now is not the time to alienate the very people he will need to disarm the public and enforce his laws.

Are Cops Really This Stupid?

That's a question sent by reader Brad after he read this story. You be the judge.

A man, who doused himself with gasoline and charged at an officer, burst into flames when he was hit with a Taser, police in Australia said Tuesday.

"He was carrying a lighter and pouring himself with petrol," said Inspector Bill Munnee with the West Australian Police. "We don't know if the lighter set it off or something from the Taser."

All because you apparently can't even sniff glue without getting a visit from our almighty "protectors."

Shit Outta Luck

Seriously, people, what did you think the "stimulus" money was going to be used for?

WASHINGTON -- The feds are spending tens of millions of stimulus dollars to repair and build toilets across the nation, in an outflow of taxpayer funds that critics have branded "potty pork."

From humble sylvan outhouses to "historic" restrooms, cash from the $787 billion stimulus is going to spruce up or completely replace aging toilets, government releases show.

In New Mexico alone, the feds are spending $2.8 million for toilets in national forests.

Every day the government hoodwinks taxpayers into thinking the money it steals from us is going to be used for our benefit, yet people still act surprised when it's used to further enrich the state and privileged corporations.

Spending these handouts on toilets isn't the problem; confiscating private property from productive citizens in the first place -- and actually thinking the government could put it to better use than its rightful owners could -- is.

I figured this called for a little fun with PowerPoint:

Crowley to Dispatcher: "Gates Is Uncooperative, Send Backup"

The Associated Press and CNN are reporting that Lucia Whalen, the woman who called 911 in the Gates case, did not mention that the suspects were black. For those interested in the racial aspect of the case, the 911 tapes raise new questions about how and why the situation escalated. For those of us interested in the martial law mindset of police officers, this passage in the Associated Press report is telling:

In a radio communication with a dispatcher, also released Monday, Crowley said Gates was not cooperating.

"I'm up with a gentleman, says he resides here, but was uncooperative, but keep the cars coming," Crowley said.

Is it standard police procedure in Cambridge to call for backup simply because a man is being uncooperative?

I also noticed that Ms. Whalen has hired Wendy Murphy as her attorney. One may wonder why someone who simply called 911 to report a possible burglary would need an attorney, but this is a very wise move. You should never talk to the police without a lawyer especially if you are innocent.

Quote of the Day from Anthony Gregory

Regarding the Gates arrest, Gregory writes: "Race is irrelevant. A cop has no right to arrest people for being rude. The cop was an intruder. The urge to defend police for their criminality will always render the rightwing completely unable to understand and defend liberty."

Read more here.

Why All Those College Degrees?

Last week I watched a little more than half of the movie Mr. Brooks, starring Kevin Costner, William Hurt, and Demi Moore. As a movie it was little more than watchable, but one of the characters raised a question I thought was rather interesting.

Demi Moore played a well-educated police detective who inherited millions from her father, prompting either serial killer Brooks (Costner) or his alter ego (Hurt) to ask (and I paraphrase) "Why would someone who has an MBA and 60 million dollars want to be a detective?"

I really didn't pay enough attention to the movie to figure out why this character wanted to be a cop given her position in life, but I thought this particular part of the movie helped to highlight why so many people are shoved through government indoctrination centers called "colleges" (private schools excluded).

As I've written before, college is overrated. The state forces children to go to public schools until high school whether they want to or not, which then essentially compels employers to demand a college degree from prospective employees just so they can determine which ones can actually read and write. Add to this all the state and federal welfare programs for students and colleges, namely in the form of loans and subsidies, and you soon end up with skyrocketing tuition and an oversupply of college graduates who can't find jobs in a highly competitive market.

So how does this all relate to the scene in the movie? Well, this is only a theory, but because politicians use government as a jobs program and a testing ground for social experiments like affirmative action in the first place, there is almost no competitiveness inherent to government employment and thus very little merit-based advancement. The federal government alone employs over 2.7 million people who virtually can't be fired; school teachers are paid based on years logged, not academic excellence; police officers are rewarded with paid vacation when they violate civil liberties. In short, government employees are just as likely to be promoted because they're incompetent as they are for being intelligent. So college diplomas are probably viewed as one good tangible means of identifying "success."

Considering that the state keeps hiring employees even as the private sector is forced to cut back due to burdensome taxation and regulations and government mismanagement of the economy, we can probably expect the artificial demand for college "education" to continue to increase while the number of productive citizens continues to dwindle.

Idaho Police Sodomize Man with Taser

Via Manuel Lora, Boise police officers put a Taser up a man's anus and fired it -- after he was already handcuffed.

Then they placed the taser on his genitals and threatened to do the same. The suspect still had burns inside his right buttock 13 days after the brutal attack.

Torture, sexual assault, and attempted manslaughter -- all in a day's work when you've got a license to kill.

More here.

A Menace to Society

Police officers in Cambridge are upset with the President for his remarks about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The President said that the officers "acted stupidly," but then admitted that he did not know all the facts. David Holway, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which represents 15,000 public safety officials around the country, said

What we don't need is public safety officials across the country second-guessing themselves...The president's alienated public safety officers across the country with his comments.

I have no problem with the State being divided against itself; such disagreements among this criminal gang increase our chances for freedom. But the truth is that there is no reason for anyone not a police officer to trust any police report. Those of us who read the blogs of William Grigg and J.D. Tuccille among other libertarian blogs (including WYN!) regularly know that police routinely abuse their power and cover up their crimes. And in many of these cases, senior officers and the courts condone their behavior and exonerate them from any culpability. Why should we give cops the benefit of the doubt when they

• taser people for being polite and asking questions?
• assault an EMT worker and only receive a five day suspension without pay and anger management classes?
• murder a man outside his home because the undercover officer is participating in a drug buy on the victim's property?
• taser individuals and, if they die, argue that the death was a result of "excited delerium"?
• kill motorists while driving recklessly yet be acquitted of manslaughter charges?
• taser a sassy 72-year-old woman because she refused to sign a speeding ticket?
• taser a 14-year-old girl over a disagreement she had with her mother?
• kill a family chihuahua because it bit one of the officers?
• get drunk in a bar, beat up the female bartender who was only protecting her property and receive probation?
• strip search a man in public in front of 30 witnesses and then drive off?
• arrest a mayor and his mother-in-law in a drug sting, kill the family's dogs, realize that the drugs did not belong to the mayor, refuse to apologize, and then say that the shooting was justified?
• trick a young man who was sleeping off his inebriation into a drunk driving charge?
• rear end a car in a police cruiser, flee the scene of the accident, call their fathers who are also police officers to help search for the accident victim, find the victim, assault the victim, arrest the victim, lie about the incident, are revealed as liars when surveillance video appears, are exonerated by the District Attorney who chooses not to prosecute, and now face only disciplinary action from their police department?

This is a very short list of crimes and abuses by police officers in various jurisdictions. Simply listing all the dog-shooting incidents I know of would tax this blog's server; listing all the taser stories would crash it. And in almost every one of these incidents, the police officers involved were exonerated. The police department ruled that the shooting or tasering was justified or the DA did not prosecute or the judge in the case set the officers free or in the most depressing of cases, the jury condoned and approved the violent behavior of police officers by exonerating them.

The people in this country have very sound and legitimate reasons to fear police officers. Anyone who has been stopped by a cop becomes quickly aware of the chasm of power between him and the officer. If the officer interprets any of your behavior as threatening, he can arrest you or taser you or shoot you. And if you or your survivors believe that the action was unjustified, to whom can you turn for justice? To a judge who is paid by the same entity as the State? And what will the judge rule? He will rule that the officer's actions were justified unless there is considerable outcry from the public. But justice will inevitably be perverted in favor of the police because the State is a judge in its own case.

So I as much as I dislike the President and his government (And all governments. Don't get it twisted, conservatives), I have no problem with the President's comments. The police in this country are a menace to society. They are running a bigger deficit in goodwill than the Federal Government in national debt. They are not to be trusted. Unless their testimony is corroborated with non-police testimony or evidence, we should assume they are lying. They are an intolerable evil because our own money pays these thugs to tase us, beat us, and kill us.

This Is Why We Are Doomed

Writes Karen DeCoster:

Simon Property Group, which owns Concord Mills mall, has revoked the lease of a kiosk seller called the Free Market Warrior because it sells items that are “not politically neutral.” It started with the usual: one politically correct wuss who went crying to mall management because she found the items being sold to be “offensive.” The kiosk sells posters and bumper stickers that say “Work Harder. Obama needs the money,” and other horrifyingly shocking (gasp!) statements. The author of the letter is, as you may have guessed, a female college graduate from UNC-Charlotte, Jennifer Ibanez. This is from the letter she wrote to the Charlotte Observer (emphasis mine):

“Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it’s difficult not to believe that something just isn’t quite right here.

“I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can’t imagine how the outside visitors’ perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.

“It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end.”

Note the letter’s typical left-wing, female tone of “oh my, I’m soooo offended.” Miss Ibanez, and most other women her age, have had the standard politically correct, collectivist-reactionary, group-hug mentality shoved into their tiny brains since they attended Head Start, and onward into their college years. These people emerge from the system and they all sound exactly the same and repeat the same tired, old lines about the confederacy (you think she knows anything about that conflict?), racism, offensive statements, bigotry, hate, yada yada. These kids are Xerox copies of one another. But that’s their diversity. Intellectually, they are empty shells. They are helpless, unenlightened milquetoasts, and they represent the bulk of America’s future. They are the reason why freedom may be on its last legs.

*******************************************************************

What makes this story so depressing to me is that this censorship was the result of a merchant responding to a consumer. If the consumers become like this left-wing fool, then merchants will be compelled to meet their demands or else go out of business. If the people demand ignorance, foolishness, collectivism and enslavement, the market will give it to them good and hard.

Drug War in Microcosm

An otherwise nonviolent man murdered by police on his own front porch for having the temerity to protect his property from armed trespassers dispatched by the state.

And don't you just love the fact that you and I qualify for the death penalty here in the "land o' duh free" if we simply confront police while unarmed?

A Repost of The Miseducation of the Negro

The recent arrest of Henry Louis Gates and the subsequent cries of racial profiling has compelled me to repost this essay. The Gates' arrest is not even remotely as tragic the murder of Oscar Grant by Officer Johannes Mehserle. Nevertheless, most people will focus only on the question of race and will be deceived into believing that if we somehow solve racism, police brutality and abuse will end. 

According to the police report, Gates was arrested "after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while being surprised and alarmed." Yes, it is possible that this report is masking racism, but it need not. As I wrote in the original essay:

Certainly some police officers are racist and abuse people for this reason. But they could also abuse us because they simply did not like how we looked at them; they did not appreciate our tone when we replied to a question they asked; we did not get out of the car fast enough when asked; we got out of the car too fast when asked; we did not get on the ground when commanded; we did not stand up when commanded; we protested a ticket; we filed a grievance against them with their supervisor; they were just in a bad mood; they wanted to abuse us and knew that they could get away with it.

It is quite possible that Gates was arrested because he was acting like a jerk and embarrassing the police officer on the scene. Police have the power to arrest anyone for any reason. If the charges are dropped, nothing will happen to police officer. In fact, the officer will probably be supported by his police union making prosecution of any sort almost impossible. Unless people realize that the very nature of the State encourages and protects police from their abusive actions, the police will continue to commit blatant and heinous crimes with impunity.

Never Believe Uncorroborated Police Testimony

An admonition from William Grigg.

Yet Another Brilliant Piece by the Onion

David Theroux at the Beacon Blog linked to this brilliant piece by the Onion: Human Rights Group Campaigns to End the Use of Child Politicians in Africa.
Human Rights Group Campaigns To End Use Of Child Politicians In Africa

HA HA HA HA

And might I add HO HO HO HO. Don't look now but Republicans are calling King Barack's health care plan "socialism."

Of course it is, but so is every other statist program endorsed by the GOP, whether the current heavily-regulated government health insurance system, Bush's prescription drug re-election bribe, federal transportation regulations, liquor laws, prison programs, immigration and citizenship requirements, public schooling mandates, and not even close to least (and precursor to all socialist central planning): taxation at gunpoint.

Democrats and Republicans are equally evil, vile, and corrupt. You don't wait until your guy's out of power to speak up if you're not.

UPDATE: A timely article today from the only congressman willing to speak the truth regardless of which party's holding the hammer.

Considering other countries have already implemented universal health care, examples abound as to its dire costs -- for starters, rationing of medical services, compromised physician attention given to patients, and long wait lines. So in order to favor this massive government encroachment upon freedom, you must either be a complete imbecile or a political opportunist. And we've got just about enough of both.

DC Government Officials Say to Their Residents: Our Welfare Is More Important Than Yours

The government of the District of Columbia has decided to repeal its August Tax Holiday.

With a looming revenue shortfall of an eerie $666 million, the District is repealing the August sales tax holiday.

The move will save the District from losing an estimated $640,000 in sales tax revenues, most of which comes from back-to-school shoppers hoping for some added savings.

D.C. is reminding businesses that usually participate in the holiday to reprogram cash registers so the tax remains, and to not advertise the holiday to customers.

The August sales tax holiday usually provided a nine-day exemption from the 5.75 percent sales tax on purchases of clothing, accessories, shoes and school supplies for $100 or less.

This program was supposed to bring some financial relief to the poor and bring shoppers into the District. Don't believe me? Just read this press release dated July 23, 2007 (I've included it in case the DC Government takes it down):

(Washington, DC) The District of Columbia will offer a Sales Tax Holiday beginning 12:01 am Saturday, August 4, through midnight Sunday, August 12, to provide buyers an exemption from the 5.75 percent sales tax for shoes, clothing, accessory items and school supplies. The exemption covers each item costing $100 or less.
 
The sales tax exemption will apply to each eligible item regardless of how many items are sold on the same bill to a customer. It will also apply to layaway sales if the retailer and customer enter into a layaway agreement or the customer makes the final payment on the layaway order during the exemption period.

“The District’s Sales Tax Holiday comes at the perfect time of year as parents around the Washington-Metropolitan area prepare to send their kids back to school,” said Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. “Not only does it offer savings for families buying school supplies and clothing, it draws more consumers to the District as a boost to local business.”

"This break from sales taxes should come as a welcome relief, particularly to parents shopping for back-to-school bargains," said DC Council member Carol Schwartz, whose legislation created the District’s two sales tax holidays. “I hope everyone, including our suburban neighbors, will take advantage of this opportunity to shop in DC and, at the same time, save money.”

Retailers who use the Sales-and-Use tax forms for filing their monthly or annual tax returns should enter the total amount of tax exempted because of the Sales Tax Holiday, along with any other exempt taxes on the sales tax portion of the return (line no. 13). Retailers are also encouraged to clearly state in their records the type of item sold and the sales price of tax-exempt merchandise sold during the Sales Tax Holiday period.

For more information about the Sales Tax Holiday, the public and businesses should call the Customer Service Center at (202) 727-4TAX (4829).

In addition, there will be a second tax holiday held in November, beginning the weekend following Thanksgiving, November 23, and continuing through midnight December 2. The estimated fiscal impact for fiscal year 2007 is $1.14 million for both holidays.

Thus, the DC government is ending a program designed to help the poor and bring shoppers into the city to save approximately one-tenth of one percent of its budget deficit. The city might also repeal the tax holiday it usually has in November which it says will save it another $600,000 dollars. If it does so, the city will have ended a program designed to help the poor and bring shoppers into the city to save approximately two-tenths of one percent of its budget deficit. Many people are upset at this, of course.

When I discuss anarcho-capitalism with people who are unfamiliar with it, the biggest fear they express is that the rich will gang up and exploit the poor. Thus, we need the State to protect the poor. If they call this protection, I would hate to see what they call exploitation

Power Continues to Corrupt

I didn't think that it was possible for me to despise someone this much. Every time I think Obama has reached the zenith of chutzpah, he ascends to new heights. 

 

This passage hit me the hardest:

 

“Even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity,” he said.

The tasks of cutting federal spending, resuscitating the nation’s banking system, and reviving the moribund auto industry would be daunting, he acknowledged.

“None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don't do what's easy,” he declared.

Yet there was a paradox at the heart of his speech.

These tough-minded Americans, so willing to take responsibility, the people who “don’t do what’s easy” were also the same people he blamed early in the speech for being guilty of utter irresponsibility.

An inventory of irresponsibility
“Short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity… we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election… difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day,” he declared.

Obama carefully used the word “we” not “they” in his indictment of Americans' irresponsibility.

The unanswered question in the speech was: Are such people now capable of exercising the responsibility that the president says is needed?

What the hell does he mean by "we"? "We" did not fail to protect the American public on September 11, 2001. "We" didn't start two wars. "We" did not inflate the money supply in an effort to fight a recession and create a bubble in the housing market.

Also not to be ignored is the writer's unanswered question. The tacit answers is "No, they are no capable and the State must intervene for their own good." Humanitarians with guillotines are truly the worst tyrants.

I don't know how a President whose administration is breaking records for spending money can look the American people in the face and say "we" are the problem.

I know I have said this many times, but I will repeat this until learning takes place. The election of the president is a competition among liars, thieves, and potential murderers to crown the best liar, thief, and potential murderer. Barack Obama proved himself to be a better potential criminal than John McCain and blatantly false statements like this are evidence that he was the "correct" choice.

As Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Every individual who has ascended to the presidency has found himself in a propitious position: he now has all of the powers of the previous administration at his disposal and will use those powers to increase his own and the power of the presidency. This power continues to corrupt each new president and the process began the first day he entered politics. The president and his underlings will continue to lust after and exercise this power until they destroy everyone or until the people collectively withdraw their consent.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 5-Concerns Then...Nightmares Today

This is the sixth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Chapter 4.

Does it not insult your judgment to tell you, Adopt first, and then amend!...Is your rage for novelty so great, that you are first to sign and seal, and then retract?...agree to bind yourself hand and foot--for the sake of what? of being unbound?...to go into a dungeon--for what? To get out? Is there no danger, when you go in, that the boils of federal authority shall shut you in? I look upon [the constitution] as the most fatal plan that could be possibly conceived to enslave a free people.--Patrick Henry, to the Virginia ratifying assembly (1788)

In Chapter 5, Royce gives historical evidence to prove that the concerns of the anti-Federalists writers were all justified. He concentrates on ten anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution.

• Federal statute is "the supreme law of the land" which displaces state/local law.
• Congress is virtually unlimited in legislative possibilities under the "necessary and proper" clause.
• Congress is virtually unlimited in scope of direct taxation under the "for general welfare" clause.
• Treaties give the feds municipal police power, usurping the States.
• The Senate impeaches its own members.
• Judiciary has no check or balance by the States or the people.
• Judiciary decides if Federal actions are unconstitutional.
• Judiciary interprets "spirit" of Constitution through "equity" clause.
• States helpless against federal tyranny--militia is in federal hands.
• Amendments basically in the hands of Congress.

This is a pretty long chapter so I will focus on the three anti-Federalist objections.

Federal "supreme" law gutted state authority.

Royce argues that it only took three clauses to gradually end the authority of the States and liberty in general.

1. Article VI, Section 2 makes the Constitution and U.S. law paramount to the States' laws and constitutions.
2. Article I, Section 8:1 gives Congress taxing powers directly over the people, bypassing the States.
3. Article I, Section 8:18 gives Congress powers for implementation.

The anti-Federalist writers understood the threat and wrote valiantly to show others. Royce cites an essay from "Brutus" which reads in part,

[The Congress are] vested with the great and uncontrollable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are  by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will....Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase ir, and to acquire a superiority over everything that stands in their way. -- "Brutus;" Essay I, October 18, 1787

The "supreme law of the land" clause established the legislative hierarchy. The general welfare clause has been contorted to include anything. And "necessary" has been construed as merely convenient. Thus, there is nothing conceivably outside the scope of Congressional interest (5/5-6). Royce cites the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 as evidence of federal law superceding State and local law.

A Question for Non-Radicals

Even if you believe the state is a "necessary evil"; even if you believe there is merit to electoral politics; and even if you consider yourself a Democrat ... do you honestly believe douchebags like this, who probably don't even balance their own checkbooks, should really be allowed to influence economic policy?

Treasury Cancels Plans to Hire Cartoonist

From AP writer Anne Flaherty

 

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department is scrapping plans to hire a cartoonist to lighten the mood of its employees who manage the nation's $1.2 trillion debt, after a senator questioned its merits.

The cartoonist would have been hired by Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt, which accounts for borrowed federal spending, at a time Congress is embroiled in a debate about increased government spending.

"Our training staff felt that at a time when employees are working extra hours, it might have been helpful," said Kim Treat, a spokesman for the bureau.

But the effort was canceled because it had become "more of a distraction than an opportunity," he said.

In a federal solicitation issued earlier this month, the bureau said it was looking for a contractor to conduct two, three-hour presentations for its employees on the benefits of humor in the workplace and the connection between humor and stress relief.

The contractor would have to be able to "create cartoons on the spot" about jobs at the bureau, the solicitation stated.

Treat said the solicitation was intended to collect more information, including how much it would cost, and that no money had been allocated toward the effort. The bureau's annual budget is $187 million.

The office of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., contacted the bureau after the solicitation was posted on The Drudge Report.

"Of all the agencies, the Bureau of Public Debt should know that there is very little that is funny about today's economic conditions," Dorgan said in a statement released Friday.

********************************************************************

Perhaps the Treasury employees should watch this cartoon instead.

Not So Beautiful America

Pat Buchanan has a great article today explaining why the socialist American state is headed for collapse under the weight of tyrannical taxation and central planning.

As far as this observer is concerned, it can't come fast enough.

'A Microcosm of America's Foreign Policy'

British commentator hits home runs all the way through this video. And the implication that the U.S. police state does its best to treat its own subjects citizens the same way it treats foreigners is priceless.

(Thanks to Dan)

Having Eyes but Never Seeing

I heard a pastor once say that truth is out in the open for anyone to see; they only have to look. One truth I try to impress upon people is that the State by its very nature creates two sets of laws. There is one set of laws for the agents inside the State (public law) and another set of laws for those outside the State (private law). This evidence is everywhere and people completely ignore it because they have been indoctrinated in the myth of the rule of law. Police officers in Montgomery County, Maryland, are providing yet another example of how the duality of law works.

Four Montgomery County police officers are refusing to pay speeding tickets they received from speeding cameras. I'm sure these officers were shocked when they received the tickets. Before these cameras arrived, my guess is that police officers rarely received tickets. No police officer would pull over a fellow officer for speeding in his police cruiser. Perhaps he may get pulled over for speeding in his private car. But even then, he will probably be let go as soon as he flashes his badge. In fact, the only situation I can imagine a police officer receiving a ticket before cameras is an officer speeding in his private vehicle in another jurisdiction and the cop who pulls him over decides not to extend the speeding officer a courtesy. 

The Examiner reported that a "Montgomery County judged tossed tickets of four on-duty police officers who were caught by speed cameras. Two of them were driving twice the speed limit, driving 50 and 51 mph in 25 mph residential zones." This should be no surprise. The judge and the police officers are paid by the same institution, the State. The State is judging its own case. As long as the judge harbors no personal animosities toward the officers, why would anyone expect otherwise?

These officers have posed a problem to the local government of Montgomery County because it exposes the truth that there are two sets of law. In an effort to spin this truth, Council President Phil Andrews stated, "The public is resentful when public employees are treated different than private citizens, unless there is a valid reason for the action," (emphasis added). The council president is saying as clear as day that there exists two sets of laws. The added phrase "unless there is a valid reason" disarms the masses. Rather than ask why there are two sets of laws in the first place, the masses will ask, "is this exception reasonable?"

The judge in the case stated that the county lacked a written policy regarding speed camera tickets violated the officers' right to due process. County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield replied, "Police department policy is clear: If officers don't have a good reason to be speeding they have to pay tickets, same as everyone else," (emphasis added). Yet again a county executive speaks the truth about public law and private law. The legitimacy of this "good reason" will be determined by other State agents. Why would a judge or county executive reject a "good reason" which they themselves could possibly use in the future should they receive a speeding ticket?

That there exists two sets of law is obvious and open to all. Yet the education of the masses precludes them from putting together the pieces of the puzzle. They think that this puzzle forms a picture of protection and safety rather than robbery and oppression.

The Remnant, however, is not fooled by these mock judicial proceedings. We know what the puzzle should look like. We know that the State is a criminal gang writ large but its power rests on consent from the masses. As long as the masses view the State as legitimate, it can continue to steal with little resistance. The real threat these officers pose is that their actions may persuade some of the masses to wake up from their dogmatic slumber. They will then realize that there is no rule of law as long as there is exists a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate judge of this law. If enough do so and withdraw their consent, the State will collapse like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away. It will fall of its own weight and break into pieces.

 

The Irony of Government Health Care

Is that programs ostensibly intended to improve the health of the people actually create human suffering.

Lew Rockwell applies the straightforward law of demand to explain why forcing businesses to provide health insurance will result in more unemployment. This not only means there will be more people who aren't employed to collect employer-subsidized health benefits, but if you don't have a job you can't exactly purchase insurance privately either.

Pay up, Slave

In the name of a health-care overhaul, Commufascisocialityrantking Barack Obama is moving another step closer to guaranteeing he'll be a one-term president by promising to confiscate nearly 60 percent of the wealth generated by society's most productive citizens.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don't offer health care.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses -- a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

We need an overhaul all right. Maybe with regard to a political philosophy that sees a return to all that "freedom" I always hear so much about. Just a thought.

The Highwayman at Work

Robert Higgs has written a devastating piece contrasting and comparing Bernie Madoff's crime with the USA's social security system. His analysis echoes Lysander Spooner's famous highwayman passage in No Treason:

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a ‘protector,’ and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to ‘protect’ those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you. He does not keep ‘protecting’ you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The Civil War of Democracy

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. Robert Heinlein

J.D. Tuccille has noticed that even when there is agreement of political issues among people, dissent from orthodoxy can still lead to antipathy and excommunication. He notes the gap between liberals and conservatives continues to widen:

According to orgnet.com, a social networking analysis outfit founded by Valdis Krebs, for the first time ever, there was no overlap at all during the last election cycle among books read by liberals and books read by conservatives.

That makes conversation a little more challenging.

I would argue that as much as liberals and conservatives dislike each other, they have more in common than they will admit. Both groups believe that people need to be controlled; they are simply fighting over the specifics. Should people be controlled for the sake of the environment or marriage or "unrestrained capitalism" or national unity or (insert your statist argument here)? This is what they fight over and this is why they hate each other. Conservatives find reasons liberals want to control and oppress others, and liberals vice-versa. They are engaged in a true civil war which is a war to control the State. However, neither the liberal nor the conservative is willing to give up the power to rule other people. As Mises pointed out in Liberalism, unlimited secession would be a peaceful solution to political conflict. But neither the conservative nor the liberal is interested in peaceful solutions to political conflict. They want to control other people who do not wish to be controlled. Thus, conservative will endure the oppression of liberals just to have the chance in the future to oppress liberals. Liberals will do the same.

Tuccille continues:

The self-tailoring extends beyond ideology to lifestyles that become associated with certain sets of beliefs, report Bill Bishop and Robert G. Cushing in their book, The Big Sort. When people choose neighborhoods where they feel comfortable, the settings come with a prevailing ideology pre-installed. Say Bishop and Cushing in their book, "ways of life now have a distinct politics and a distinct geography. Feminist synchronized swimmers belong to one political party and live over here, and calf ropers belong to another party and live over there."

Surrounded, as they are, by people who share their beliefs, people become more like their neighbors, dumping attitudes that might set them apart, radicalizing their own views, and shunning "heretics" -- just like the more-progressive-than-thou denizens of Mike Judge's spot-on The Goode Family.

While I agree that liberals and conservatives have become more extreme and ossified in their views, I would not say that they are "radicalizing their own views." The word radical is derived from the Latin word radicalis which means having roots. Radicals examine the root or origin of problems. Just what is the root of our problems according to liberals and conservatives? Essentially, they argue that the root of our problems is the policies of the other group. If only a true liberal were in command of the State, claim the liberals, our lives would be better. If we did not have to compromise with these conservatives, we would have a perfect world. If only a true conservative were in command of the State, responds the conservatices, our lives would be better. If we did not have to compromise with these liberals, we would have a perfect world. But neither group realizes or admits that the true reason our lives are as wrecked as they are is due to the State itself. That is the root of the problem and that is why we are the true radicals. We are the only ones who advocate uprooting the real source of our suffering.

Thus, we should keep in mind that the debates between liberals and conservatives are not arguments about how we can all live in a more prosperous and peaceful society. Rather the debates between liberals and conservatives are arguments about why one group should submit to the the will of the other and why the submissive group should be happy to obey. For the radical, however, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.

The Tyranny of Stop Signs

Jeff Tucker has written a fantastic and fiery essay on stop signs on the Mises site. An excerpt:

In some ways, then, it is true that the stop sign — as with every regulation by the state — embodies all that is wrong with the public sector. The rules are made to benefit the state. You are on the hot seat if any policeman says that you have done wrong. The pretense of a fair trial is a complete farce, as you have to tangle with judges who hate you, waste several days of work, and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Once you are entangled in the web, you can't really get out.

And who makes the rules? The central planners make the rules, and the public be damned. The rules are there to serve the state, not us, and the stop sign that is oddly placed in order to extract revenue makes the point very well.

When you are stopped, you become aware that the imbalance between the citizens and the state couldn't be more obvious. Deliver an insult and you are arrested. Try to run and you are gunned down. Fail to pay and you end up in the slammer. And maybe the cop will find something else about your life to be suspicious of. Whatever they want to know, you must tell them.

Government is not reason; it is force. What was the actual social rationale for that stop sign in the first place? You dare not ask, for then you are questioning the elites who are in charge of your life. And why was it removed? It's not for you to question why; it is for you to do or die. It was there and now it is gone. All "law-abiding citizens" must change with the arbitrary dictate of the traffic masters.

All government rules are backed by violence. The government reserves the right to kill you for disobeying any of its dictates no matter how trivial they may appear. The State can jail you, beat you, or even kill you for failure to pay a parking ticket. Ludwig von Mises made the same observation in Omnipotent Government:

He who says "state" means coercion and Compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: The police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.

America has become a barbaric nation in which each day new arbitrary laws appear at every level of government. We are becoming a nation of criminals simply because the State is outlawing everything. The absolute power of the State has so thoroughly corrupted our rulers that they are willing to threaten fines, imprisonment, beatings, and death for idling. How can people call themselves civilized when they are willing to accept such draconian measures simply because someone leaves his car running?

Marylanders Pledge to Pay More for Food

I suppose it's only appropriate during a government-induced depression that politicians would push programs increasing our costs of living. In particular, the Southern Maryland Agricultural Development Commission is "challenging" consumers to pass up the standard human practice of seeking out the best values in exchange for the opportunity to pay higher prices. Per a Baynet.com report:

What if you could make one simple change every day for a week that would have a positive impact on your health, your local economy and the health of the planet? Join the thousands across Maryland who will take the Buy Local Challenge by pledging to eat at least one item from a local farm every day during Buy Local Week from July 18 to 24. You’ll enjoy food that’s fresh and nutritious while you support local farmers.

The Buy Local Challenge will celebrate its third anniversary in 2009. It was designed to highlight the environmental, health and economic benefits farms provide. Participants are encouraged to shop at farms, farm stands, farmers’ markets and grocers that offer locally grown food and wine, and dine at restaurants that include local farm food and wine in their menus.

For now we'll set aside the fact that this is an opinion piece masquerading as news, what with the mindless, undocumented implication that buying corn from a roadside stand instead of a chain grocery store could in any way account for a meaningful increase in "the health of the planet." (To hell, apparently, with all us lowly people who would suffer needlessly with the elimination of those evil superstores that provide better selections at lower prices.)

I certainly sympathize with local farmers who find it harder and harder to compete with state- and federally-subsidized plantations owned by politically-connected millionaires. And I'm not implying there's no value to shopping on the side of the road -- I do it all the time. I'm simply pointing out that shopping locally for the sake of shopping locally -- as an end in itself, and at the behest of politicians, of all people, who are the ones running local farms out of business in the first place -- is not the answer. Eliminating farm subsidies so all producers are allowed to compete on a level playing field is.

But, of course, that wouldn't be the American way. These days it seems most of us prefer programs lavishing tax monies upon the favored minority-of-the-month or good ol' boy to actually working for anything.

I probably need to have my head examined for even thinking about opening a restaurant nowadays, not only in this economy but also amid so much local and state heavy-handedness forcing business owners to spend at least as much time complying with regulations as they do generating wealth. But that's actually where I'm at these days, as I'm working on a business plan to peddle chili, hot dogs, and cheesesteaks.

However, I wouldn't expect people to come to my place simply out of concern for some politically-manufactured end; I'd hope they'd show up because that's where they'd find the best meals at the cheapest prices. And if they couldn't, I certainly wouldn't be able to blame them for putting their scarce resources to alternate uses.

Government Misuse of Tax Money: A-OK

The Buffalo News reports that a Clarence Center woman known for helping refugees settle in Western New York has been charged with "misusing tens of thousands of dollars in money from the United Nations."

The U.S. Attorney's office charged Deborah C. Bowers, 54, of Countryside Court, with 14 felony crimes, including wire fraud, money laundering and making false statements to federal agents.

Bowers misused part of the $350,000 in United Nations funds that she and an Iraqi-American associate received in 2005 to operate an Iraq radio station, prosecutor Timothy C. Lynch said.

This in contrast to the hundreds of millions that are extorted from honest citizens every year by the state in order to fund socialist UN programs in the first place.

Yet Another Excellent Post from William Grigg

It's Not That the Police Killed Him; He Just Happened To Die

Most of the time, when a citizen dies needlessly at the hands of one of the state’s armed enforcers, we are told insistently — by both the agency that employed the assailant and the state-aligned media — that the officer “acted appropriately,” and that he “followed established procedures.”

Where the death was clearly a result of police violence, defenders of the state’s apparatus of regimentation take refuge in contrived ambiguity.

For instance: Whenever a young person dies after being subjected to electro-shock torture via Taser, the public is lectured about the lethal effects of  “excited delirium,” a mysterious condition that seems to afflict only those who are gang-tackled, tased, and otherwise abused by police. (While some medical examiners accept “excited delirium” as a valid cause of death, the condition is not widely recognized among medical professionals apart from those closely associated with law enforcement.)

Accordingly, when an overweight individual who may suffer from type-2 diabetes, cardiac disease, and similar conditions dies needlessly in police custody, we’re told that it wasn’t tasing, beating, and other mistreatment by police that killed him; it was either the sudden lethal expression of an underlying health problem, or a case of “excited delirium.”

The “excited delirium” rationale can also be applied when police kill innocent, non-violent people who are taking prescription drugs for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, and similar conditions.

Thus when police in southern Utah murdered 32-year-old Brian Cardall near Hurricane last month, practically the first words to fall from the mouth of one of the assailants was that Cardall was killed by “excited delirium” — not by the repeated Taser strikes used to subdue the husband and father during a psychotic episode.

A different but related approach to police self-justification was displayed in the recent death of 42-year-old Donel Stogner of Walker, Louisiana. Stogner was pulled over, apparently for a traffic violation, by Livingston County Deputy Sheriff Chris Sturdivant. During the stop, the deputy noticed something in Stogner’s right hand; when Stogner refuses to open the hand, Sturdivant grabbed him and tried to pry it open.

A struggle ensued in which — as documented by the deputy’s dash-cam video — Stogner appeared to put something in his mouth. This prompted Sturdivant, a wiry, athletic male, to climb the larger man’s back, wrap an arm around his throat, and throw him to the ground, where the two grappled for nearly five minutes.

During the scuffle, Sturdivant can be heard repeatedly ordering Stogner to “spit it out”; Stogner, for his part, can be heard groaning and laboring for breath — the latter being a result not only of exertion, but of a naked chokehold being used, somewhat inefficiently, by the deputy.

At one point, Stogner apparently knocked a can of pepper spray from Sturdivant’s hands. The struggle continued until a second officer arrived and pitched in.

Stogner wasn’t breathing by the time his protectors were finished serving him, and he was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

The preliminary finding by the local medical examiner, Dr. Ron Coe, was  that there were “many factors in Stogner’s death.” The middle-aged, overweight man was a methamphetamine user (he had been arrested on drug charges several times, including an arrest just days before he died). He suffered cardiac arrhythmia, severe atherosclerosis, and had an enlarged heart — all of which reflected a poor diet and unhealthy lifestyle, and would probably have killed him eventually.

Almost by way of afterthought, Dr. Coe pointed out that Stogner also had a broken hyoid bone — a U-shaped bone located at the base of the tongue, right where the deputy had been applying a chokehold for several minutes. This indicates that there was “some force applied to this region” by Sturdivant, Coe admitted, before insisting that any of the aforementioned conditions could have resulted in Stogner’s death.

No, it’s not the Taser, the club, the chokehold, or the gang-beating that kills a non-violent offender; the recipient of state-inflicted violence simply chose that precise instant to have a heart attack. There’s nothing the see here; just move along.

Land of the Free

Police in Wausau, Wisconsin confiscated an American flag belonging to Vito Congine after the man flew it upside down to protest the village board's refusal to grant him a liquor license.

In mid-June, Congine, 46, began flying the flag upside down — an accepted way to signal distress — outside the restaurant he wants to open in Crivitz, a village of about 1,000 people some 65 miles north of Green Bay.

He said his distress is likely bankruptcy because the village board refused to grant him a liquor license after he spent nearly $200,000 to buy and remodel a downtown building for an Italian supper club.

Hours before a Fourth of July parade, four police officers went to Congine's property and removed the flag under the advice of Marinette County District Attorney Allen Brey.

Funny how you can barely get a flag hung upside down these days before the very tyrants you're protesting show up to prove your point for you.

(Thanks to Jack S.)

Who Will Put an End to U.S.-Led Genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan?

More than 7,500 Afghan men, women, and children have been murdered by the American regime in its apparent War on Poor Farmers, yet the Holy One maintains "we still have a long way to go."

Maybe Obama should just tell us what his magic number of civilian deaths is so we'll actually know when we've "gotten there."

As a rule, politicians will find any excuse to perpetuate programs that grow the state and allow them to accumulate power, money, and terms in office. Content to peddle the Bush line that carpet-bombing Middle East towns can actually prevent someone from detonating a dirty bomb in a London or New York subway, Obama's latest laugher is that "we" have to get through Afghanistan's August 20 presidential election and then turn "our" attention to creating an Afghan army and police force. Apparently because that's already worked out so well in Iraq.

And speaking of Iraq, where 20 civilians are slaughtered for every alleged terrorist killed, Obama has said, "By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," contending that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. Uh huh. And just abandon all those permanent military bases the government's spent billions to build and maintain?

It's one thing to fall for propaganda when emotions are running high, especially when the horrors of a massive terrorist attack are still fresh. But it's another thing entirely to condone genocide after you realize the government had to fabricate evidence and advance lies in order to justify its criminal invasions and occupations in the first place.

In a shameful display of our disregard for anything that doesn't immediately disturb our daily lives, Americans have made it clear that as yet we will not be the ones to put an end to these atrocities. While there may be just causes, it certainly isn't clear -- when so many innocents must bear the consequences of indiscriminate killing -- that there's ever been anything remotely resembling a just war.

Property Rights Are Everything

Throughout college and up till about five years ago, I was known to engage in heated political debates with friends, usually at parties around the keg -- you know, where most of the world's problems are never solved. Since then, however, I've realized you're not usually going to change people's minds, especially when they're drunk.

On top of that, my New Year's resolution for the past few years has been to refrain from trying to reason with unreasonable people. I'm sorry if that comes across as an implication that my opinions are usually right, but hey, I'm a libertarian -- and an anarcho-capitalist at that -- so they usually are. Therefore, I not only no longer seek out debates with political foes, but I can barely tolerate engaging in them in person anymore either.

So that means that if you really care what I think, you're pretty much stuck reading my blog. It also means that if you decide to solicit my political opinions, there's a good chance you'll end up as the subject of a blog post too.

Take, for instance, a colleague of mine, who yesterday asked what I thought about a provocative Calvin Klein billboard ad depicting a threesome. I told him I didn't think anything about it because I hadn't seen it, so he described it to me and asked if I thought the government should have a right to prevent companies from using "inappropriate" advertising. I told him of course not, given that I believe the state is completely illegitimate and shouldn't exist in the first place.

I still love the looks I get when those words spill past my steamy, voluptuous lips. (Ew, that even grossed me out; I should totally be banned from writing that.)

Anyway, once I elicit the deer in the headlights look by telling people the state should be abolished, I have to explain why no act is immoral unless it constitutes an initiation of violence against someone else. Thus, the state is immoral and therefore illegitimate because its very existence is predicated upon violence toward the innocent. My colleague's response was that this billboard was immoral because his daughters could've seen it and been offended. So I asked if his daughters had actually seen it. He said no. In other words, my colleague wasn't even offended by personally witnessing the billboard ad, much less witnessing it in the presence of his kids; he was just taking offense on behalf of other people who may or may not have been offended by it.

Does anyone really wonder why the state meddles in virtually every aspect of our lives when we buy into tyrannical governance allowing majorities to control the behavior of minorities? After all, when power changes hands so frequently, everyone's going to be offended by something someone else does, and in fairly short order. Whee, land of the free!

From what I gathered, the Calvin Klein billboard was posted on private property. So against my better judgment, I attempted to explain that property owners have the right to do whatever they like with their property as long as it does no tangible harm to someone else. (In other words, hanging an "offensive" porny picture for everyone to see: OK; hanging a porny picture in such a manner that it falls on someone and causes him physical harm: not necessarily OK.) I attempted to explain this by sharing the example of the Oklahoma state legislature, which a few years ago usurped the property rights of private employers by passing a law forcing them to allow employees to keep firearms in their cars on company property. My colleague believes gun rights are absolute, that one should be allowed to carry them on private property because "your car is your property."

Sorry, wrong answer. Your property rights end where someone else's begin. The reason guns are so controversial in the first place is because we have public property, which shouldn't even exist. The state obviously wants to own as much property as possible because this allows it to justify controlling our behavior more and more and more.

However, arguing that a company doesn't have the right to set its own gun policies on its own property is akin to arguing that a homeowner doesn't have the right to prevent others from walking onto his property with a sidearm. My colleague acknowledged that he would indeed have the right to remove me from his property if I decided to, say, set up camp on his front lawn one night with a six pack and an arsenal of automatic rifles, but he just couldn't grasp the idea that a private company enjoyed that same right. In fact, his response to me was that for me to hold the opinions I do, I'd "have to place property rights above everything else."

I didn't record yesterday's conversation, but I think my response to this comment was, "Well, duh!"

In very simple terms -- and yes, this is a very simple concept for people who actually like freedom -- there is no such thing as private property if property owners don't retain full control over its use. Anyone who claims that gun rights somehow supercede property rights in general is full of it (and in all honesty rather confused) -- without the right to control the use of your own property, you wouldn't have the right to carry a gun in the first place.

So, yes, this means that no matter how pro-gun you happen to be -- I'm as pro-gun as anyone, inasmuch as this means one has the right to arm himself in public as well as in private -- you have no right whatsoever to carry a gun on private property without the permission of the property owner. If you believe otherwise, you by definition must admit that you believe that the initiation of violence is legitimate -- and this doesn't do you much good when private or public criminals decide to come for you.

Obama Man Can!

Great song from Canadian comedian Greg Morton. Best part is at the 1:47 mark.

Thanks to G.A. Plauche.

Happy Birthday, Tesla

Smartest. Man. Ever.

A Little Bit of Good News for the Residents of Washington, DC

An appeals court has hit D.C. with a restraining order forbidding Mayor Adrian Fenty and Police Chief Cathy Lanier from erecting any more police barricades to prevent violence. These checkpoints allowed the police "to stop motorists, check IDs, and turn back anyone without 'legitimate business' in Trinidad." This law has echoes of an 1807 Maryland law which limited residence of blacks in Maryland to two weeks. Or an 1821 District of Columbia law which required blacks to register and post bond. Or an 1826 North Carolina law which forbade blacks from entering the State. But I guess it's not slavery or oppression since many blacks serve in the DC government. Our mayor and several DC council members are black. And blacks in this country would never enslave or oppress other blacks.

Anyhoo, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, architect of the quarantine, was disappointed with the decision and he may appeal. He asked, "How are we going to control these Negroes if we can't watch where they go and whom they consort with?" Oops, I mixed him up with someone else. 

Police union Chairman Kris Baumann, an early and outspoken critic of the quarantine, said that rank-and-file officers deserve credit for speaking against the program. Perhaps they do, but they won't get any from me. If rank-and-file officers really thought that this quarantine was a bad idea, they could have refused to set up the checkpoints. Instead the rank-and-file officers simply submitted to the myth of the rule of law. 

The residents of the Trinidad could also have resisted and demanded that the police respect their rights. But I guess their education made submission necessary. 

More Heller Redux

Thanks to Manuel Lora for alerting us to the abominable Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ and champion of a program encouraging neighborhood snitches to turn in gun owners for $1,000.

To everyone who naively believes the Heller decision was a victory for gun rights, I ask you to explain why every gun-controlling public serpent (thanks, Kent) references it when justifying his or her latest "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership. Specifically, Booker states (.pdf):

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms, effectively striking down the ban on hand gun ownership enacted by the District of Columbia. In its decision, the Court clearly recognized and affirmed a government’s right to take reasonable measures to limit gun ownership in order to ensure community safety. It is within this space that we must now act.

I conclude by quoting Mr. Lora:

There’s that word again, “reasonable,” coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. “Sure,” they say–there are gun rights, “as long as there are reasonable restrictions.” Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.

My Mom Used to Pretend to Call Child Services When I Didn't Behave...

...but this chick be nuts! (language)

Are the Swiss Next?

The next target of American bombs, that is, for vowing to prevent UBS from turning over to the FBI data on more than 52,000 Americans who hold Swiss bank accounts.

The Swiss Justice Ministry said on Wednesday that Swiss law prevents UBS from handing over client information and the government would seize UBS client data, if necessary, to stop that happening.

The case, which comes amid a global fight against tax cheats supported by the U.S. administration, has damaged the UBS brand and could result in an expensive settlement for the bank at a time when the bank needs to focus on restructuring.

"Switzerland will use its legal authority to ensure that the bank cannot be pressured to transmit the information illegally, including if necessary by issuing an order taking effective control of the data at UBS," the Swiss government said in a response to U.S. authorities filed in Miami on Tuesday.

To be sure, there's nothing especially noble about Swiss seizure of private bank accounts as an act in and of itself, even if it would ironically result in greater protection of American interests than the U.S. state is willing to provide. (After all, we all know Barack and Friends only have what's best for us at heart.) But given the opportunity to choose whose actions are less immoral, I'll side with the Swiss on this one -- they're retaliating against an initiation of violence by the American state.

Although Reuters blithely refers to the U.S. government's targets as "tax cheats," there is no such thing as a tax cheat. A cheat is someone who uses manipulative or dishonest measures to tilt an otherwise level playing field in his favor. Thus, the term "tax cheat" implies that people have an obligation to follow certain rules (or laws) when it comes to surrendering their income to the state. No idea could be more absurd.

The U.S. government is not engaged in some "game" with taxpayers, whereby both sides participate willingly in a contest with the intent to emerge victorious. Just the opposite, the state has rigged the relationship so it always wins -- it merely points its guns at us and extorts whatever amount of our property it sees fit.

The state is a criminal gang, differing from private hooligans only to the extent that it cannot be held accountable for its transgressions against the innocent. To argue that Americans have an obligation to "pay" taxes is to argue that we likewise would have an obligation to submit to the robber at our doorstep as he demanded our money or our life.

Taxation is theft, period. It is not based on some voluntary arrangement; it is based on coercion and violence.

Surrendering taxes to avoid the ultimately penalty of death is hardly shameful; it is the act of the tyrant that is shameful. But how unfortunate that swaths of Americans believe the tax-avoider is the real criminal.

Au contraire. Having the balls to look the bastards in the eyes and tell them they'll get your money over your dead body is nothing short of heroic.

Cry Me a River

J.D. Tuccille has written an excellent piece commenting on a New York Times article about the "sacrifices" our rulers are making in their personal lives to "serve" the nation. The purpose of the article, writes Tuccille, is to elicit sympathy from the readers. This is like saying I should feel sympathy for Don Corleone because he has to work hard to squeeze in quality time with the kids.

We must remember that the people who work in the highest echelon of the State are working to force us to live as they wish. Writes Tuccille,

The very essence of their jobs is to wield coercive power against the rest of us, because that's really all that government does. If you want to do (supposedly) good deeds, you start a charity. If you want to force people to support your (supposedly) good deeds, you get the government to pass a law mandating funding for and cooperation with your charity.

These people are not sacrificing their relationship with their families to earn an honest living; they are sacrificing their relationship with their families to exercise the absolutely corrupting power of the State. They are working to steal more efficiently; pass laws which further destroy our property rights and our liberties; and wage wars in foreign lands. Their families and our families would be much, much better off if all of our public servants simply quit their jobs.

Why I Can't Stand DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier

Radicals such as I have thousands of reasons to despise police. If you spend some time reading Will Grigg's blog you, too, may also find some compelling reasons to agree with NWA. Since I live in Washington, DC, which is slowly becoming a totalitarian police state, I have particular grievances against our "protectors." I reserve most of my odium for our police chief who believes her charge to keep people safe pretty much means she can violate any of our rights at any time. In response to the several murders in the Trinidad area last summer she decided to have "safety checkpoints" in which police randomly pulled over drivers who have done nothing and harass them for their safety. She has also been one of the major opponents of loosening DC's gun laws. This is an example of how the State's protection racket works. The State proscribes its citizens from defending themselves and then arrogates to itself the exclusive right to protect the people. Of course, in 1981 the highest court in the city stated that its citizens had no right to any government services including police protection anyway. One would think that the citizens of the city would have compelled its government to stop violating their rights, but no such uprising has occurred. Indeed, one is hard pressed to defend rights one never exercised or experienced and only the Remnant has the moral courage to imagine the rights lost and to challenge the status quo which dictates that all men are equal but some men are more equal than others.

Recently our police chief expressed outrage at those who would use technology to circumvent DC traffic cameras. These apps which can be downloaded to IPhones can also help motorists avoid sobriety check points. Police Chief Lanier called the technology a "cowardly tactic" and stated "people who overly rely on those break the law anyway are going to get caught" in one way or another. Such is the totalitarian mindset which infects police and politicians. People who have the effrontery to avoid traps designed to steal their money or put them in jail are cowards. Real patriots willingly walk into traps so that the State may fine them or put them in jail.

I'm still waiting for research on the speeding cameras, but in 2005 the Washington Post reported that redlight cameras did not decrease traffic accidents in Washington, DC. Thus, police data from her own police department refutes her claim that traffic cameras keep the people safe. My guess is that the speed cameras have also failed to decrease accidents, but such failure does not matter. There is no "failed policy" in the mind of the State unless the policy fails to enrich the State; as long as the speed and redlight cameras continue to collect revenue they will always be a success.

The real reason why police hate radar detectors and these IPhone apps is because they threaten the stream of revenue. For years, the police have been thinking of ways to trap motorists. This is why so many police departments use unmarked police vehicles. If safety were the real motive behind these laws, the police would never use unmarked police cars. If the motorists can identify a police car, he is less likely to speed or make a U-Turn or do anything which might get him pulled over. However, if the car next to you is a midnight blue Chevy Impala or a solid black Crown Victoria, the motorist may not notice and might speed or make a questionable U-Turn.

The speed cameras in the District are all located in areas designed to generate the most revenue. If the cameras were placed in the interior of the city, most residents would become aware of them and they could not generate a lot of tickets. The people who drive the routes regularly would know they exist and adjust. However, if the cameras are placed in locations out-of-town drivers frequently pass through, the State can still make money. There are two in the 395 tunnel which leads to I-95. Many out-of-towners cut through the city while driving on I-95. There is a camera on New York Avenue westbound into the city. New York Avenue leads to the 395 tunnel so someone from New Jersey could receive two citations before he even leaves the city. There is another camera on Michigan Avenue near Trinity Washington University and Catholic University. I'm sure the DC treasury receives a nice inflow of money during the fall when the new students arrive. There are also mobile units which sometimes station themselves at the bottom of hills. Let gravity aid in the collection of loot.

The fundamental purpose of the State is robbery; that is why it came into existence and that is the purpose of all these regulations and laws. The State wants a cut of every activity we do and its agents are constantly thinking of new ways to steal from its subjects. Police Chief Lanier assists the State in its crime through her ceaseless singing of the siren song of the State and her endless violations of our natural rights, and this is why I can't stand her.

Tennessee's New Gun Law Is a Non-Issue for Restaurant Owners

"In Tennessee, we apparently are going to have 225,000 vigilantes shooting in bars."

That's a quote from Randy Rayburn, a restaurateur in Nashville who's complaining about a new state law that will allow gun owners to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.

Rayburn's hyperventilation over this law is absurd at best, considering he's implying that all of Tennessee's handgun permit holders will turn local bars and restaurants into modern day versions of the O.K. Corral just as soon as they're allowed entrance with their sidearms.

But there are at least a few problems with this argument. For starters, gun owners are among the most responsible people around. Thirty-seven other states have similar laws on their books and they haven't yet devolved into the fabled "Wild West" (a myth in its own right). Furthermore, the Tennessee law prevents bar and restaurant patrons from drinking alcohol when in possession of a firearm. And unlike an Oklahoma law that trampled property rights by requiring employers to allow workers to keep firearms in their cars in company parking lots, restaurant owners in Tennessee still have the right to ban weapons from their establishments.

Admittedly, I don't have my finger on the pulse of Tennessee politics, but this new gun law appears to not only increase liberty for gun owners but also preserve the property rights of business owners. The only problem I could foresee is if the law, say, allowed guns in restaurants but not in bars, and the status of an establishment could actually change in the eyes of the state relative to the amount of food it served in proportion to liquor.

For instance, if a restaurant owner could be fined or closed down because his liquor sales outweighed his food sales at any given point -- in essence, he's a "restaurant" one day and a "bar" the next -- this would obviously be an undue burden. In such a case, it would be virtually impossible to monitor a business in a dynamic environment where transactions are occurring minute to minute, and the owner would never really know whether to admit customers with guns or not. However, this doesn't appear to be a potential issue given that the law seems to apply equally to bars and restaurants.

No public servant should have the right to determine policy for any bar or restaurant owner, whether the issue be carrying a firearm, smoking, or eating fatty foods on the premises. All that matters is that consumers are engaging in consensual transactions with the property owners. Bars, like any other business, should be allowed to determine their own policies and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their stand in the marketplace.

Unless I'm mistaken in assessing this new law, people like Randy Rayburn simply have to post a sign reading "No guns allowed" if they don't want patrons carrying firearms -- the same thing they'd do in the absence of state laws in the first place. If this isn't good enough, then the only conclusion one can reliably draw is that Rayburn is a no-good busybody who wishes to use the state in order to impose his will on everyone else.

I Miss NY

Buffalo's Jim Ostrowski makes me feel a bit envious of NY residents today, as he revels in the fact that the state senate has remained deadlocked at 31-31 for three weeks now. This has already resulted in more than a billion dollars in saving for NY residents, as the government has been unable to pass new liberty-trampling taxes and laws.

I actually underestimated the amount of the gridlock tax cut. It’s way over a billion. NYC residents alone will be taxed $700 million more when the dirty deal is made for a 32nd vote.

Of course, given that I now live in Maryland, the least free state in this unholy union, it's really like I never even left the Empire State.

More Immigrants, Less Crime

Radley Balko examines why El Paso -- relatively poor, teeming with Mexican immigrants, and situated just across the river from violent Juarez -- is one of the safest big cities in America.

(Hint: Turns out there's merit to treating others the way you want to be treated.)

Celebrating Evil

Today I will be celebrating friendships at the Fourth of July party I'll be attending. Unlike the vast majority of people, however, I will not be celebrating the decision to shed one criminal enterprise for the formation of another, nor will I delude myself into thinking that the United States is in any capacity a free country in terms of libertarian values.

We live in a state that sanctions the theft, assault, and murder of innocent citizens on a daily basis. That, my friends, is nothing to raise a glass to.

Recommended Weekend Reading

I have already warned readers to beware of Constitutionalists this weekend. In addition to my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty, I would highly recommend Jeffrey Hummel's Constitution as Counter Revolution. This short article demolishes the myth that the drafters of the Constitution sought a limited government with enumerated powers.

Download Hummel constitution as counter revolution FL-5-4-3