who's your nanny?

Snow Removal and Homesteading

I've spent the past two days digging out cars under about 16 inches of snow. I dug out my car and my girlfriend's car yesterday. Today I dug out my parents' cars. As I dug out my parents' cars, I noticed that there were chairs, trash cans, and other objects in newly cleaned spaces. People put those objects there to let others know that the space "belongs" to someone else. It is easy to understand why people do this. After someone has spent 30 minutes or so removing snow so that he can drive his car, he would like to have the space when he returns home. He does not want to come home and see a freerider parked in "his" space. I say "belongs" and "his" because these are public streets and, thus, it is not clear who owns them. However, we can be sure that if the State is involved, the taxpayer certainly does not "own" them.

But I find the situation interesting because it illustrates two things. First, it demonstrates how the lack of clear property rights can potentially lead to conflict. Suppose I have cleared out a space and put a chair in it, but someone else removes my chair and parks his car there. I can complain or I could be diplomatic and use reason to persuade him to move from the space. But since I do not actually "own" the space, I have no right to use force to make him move his car. Even though I applied my labor and changed the nature of the land to accommodate my desires, I did not own the land upon which I mixed my labor.

One could argue that since I have "paid" taxes which were used to create the street, I do in fact "own" the street. But this is problematic. For one thing, this street was built before I was born. I cannot "own" something which was created before I was born unless it has been transferred to me by the legitimate owner. But if the street was built after I was born and I was earning an income which was taxed by the government to build the street, it is still not clear that I own the street. Other people have also "paid" their taxes and they would also have a claim to the street. My neighbors would definitely want to claim the part of the street which I cleaned. But such is the problem of public streets, public schools, or anything publicly-owned. It is not clear who owns the public street, but we can be sure that the State will simply assert that it owns it because it built it. The fact that the State received the money through the violence of taxation is irrelevant; the State has more guns than we have and and the will to use them against those who disobey its edicts. 

Second, however, it demonstrates how people have a natural understanding of Lockean homesteading. People believe that mixing labor with land gives them "ownership" of the area which they dug out. And many neighbors accept this as ownership. In my parents' neighborhood, the neighbors will not park in a space which they have not dug out. They realize that the person who worked hard to clean out the space "owns" the space. After the snow melts, "ownership" is no longer recognized, but this is because good parking spaces are no longer scarce in my parents' neighborhood.

This is not the case with a publicly owned road. The "owner" who removed the snow will not be recognized as the legitimate owner of the street by the law; hence, if he were to remove the "squatter's" vehicle by force, he would be considered an aggressor. Of course, if the streets were privately owned, there would be no potential conflict. If the owner actually owned the space, he would not have to worry about someone parking in his space. If someone did park in his space, he would be justified in using force to remove the squatter's vehicle. Moreover, the law in this case would recognize that the owner does have this right and is justified in removing the squatter's vehicle.

So while publicly owned streets breed potential conflict, it is refreshing to know that many people have an innate understanding of Lockean homesteading. They voluntarily accept the idea of ownership of a parking space until the snow melts and the good parking spaces are no longer scarce. This innate understanding suggests that people do have an instinctive sense of natural rights and it gives me a small amount of hope for the future of humanity.

Government Roads Kill

As usual, two day's notice for a snowstorm just wasn't enough time for bureaucrats in southern Maryland to get taxpayer-subsidized snow plows on the roads so motorists could drive home safely last night.

We're still getting pummeled down here at the time of this writing (3 p.m.), but last night's ten mile jaunt home from a friend's house took about 45 minutes as frequently-traveled side roads went unplowed while at least four inches accumulated, causing several cars to slide off the road. I noticed one truck with a plow, but he was almost certainly a volunteer.

Even today, I'm watching the DC news and major highways like I-90 are completely snow-covered and rendered virtually unnavigable.

Seriously? It seems we have a cop for every three people nowadays, but the state must have one snow plow for every 20,000 people.

I'm not knocking workers who do their best with limited resources to clear roadways, and obviously main thoroughfares should take priority over back roads. I'm just saying that these types of situations clearly point out how governments misallocate scarce resources. But that's par for the course when you can steal money instead of having to operate on a profit and loss basis.

It always amazes me how many people can't even fathom private ownership of roads and bridges, yet your privately-owned and -maintained shopping plazas and the like are always the first to clear parking lots, etc. No customers = no revenue. Why would highways be any different?

Just As You Can't 'Owe' Taxes...

...you can't "trespass" on your own property. But what Jeremy Engelking found out the hard way on Wednesday is that there really is no such thing as private property here in the "land of the free."

Engelking attempted to stop a pipeline crew from working on his land, stating that he hadn't received compensation from the company in what essentially boils down to a case of eminent domain, a fancy term for government theft of property that isn't completely publicly owned.

Engelking said workers told him he was in an unsafe place and asked him to come to an equipment staging area, where he continued to argue his case.

But just as he was turning to leave, Engelking said an officer from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene and approached with a Taser drawn.

“He ordered me to 'get down on the ground now!' And he said that I was being arrested for trespassing,” Engelking said.

Of course, you can't have a police officer involved in a nonviolent dispute these days without the simultaneous threat of lethal electrocution, so Engelking had that going for him as well.

Property taxes alone are proof that we truly don't own belongings we perceive to be ours. Anyone who is forced to pay an extortion fee to an armed band of thugs in order to live peaceably in his home is most certainly not free. The state assumes direct ownership of all our property, confiscating as much as it deems "necessary" before determining how much it shall leave for the rest of its subjects.

Learning from My Five Minutes of Stupidity

A wise man once told me that everyone is allowed five minutes of stupidity a day. Wisdom is knowing when you have reached your quota. Allow me to share a story of my five minutes of stupidity, how I became wiser through the experience, and how the experience only added kerosene to my fiery hatred of the State.

Several weeks ago I purchased a used 1994 Camry V6 with less than 90,000 miles for $3,000. I purchased it without a warranty and the sale was final. I could not return the car if I found that it needed major work. At this point some of you are saying that this is already a bad deal, but don't get ahead. Some details might help explain my thinking. I was looking for another car with more power than my Corolla. I wanted to pay cash and had budgeted $6,000 for a car. I was looking at Honda Accords, Nissan Maximas, and Toyota Camrys, all with V6 engines, and I wanted to find one with less than 100,000 miles. It is really hard to find any of these cars for under $6,000 and under 100,000 miles. They hold their value very well. When I found the Camry, I knew someone else would get it. So I went to the dealership for a test drive.

The ride was very smooth. The car had some aesthetic problems, but Maaco could take care of these.¹ But after driving the car for about fifteen minutes I noticed the car smoked upon accelerating from a stop. When I got back to the dealer and told him about the problem, he said it was water vapor. I called my dad and he said white smoke was also a sign of water vapor so the dealer's explanation was plausible. My instincts, however, said to me that the smoke was not water vapor. And this is where my five minutes of stupidity begin.

I ♥ Tyranny

The gang of thugs that runs New York State has issued an ultimatum to health care workers: get vaccinated against the H1N1 virus or get fired.

Too cute. I wonder how the state would respond to a private company that issued a similar mandate. Something tells me that up in the land of All That Is Fair and Unionized, the government would jump at the opportunity to put an end to such "discrimination."

Refusing to be immunized against H1N1 because of the vaccine debacle in 1976 “is like saying a plane crashed 33 years ago so I’ll never fly again,” said Dr. Richard Daines, New York State health commissioner.

Daines obviously misses the point. It's not up to him and his fellow cronies to determine for other people what they should or should not put into their own bodies. But like a good bureaucrat, he won't let something as stupid as property rights get in the way of tyranny!

So What If It Was Horsehead Soup?

Yesterday a popular southern Maryland news site reported that a local Mexican grocery store was caught boiling a horse skull when fire units responded to a fire alarm. I'm assuming authorities identified the skeletal remains as belonging to a horse, not that the reporter made his own assumptions.

At approximately 10:15 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 17, fire units from Pax River and Bay District responded the Los Primos grocery store at 21703 Great Mills Road in Lexington Park for a reported fire alarm. When units arrived on the scene, they discovered a horse's head boiling in an untended pot on the stove in back of the facility.

When asked about the skeletal remains simmering on the stove, staff on the scene stated to authorities that tacos were being made. After a search of the premises, no other parts of a horse could be found, only the boiling horse head skull.

Today, however, the site is updated to reflect the fact that the skull actually belonged to a cow. The story initially qualified as "news," one would imagine, because horse is not an approved food in Maryland, according to the St. Mary's County Health Department.

Therefore, the only real relevant question here is: So what? For starters, the only reason the state can pull its guns on you if you're found to be serving horse meat is because enough self-righteous fools have convinced politicians that horses are cute enough to "save." If enough people took dairy cows on wistful jaunts through the hillside, you wouldn't be able to slice them up, either.

What this story really illustrates -- aside from the fact that the state is a criminal gang that seeks to prevent consenting adults from interacting peacebly with one another -- is that government health departments couldn't protect us from seedy grocers even if they wanted to (and newsflash: they don't). After all, the skull was already in the pot at the time the fire department arrived at Los Primos for what was nothing more than a random encounter.

But as we all know by now, the skull didn't even belong to the equine family. In fact, the owner of the store produced a receipt from a licensed wholesaler for the cow skull and even -- shocker!! -- advertised cow head soup on his menu for all customers to see.

However, the point remains that there's no good reason people shouldn't be able to eat horsehead soup if they find that equally appetizing. I can't imagine any world in which allowing nonviolent people to interact freely is more evil than constantly promising to invoke violence against those same people just because they might like doing something you don't.

The "Services" of the DMV

I purchased a car last weekend and I am not at all looking forward to my upcoming trip to the DMV. I went to the DC DMV website today to find out what papers I needed to receive permission to drive my car. Any time I visit a government agency's website, I like to click on the "About Us" link to read the propaganda said agency uses to justify its robbery and oppression. The ostensible mission of the DC DMV is "to provide excellent customer service and to promote public safety by ensuring the safe operation of motor vehicles."

I am not surprised to read "public safety" as part of the mission. As H.L. Mencken once said the average man does not want to be free, he only wants to be safe. Safety is probably the most popular reason given by the State to justify its violations of our natural rights. According to this history of the California DMV,

The early day "motor wagon" was also considered a dangerous instrument. Several California counties passed ordinances requiring motorists to pull to the side of the road and remain standing when horse drawn vehicles approached. One court decision characterized the new contraptions as "highly dangerous" when used on county roads. Ordinances prohibited operations of the horseless carriage at night.

In 1901 California authorized "cities and counties to license bicycles, tricycles, automobile carriages, carts, and similar wheeled vehicles." The Vermont DMV did not even wait until automobiles arrived in the state before passing laws to regulate them. The laws were passed as a preventive measure. Given that the purpose of the State is robbery, I am not at all surprised that such laws were passed. This account of Idaho's DMV history does not even bother to hide the Idaho government's impudence: "[t]he state of Idaho learned early that there was money to be made in the distribution and sale of vehicles." But when crafting legislation, politicians generally cannot be so candid about their motives. They must cloak their schemes with some plausible rhetoric and safety always compels the masses to give up some of their freedoms.

Ordering a Pizza in 2012

How long will it be before this is your life?

Turn up the volume and watch the pointer.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

'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)

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??

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 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.

Maryland, My Maryland? Yeah, Right...

The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland! [My Maryland!]
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland! [My Maryland!]
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!

This is the first stanza of a poem written by James Ryder Randall that later became Maryland's official state song. How ironic that a song that once called for the South to fight the Union's tyrants now belongs to the least free state in our corrupt union.

(We'll leave aside for now the additional irony that Maryland's official state moniker is, laughably, the Free State).

If Mr. Randall were alive today, he likely would be despondent to know that the despots now reside in Annapolis.

There Is Nothing the State Won't Try to Control

Writes Brad:

I wanted to share a little story with you, my limited yet still perturbing encounter with the Nanny State.

I am not totally clear on what the exact law is here in Illinois about exactly what registration stickers are "for," but logically (that's probably my first mistake, thinking logically) the state should only be able to require any sort of registration for vehicles on state property. Well as the story goes I have a car whose check engine light is on and came up for emissions testing, here in Illinois that's an automatic fail. So I let the registration expire and parked the car in my apartment complexes parking lot. The complex owners knew about the car and had no problem with it not moving since the parking spot was being rented by myself.

It just so happens though with the weather getting nicer by the day, police units have started to casually walk through our apartment complex checking all the cars on premises for anything suspicious. I have seen them using their flashlights to look into cars for anything suspicious. Mind you this is all private property and these people have done nothing to warrant any sort of investigation into their material possessions.

So of course after a couple days of these random searches they noticed my plates had expired, I cleverly pulled into the spot backwards so the tags wouldn't be easily seen. One morning when walking outside to my other car, which is all up to snuff on registration and insurance, I noticed a ticket sitting on the other vehicle. Knowing full well they probably tried to ticket me for my plates I was already aggravated. Instead I noticed they in big letters marked that my plates were expired, but ticketed me for having a "Junk Vehicle." Now mind you this vehicle is far from an eyesore, it is an '04 Camry which just needs a new A/F sensor so the check engine light will go away. So all I am left to conclude from the whole situation is that since the state can't get me for expired plates because it's not on their property they had to erect a new law so that they could come onto my private property and ticket me for cars I am working on.

Even better, three days later a second ticket was put on the car for the same thing. Now how I see it is private property is private property, whether it be enclosed in a garage or viewable to the entire public. So the fact that they come onto private property to ticket my vehicle (twice in one week) means they are not far from pushing it and inviting themselves into everyone else's garages and homes in order to ticket any other private unregistered property. For a little humor I laminated a piece of paper and put it under the wiper of the car that says "Go ahead, make my day, tow this vehicle, I dare you." It’s too bad Illinois doesn't have better legislation on Castle Law cause one could prove that since the parking spot is rented with the apartment it is an extension of my "Castle" so anyone trying to commit a felony: make my day.

Another Maryland Welfare Program

Sometimes I get so irritated with politicians and the expansion of the welfare-warfare-police state that I go through spells where I refuse even to watch the news or listen to anything but music on the radio.

Perhaps that explains how I missed the story about how Maryland's fascist governor, Martin O'Malley, recently signed legislation giving the state (illegitimate) authority to seize the Preakness Stakes and Pimlico racetrack from its bankrupt owner, by eminent domain if necessary, in order to keep the annual horse race instate. (I inadvertantly saw an ESPN Outside the Lines broadcast about it yesterday.)

The governor and Democratic leaders in Annapolis say the state needs broad powers to ensure that the second jewel of the Triple Crown continues running at Pimlico Race Course. The track's owner, Magna Entertainment Corp., wants to auction off its Maryland assets - including Pimlico Race Course and Laurel Park - under federal bankruptcy proceedings.

Lawmakers passed O'Malley's bill over the warnings of Republicans who said the move threatened private-property rights. If Maryland wants to buy Pimlico and keep running the Preakness, it should compete in the marketplace with other bidders, Republican critics said.

Does the governor plan to use this property to build additional highways or schools? Nope. While that would be an abusive (if legal) measure in itself, it would at least adhere to the rationale governments usually offer when they want to confiscate private property.

However, instead of merely overregulating Maryland's horse industry -- say, any chance oppressive taxes and gambling regulations have anything to do with the track's demise? -- O'Malley now wants to force taxpayers to subsidize an enterprise he's helped to drive out of the state in the first place.

I am shocked -- shocked! -- that Maryland ranks so pitifully in personal and economic freedom.

Conservatives Are Evil

You know how conservatives love to complain about environmentalists who lobby the government to impose land use restrictions on property we supposedly own? Well, they're no different.

Actor Robert Duvall, who is known politically as a conservative, has joined a fight led by two congressmen and 250 historians seeking to prevent Wal-Mart from erecting one of its supercenters within a mile of a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

Wal-Mart says that the 138,000 square foot store is already planned and zoned for commercial use (meaning the company also already retains ownership of the land) and insists it has been "very sensitive to ensuring that our development is respectful of the county's unique location and history."

But that matters not to people like Robert Duvall, who said audaciously of himself and his fellow statists, "We'll help first by graciously chasing out Wal-Mart."

And if this "graciousness" doesn't work, presumably the next step will be to cheer on the state as it points its guns at productive entrepreneurs who actually contribute to society.

Robert Duvall might be interested in knowing what proponents of a free society would do in this situation if they were really that concerned about this new construction: they'd band together privately and purchase the land from Wal-Mart.

Ah, but it's always easier to be a bully as long as you can get the majority of the mob to go along, isn't it?

Laughably, Duvall claims to have no grudge against Wal-Mart but said, "I certainly believe in capitalism but I believe in capitalism coupled with sensitivity."

Duvall can attempt to cloak his activism in cushy rhetoric all he likes, but it doesn't change the fact that what he espouses isn't capitalism: it's fascism. And at the end of the day, he and the rest of his posse are nothing more than evil bigots.

'I Was So Numb I Couldn't Even Cry'

These were the words of 55-year-old Rosalind Figg when police and social workers in the UK broke into her home to kidnap her 86-year-old mother after Figg removed her from a state-run facility in order to care for her at home.

Said Figg:

I still can't believe it's happened. I was made to feel like an enemy of the state rather than a daughter who just wants to do the best for her mother.

I can't believe these Gestapo tactics can be allowed in our society.

Believe it.

Asphalt Fascism at Its Finest

I know there's usually not much of substance in the news these days, but I swear I actually preferred doing real work at the office to reading the same old garbage today.

I mean, I realize that printing and spending truckloads of worthless Monopoly money is the key to prosperity, and that O-O-O-Oba-Ob-bama (thanks, Teleprompter) is, like, sooooooo the best president ev-verrr (which, by the way, is like picking history's most notorious serial killer or bank robber), but I just can't take the idiocy and ignorance anymore.

So I'll just stick to a local gripe. Like when I was driving home from dinner with the family tonight. My community consists mostly of a taxpayer-subsidized asphalt roadway that ends in a cul de sac, where you proceed onto a privately-owned gravel roadway that county commissioners will not let us pave for bogus environmental reasons.

So I get to pay for the maintenance -- including snowplowing in the winter -- of a road I don't live on (and can barely use when it snows because it's not very easy to shovel snow and ice off gravel), but I'm also prevented through government force from efficiently surfacing a road I own free and clear with five other neighbors.

Dear readers, that's about as airtight an example of fascism that you will find. It's merely a variant of state-controlled capitalism, where the state has the ultimate say in what I do with money and land that I (supposedly) own. That, and the fact that I'd get a gun in my face for peacefully paving a road and refusing to tear it up at the directives of the czars.

No Statute of Limitations on Government Incompetence

If you're tempted to believe the state exists primarily for our protection, just get a load of this story.

I'll set the background. My wife and I built a house in Calvert County, Maryland, in 2002 shortly after we were married. At the time, our headaches brought on by hassles with county inspectors were sufficient to convince us never to do that again; and until only recently, our builder, who was and still is based in adjacent St. Mary's County, refused to as well.

Primarily, a number of inspections failed that should have passed -- for example, the electrical inspector failed us twice: once because he applied trailer housing standards for bathrooms to our single family home, and again because he was too lazy to go up to the attic to make sure there was a functional light switch (there was) -- and getting consistently accurate information from county staffers about the building codes probably would have felt like winning the lottery. But we'd never have known; it seemed if you called the county on two separate occasions, you got two separate answers to the same question.

Anyhow, we finally completed construction in 2003 and moved in. We figured since we were already in the throes of the inspections process, we might as well build a deck as soon as possible. So we applied for the permit, paid the extortion fee, and dug the footers. They passed inspection, we built the deck over the span of a couple weeks, and we called for our final inspection.

To our amazement, we were told we didn't need one. My wife and I turned to each other with a look that said, "We live in Maryland. If you can breathe around it, it's regulated and you're taxed to use it. This can't be right."

So my wife called back the next day. Same answer. (But hey, at least we were starting to get some consistency from the czars!) At that point I decided to personally call the guy who inspected our footers and tell him the county said we didn't need a final inspection. He suggested we call them back.

So we did. Again. And again we were told we didn't need a final inspection for our deck.

Fast forward five and a half years to the present, after the deck has sustained its share of parties, cookouts, and general abuse. I received a letter from Calvert County Inspections and Permits three weeks ago informing me that my deck permit is incomplete, that a final inspection was never performed (!).

The best part about the letter is that it wasn't even addressed to me or my wife; it was simply addressed to "Homeowner." And I don't think I even read three sentences before encountering the ol' "As you know, permits and inspections are required for the safety of you and your neighbors" rigmarole.

Oh yes, I "know" the permit process has nothing to do with money and control, only with "keeping us safe." That's apparently why it took more than three years before the county even realized the process was never completed in the first place (the permit technically expired in the summer of 2005). I can barely comprehend how no one has lost life or limb on my deck since!

Anyhow, after a few friends of mine told me just to shred the letter because it wasn't sent certified mail, I consulted with a couple lawyer friends who suggested it was best to play this little game and acknowledge receipt. (By the way, not only was the letter not sent certified mail, but apparently this was the second attempt at contact -- it actually was mailed along with a returned envelope from back in November.)

To be sure, once you're on the grid you can only hide for so long, so I reluctantly called the county a couple weeks ago and spoke to the permit coordinator, who actually seemed very nice (they always do at the beginning, I suppose). I explained my situation to the lady and told her I didn't necessarily agree that I should be the one responsible for bearing the burden of proof here, but that I could also do without a visit from the county SWAT team. She laughed and said that's not how it is -- never is until it is, though, eh? -- and she actually admitted that an audit revealed that many homeowners were given incorrect information regarding the need for final inspections on decks.

Of course, even though the county admitted error, it mattered not; the coordinator scheduled my final inspection for today. The state reserves a monopoly on the use of force, meaning that our glorious overlords bear no responsibility or repercussions for their mistakes -- which obviously means union-protected, pension-lavished parasites on the taxpayer dole have no incentive (and thus obligation) to even understand their own job descriptions or exhibit even minimal productivity. And you wonder where bureaucracy comes from.

Thankfully, and altogether surprisingly, my deck passed inspection this morning. Surprising not because I didn't follow building codes when it was under construction, but because there's always something these government inspectors can ding you with if they really want to (and don't forget, I've been failed before despite meeting "regulations"). And though the inspector didn't leave before pointing out that my deck wouldn't meet current standards, I thanked him for not being a douche (not in so many words, of course) and mentioned that we wouldn't even be having this conversation if his office weren't incompetent.

But there's the rub. There is no statute of limitations on government incompetence (I apologize to all my former English teachers for that redundancy). Practices that would put any private company out of business in short order are of no consequence to the state, for it can simply continue to steal from taxpayers to subsidize its inadequacies.

No government has a moral right to force itself upon homeowners and private builders and require permits and inspections in the first place. While Maryland has its share of shoddy and questionable construction companies -- who, interestingly enough, all meet the state's idea of "certification" -- any individual who wishes to verify the quality of his contractors' work can hire private inspectors provided by the market.

But then again, that would provide much too stark a contrast for the state to continue to justify its substandard oversight, now wouldn't it?

Liquor in the Front, Poker in the Rear

Via Radley Balko, such an advertisement (among many other things) is strictly prohibited under Virginia's tyrannical liquor laws.

It's nothing new for states to use promises of violence to get nonviolent people to conform to their criminal mandates, so we really have to thank the petty tyrants when they offer up arbitrary diktats that are so absurd that we simply cannot avoid noticing how worthless these people are. The VABC does not disappoint.

Candy Cigs the Next 'Gateway Drug?'

A group of teenage fascists-in-training in Minnesota are pushing the St. Paul City Council to ban candy cigarettes.

"I was like, 'Are you serious?' " That was Shanicee Billon's reaction when a 2-year-old girl she was with grabbed a pack of candy cigarettes at a convenience store and showed them to her.

"They were bright and colorful, so I guess they caught her eye. I thought to myself: That's just not fair. We should be teaching little kids how to be healthy and eat vegetables. Candy cigarettes? Really."

Apparently parents are so incapable of determining what their own children should and should not be exposed to that they now have to take their marching orders from other people's brats.

I used to love buying chocolate and bubble gum "cigarettes" when I was a kid, and I thought it was especially cool that the ones rolled in powdered sugar would actually let you blow "smoke." Though neither of my parents smoked (my father quit before I was born), Minnesota's trendy-tween nanny-statists might be interested in knowing that although my mother bought these candies for me, she also would never let me leave the dinner table until I ate all my vegetables.

I dabbled in cigarettes off and on while I was in college, but I can testify that my decision to do so was hardly the result of my "irresponsible" parents' decision to treat me to candy cigarettes every now and then when I was just a tyke. Back before taxes on cigarettes cost just as much as a pack of cigarettes themselves, smoking was a fairly affordable way to maintain a buzz in the bar without having to spend a ton of money on beer.

But something tells me these amateur activists don't have much objection to using the state to prevent kids from drinking either.

Kelo Decision Follow-Up

J.D. Tuccille follows up the aftermath of the Kelo decision in New London, CT. Beth Sabilia, the mayor at the time of the decision, regrets the decision to use eminent domain. In a panel discussion the controversial case she said:

"My lesson is, if the state offers you $70 million, say 'no thank you'. Yes, the city won, but no one in the City of New London really won. In New London we are all connected. I don't care if you live in a lean-to or a 4,000-square-foot house. It's where we all take our babies home.”

New London used the power of eminent domain to force homeowners to sell their land for economic development. That is, the State wanted more money and was willing to evict homeowners off their property and give the land to people who might generate more income to loot. This led to the infamous Kelo v. New London decision in which the Supreme Court said that local governments could pretty much give land to anyone who would pay them better than the current owners.

Perhaps Ms. Sabilia is genuinely contrite regarding her actions, but I'm suspicious. New London never received any additional taxes. In fact, the city lost money. The homes were destroyed, but the land was never developed. One has to wonder if she would feel remorseful if the economic development led to more loot for the New London government. Would Ms. Sabilia still feel regret for evicting homeowners or would she rationalize her actions with an utilitarian argument such as, "Now the city has more money for schools, roads, etc."? I don't know, but the question is one worth pondering.

The deeper problem is that eminent domain exists at all. The Fourth Amendment reads in part, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Since the State is the ultimate judge of its own laws, clearly the State can decide what "public use" is and what "just compensation" is. Hence, there is no limit on the power of the State regarding this power. The State can take our property for any reason it wants and then give us whatever amount of compensation it believes is just. I am still surprised that some people, especially conservatives, still believe that this useless document can serve as a limit on government power. It makes me wonder if they have actually read it.

Maryland Ranks Dead Last in Personal Freedom

If this comes as a surprise, you don't spend much time reading this blog.

SUNY Geneseo Student Found Dead after Party

In a story that hits close to home, Geneseo State University student Arman Partamian was found dead last Sunday morning in an off-campus house, hours after apparently drinking a significant amount of alcohol the day before.

Why is this personal? Partamian was enrolled at my college alma mater and was also "pledging" my old "fraternity," the Order of the Orange Knights -- better known as PIGS -- when he died.

I use the quotes above because PIGS is a social organization, not a fraternity; and to become a member you partake in orientation, not pledging. Given this tragic situation these are relatively meaningless details, but I wanted to point out the distinction because I will revisit this point later. In short, the PIGS aren't "Greek" -- their motto, "We don't care if you don't like us," is proof positive of that -- and Geneseo is the only college in the country where you'll find them.

Alcohol-related college deaths always tend to bring the holier than thou out of the woodwork to condemn the "irresponsibility" and "recklessness" of our youth, and if this statement by Geneseo president Christopher Dahl is any indication, there's a good chance most of the fraternities and sororities at Geneseo will increasingly find themselves in the administration's crosshairs from now on:

We strongly condemn irresponsible organizations that ignore the expectations and values of the College, recruit students like Arman and then encourage behavior that puts their lives at risk. We will continue to do all that is legally within our power to eliminate the detrimental influence these renegade organizations have on our students and community.

As the president of a state university, Dahl obviously is required to worship at the alter of political correctness, but with all due respect, he can save the melodrama. For starters, he's the president of a college; if he wants to run an institution filled with mature conformers, maybe he should consider working for the Key Bank down the street instead.

Furthermore, what's worse: voluntarily joining a social club whose members like to drink, or serving as the top administrator of a public college that exists largely at the expense of coerced taxpayers? Mr. Dahl may want to be careful if he's looking for a moral debate.

And, seriously, "renegade organizations" that "put lives at risk?" President Dahl runs a small Division III school in rural upstate New York. If this hyperbole is the type of rhetoric one can expect to receive from a university president in response to off-campus weekend parties, I'd love to see how he'd react if he actually had to deal with real campus hooligans who, say, set whole communities afire and destroy private property after big football or basketball games.

Arman Partamian's death is nothing short of a tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family and friends. But the reality of the matter is that these unfortunate incidents are the exception. Clearly this fact doesn't make any alcohol-related death easier to bear, but there's not an organization on campus -- Greek or otherwise -- that sets out to do tangible harm to its pledges or any other student who attends an open party. These interactions are the epitome of voluntary association between consenting adults, as students join fraternities and sororities knowing full well that they may face hazing rituals and be subjected to ridicule.

Which brings me to my final point. I've read a couple reports that refer to the PIGS as a "drinking club." Yes, if you meet a PIG, there will be no confusion as to what one of his favorite pastimes is. It's not peculiar to find him bent over a garbage can in the I.B. at 2 a.m. on a Thursday night, or even standing behind an "enemy" DK or Omega to have his back outside the bar when punks from R.I.T. roll into town looking for a fight. Nor, incidentally, is it uncommon to find him volunteering for any number of charity events, from wheelchair basketball games to Big Brothers/Big Sisters to memorial golf fundraisers.

The reason I distinguished the PIGS from the Greek fraternities on campus is because the PIGS actually take pride in not behaving like the typical frat, which generally is known to demean its pledges by forcing them to engage in any number of denigrating, ritualisic activities throughout campus. Personally, I've always regarded this as a virtue and an exhibition of good character -- the same type, by the way, that the PIGS look for in potential members and obviously found in Arman Partamian, who spent some of his free time as a volunteer EMT with the Geneseo fire department.

Though the "littles" may be required to take part in various organized drinking activities before they get their jerseys (signifying official entry into the organization), the PIGS tell all interested parties upfront that they will be treated like equals during orientation; they simply want all their prospective brethren to have fun, hang out together, and get to know everyone in the organization as they create bonds and friendships that will last a lifetime. The fact that alcohol is involved is secondary; you don't become a PIG if you don't like to drink.

If President Dahl and his fellow critics really want to take productive measures to mitigate the potential for "binge drinking"-related student deaths, perhaps they could advocate the abolition of tyrannical laws that encourage fraternity parties in the first place by preventing young adults from drinking legally in bars and restaurants.

Or maybe instead of alienating his own students by castigating them as evil reprobates -- the vast majority of whom graduated at the top of their respective high school classes -- Mr. Dahl could accept that fact that most college kids are going to drink and work within that construct to try to form partnerships with them that could somehow reduce the potential for tragedy.

Then again, maybe there's just not an "answer" here. As difficult as it is, maybe you just have to accept the fact that sometimes people make mistakes and that accidents happen.

These are sad days in Geneseo, but blaming the PIGS or fraternities in general for decisions individuals make misses the point and tarnishes the memory of Arman Partamian, who from my vantage point made a choice to join an organization that welcomed him and made him happy.

There will always be critics and second-guessing, and there are few words to comfort parents who've lost a child. But if I may, I'll offer just one thought: If you have a son the state and its accomplices consider a "renegade," that in itself is a badge of honor and you should be damned proud.

Arman Partamian, rest in peace.

Maryland's Enviro-Fascists on the Move Again

On February 20, a bill (HB 1368) was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates that would further restrict waterfront property owners from protecting their land from erosion and even prohibit them from building piers extending into the state's glorious waterways.

A choice snippet:

(2) A PERSON EXERCISING A RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE WATER IN FRONT OF THE LAND TO PRESERVE THAT PERSON’S ACCESS TO THE NAVIGABLE WATER UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT EXTEND THE IMPROVEMENTS OVER VEGETATED STATE WETLANDS.

If you read this bill closely, you'll notice a footer that reads, "CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW."

The Maryland House already banned "hard" shorelines (rock rip rap, wooden or steel bulkheads, etc.) last year, so it's important to recognize that, should this bill pass, the term "improvements" would necessarily prohibit property owners from even maintaining hard shorelines that were legal prior to the bill's passage.

In other words, waterfront owners are facing the prospect of tearing out shoreline protection that works and replacing it with "natural" shorelines (marsh grasses), which aren't nearly as effective at preventing erosion and also smell like sewage when the tide goes out.

Moreover, it's already difficult enough to get a pier permit in Maryland; now the state is trying to ban landowners from even replacing rotten decking or pilings on existing piers -- after all, how hard will it be for the state to claim that vegetation exists beneath all state wetlands?

States that aren't completely fascist usually include grandfather clauses in bills, which allow property owners to continue to operate under the conditions they agreed to when they initially purchased their property. Not Maryland. We here in the "Free State" (!) are continually bombarded by the state's fascists and their silly mandates. And now they're trying to run waterfront construction workers out of business and rob waterfront residents from enjoying the fruits of their own labor -- to say nothing of destroying property values.

Up with seaweed and snakes! To hell with the humans -- well, at least those of us who don't share familial or political connections with Maryland's green bigots.

If I've misunderstood the intent of this bill, someone please let me know. I've never wanted to be wrong so much in my life. And I know I've used the term "property owner" a few times herein, but it was mostly for ease of comprehension. As we should all know by now, there is no such thing as property rights, especially here in the People's Republik of Maryland. When the government retains the right to confiscate your property -- from your paycheck to your pier to your very person -- we are merely all wards of the state, whether we realize it or not.

NRA: Two 'Pro-Gun' Bills to Be Heard in Maryland

A friend just forwarded an NRA-ILA "alert" to me to let me know that two allegedly pro-gun bills will be heard tomorrow in the Maryland House Judiciary Committee.

One of the bills is HB 470, which would repeal the requirement of Maryland's secretary of state police to find a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun before issuing a permit.

The other is HB 682, which would require the secretary of police to issue "within a reasonable time" a handgun permit to anyone who has completed the TSA's Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, which allows select commercial airline crew members to carry firearms.

If there's one thing I've realized the past few years, it's that when the NRA tells you to vote in favor of a particular bill, it's a good bet you should do the opposite if you actually care about liberty and gun freedom. So let's examine both of these bills.

From what I can tell, HB 470 appears to be reliably pro-gun, given the fact that it is state-centric and concerns only Maryland's internal policies regarding the issuance of handgun permits.

One could argue that because the state has no moral right to regulate firearm use amongst free peoples, a gun bill that leaves the government with any authority whatsoever is unjust and should be voted against. On the other hand, one could also argue that relieving the state of its authority in any capacity, no matter how small, is a victory for freedom and is therefore a just act.

I can tell you from personal experience that it's almost impossible to get a carry permit in Maryland. Unless you're an agent of the state, you need to prove that you're in a unique situation that justifies the use of a handgun for self-defense. For instance, if you own a business and transport large sums of money or you're the victim of death threats, the state is more likely to grant you a carry permit than if you simply want to do something completely and utterly irrational, inflammatory, and ridiculous -- say, like carrying a gun at all times to protect yourself and your family from random and unpredictable violence.

Considering that Maryland is one of the most anti-gun states in the country, I'm not at all optimistic that HB 470 will pass, but it would be a win for freedom if it does. The state should not have the power to prevent individuals from defending themselves, but we in Maryland are apt to see outright gun confiscation before we see gun freedom. The state will tell you it issues concealed carry permits, but unless you're part of the privileged class the secretary of state police will shove your application in a drawer and that's where it will remain. So everything considered, overturning this monopolistic, fascistic tactic is undeniably a good thing.

HB 682 appears to be a much different animal, however, and I don't believe its passage would result in any meaningful increase in gun freedom. Indeed, it may account for just the opposite, as its provisions for issuance of a carry permit are tied to federal permissions. On the surface the bill may appear to give commercial pilots greater gun freedom, but it would nevertheless require the state of Maryland to be subservient to the federal government.

In short, it's bad enough that we're bound to the diktats of our state representatives; but you can't possibly relieve the government of its autonomy by further eroding a vertical separation of powers and conceding even more authority to the federal government. Moreover, this bill appears to be unconstitutional -- the state of Maryland recognizes the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government is (cough) prohibited (cough) by the Second Amendment from violating the right to bear arms.

One thing I noticed in my cursory examination of these two bills is that while both enjoy bipartisan sponsorship, HB 470 is sponsored primarily by Republicans whereas HB 682 is sponsored primarily by Democrats. I generally hold all politicians in equal contempt, but when it comes to Maryland politics, Republicans are so entrenched in the minority that they actually have a fairly decent track record of sticking to principles of limited government, low taxes, and gun rights. This just may be all you need to know to realize HB 682 is a crap bill.

So in sum, I'd say freedom will win the day tomorrow if HB 470 passes and HB 682 fails. But remember, this is Maryland. Be prepared for the exact opposite.

'Green' Bigots Kill

While the "experts" blame the Australian wildfires on "climate change," Warwick Spooner, who lost his mother and brother in the blazes, knows where the finger really needs to be pointed: at lawmakers who implement "green" policies preventing property owners from clearing trees and bushland posing fire hazards.

"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," said Spooner.

What Michael Phelps Should Have Said

This is about as spot on as you can get, courtesy Radley Balko.

(Via Geoffrey Allan Plauche)

What Does an Abortion Look Like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maryland Sinking under Tax-and-Spend Governor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Against Intellectual Monopoly

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

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

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

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

The War on Drugs: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Obama, I Want Out

Dear Barry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you let me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court Hearts the Police State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, until yesterday anyway.

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

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

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

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

But it gets better:

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

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

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

I've saved the very best for last:

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

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

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

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

Riots Are the Brainchild of the Ignorant

How much sense does it make to protest unjust government behavior by resorting to methods that are similarly immoral?

The protesters in Oakland who rightly rebuked the actions of the police officer who executed 22-year-old Oscar Grant in a BART transit station should be happy to know that their decision to initiate a violent riot has most likely undermined any chance of effecting meaningful reform within an oppressive police department.

The roving mob expressed fury at police and frustration over society's racial injustice. Yet the demonstrators were often indiscriminate, frequently targeting the businesses and prized possessions of people of color.

They smashed a hair salon, a pharmacy and several restaurants. Police in riot gear tried to control the crowd, but some people retreated along 14th Street and bashed cars along the way.

The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.

"This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?"

Brilliant. Express your solidarity with others of your race by destroying their property. Here's a sample of the rioters' collective intelligence:

"I feel like the night is going great," said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. "I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male."

Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.

"She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life," Sykes said. She added that she did have one worry for the night: "I just hope nobody gets shot or killed."

None of us should make the mistake of blaming the appalling murder of Mr. Grant on "society's racial injustice." The police officer may have been white and Grant may have been black, but this shooting simply is characteristic of injustice, period; injustice that is a direct result of and inherent to the state's monopoly on the use of force.

Oscar Grant was not killed because he was black. He was killed because every law and diktat passed down by the state is ultimately enforceable under penalty of death. In a free and just society nobody could be robbed to pay for services he neither needs nor wants; he could not be thrown into a cage (or worse) for refusing to comply with coercive mandates even though he has harmed no one.

To be sure, the state discriminates against various identity groups both willfully and arbitrarily, and its laws and behavior often result in consequences that disproportionately affect some people more than others (usually the weak -- the poor, children, and minorities).

But there ultimately is no rich and poor or black and white when it comes to the government and its application of unilateral force. There is only the rulers and the ruled; the masters and the slaves -- and we as human beings collectively are at its mercy.

Unless, however, we decide to do something about it by peacefully withdrawing our consent. Now is the time to embrace liberty by refusing to believe that democracy constitutes freedom, or that the state has the capability to protect us -- or even has this as one of its goals.

For many Oaklanders, this opportunity may have just come and gone with their decision to protest the actions of their rulers by resorting to arbitrary violence -- against innocent, law-abiding citizens, of all people.

Cocks Helping Cocks

Either we have a right to our property or we don't.

The faster people realize we don't, the faster we'll rid ourselves of the state's manacles.

Thank Goodness for the TSA!

Our indispensible state agents are so concerned about our safety that they're willing to do the tough job of harassing 3½-year-olds for us. 

I virtually refuse to fly commercial due to the many idiotic and invasive "security" measures implemented post-9/11. And if the inane requirement of getting my 1-year-old a passport isn't enough to convince me to pass on a family vacation over Easter, this story might just be.

"Social Responsibility" Is Just Another Word for Fascism

And it's the excuse given by the Ontario government for controlling citizens' alcohol consumption.

Fire Dept. Breaks Down Wrong Door

During a training exercise.

Kinda defeats the purpose of posting addresses, no?

Safer to Be Invaded by Private Thieves Than Government Ones

In a story that isn't short on irony when it comes to the hypocrisy of government henchmen apprehending home invaders who don't wear police costumes, I couldn't help but notice that the private criminals who invaded a woman's house by mistake waited for her to answer the door instead of immediately kicking it in.

A woman answered a knock on her door on East Hills Drive around 10:30 p.m. Monday, and two men rushed inside, police said.

Good luck getting the same courtesy from the state.

Back in the U.S.S.A.

Will Grigg on using the U.S. military to enforce the disarmament of American civilians.

In September 2006, on the same day the Bush Regime effectively dismantled the habeas corpus guarantee, it inflicted what may be lethal injury to the Posse Comitatus Act as well by providing the president with the means to make the National Guard units of all 50 states into his personal army, to be deployed domestically in any way he sees fit. At least three combat brigades are now assigned to domestic duty as a homeland security force under Northern Command.

Those troops would supposedly be used for the sole purpose of dealing with catastrophic events, such as terrorism involving the use of non-conventional weapons; however, the initial report indicated that these combat veterans, during their domestic deployment, would be equipped and trained to deal with crowd control and other population management tasks. This is why the unit would be outfitted with "non-lethal" weaponry, in addition to the conventional variety.

It sure looks like "Over There" has become "over here."

"No constitutional right is absolute..."

So says District of Criminals councilwoman Mary Cheh as DC passes more regulations tightening gun laws after the atrocious Heller decision.

You show 'em, Mary! Only the diktats of tyrannical politicians are absolute!

<yawn>

If only someone could have predicted this!!

(Thanks to Dan)

Swimming Pool Nazis

Mike Tennant shares a nice example of what life is like when reality and satire intersect, courtesy of your beneficent public servants.