who's your nanny?

We're Quickly Becoming a Nation of Criminals

Yesterday I used the example of a drunk-driving incident to briefly illustrate how unjust the American legal structure is. From your county commissioners right on up to the federal government, the state constantly seeks to prosecute us for the mere potential to commit crimes, not simply in response to harm done intentionally to someone else or his property.

The problem with this system of governance is that it is extremely tyrannical. From a moral standpoint, you can't have a criminal without a victim, yet the state increasingly criminalizes nonviolent habits or behaviors that do no harm to anyone, save perhaps the individual who chooses to engage them. And even when the state does prosecute someone who's actually violated the property rights of others, the state doesn't merely force the individual to pay for his own crimes; it compels innocent taxpayers to pay for them as well when it robs us at the point of a gun in order to feed, clothe, and incarcerate the miscreant.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans not only condones but actually encourages this so-called system of "justice," even though granting the state such enormous power means there literally is no limit to the abuses that can be wielded on nonviolent citizens. To illustrate this further, I will reprint some comments I received yesterday at the Examiner in response to my post.

Read the entire article.

"Lawful" Does Not Mean Moral

J.D. Tuccille writes:

Psychologists have put a lot of hard work over the years into mapping our moral development as we grow from childhood, into adolescence and then into adulthood. Part of becoming an adult is getting beyond the idea that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. Adolescents think the law [is] the last word; adults understand that the law is always open to evaluation, and that good laws that respect individual rights should be obeyed, but bad laws that violate our rights should be opposed and defied.

This is a truth I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. It drives me to the point of insanity when I read comments defending police brutality or drug raids simply because it's "lawful." Of course, it's "lawful." The State is a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate decision-making. It can and does write the laws so that its behavior will be "lawful." Thus, the State can steal because it writes laws granting itself the power to tax. It can murder because it writes laws which allow it to declare war. Its agents can invade the homes of peaceful citizens and murder them and/or their pets because it writes laws making certain drugs illegal and then grants itself the right to search people's homes. Its agents also reserve the right to shoot innocent civilians and since the survivors can only come to the State to protest any of this behavior, it will say that its actions are "lawful." 

If Americans would quit worshipping the State, perhaps such common sense would finally penetrate their ossified intellects.

A Taser Twist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekend Roundup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Reason to Not Trust Juries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Polices the Police?

From William Grigg at the LRC blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Non-Issue That Is the Gov. Sanford Affair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No License, No Fun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tasah Tasah Tasah!!

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

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

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

(Thanks to Manuel Lora)

Obama's 'Deeply Troubled' by Iranian Violence

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

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

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

More Police Impunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State Is Torture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Martial Law Mindset Continues

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

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

Just 'Following Procedure'

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

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

[...]

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

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

That's when they shot it three times.

Police state? What police state!?

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

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

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

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

And then there's this:

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

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

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

The Martial Law Mindset in Motion

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

For more details on this case see here.

Three Cheers for Restraint

Via Drudge, a handyman who reportedly lived out of his minivan in New York City apparently lay dead for weeks as unsuspecting police officers repeatedly left parking tickets on his vehicle below an underpass.

George Morales, 59, died naturally from heart disease, the medical examiner's office said Friday. The body was found in the backseat Wednesday when a city marshal tried to tow the vehicle from beneath an overpass on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, police said. He was believed to have been living out of the white Chevrolet minivan, which had North Carolina plates.

You can interpret this story a couple different ways depending on the type of agenda you're trying to push. On one hand, you could criticize the police for failing to notice that there was a dead body inside the minivan as they left tickets on the windshield. Or, you could praise the officers for refraining from snooping inside the vehicle without probable cause.

According to the report, the windows of the minivan were tinted and "ticketing officers don't normally search cars."

It's bad enough that the government maintains a monopoly over the roads, the enforcement of traffic laws, and all the other nanny-state policies it enforces (like seatbelt and helmet laws) under the guise of securing our safety. As unfortunate as it is that Mr. Morales met his demise under less than ideal circumstances, at least the officers in question didn't compromise the man's dignity by rummaging through his final resting place.

Niagara Falls Police Use Taser to Obtain DNA

Ryan S. Smith, a shooting and robbery suspect from upstate New York, told Niagara Falls police he'd rather sit in jail instead of consenting to an order to submit a DNA sample.

A police officer said that when Smith was ordered by officers to give his DNA, he adamantly refused.

“I ain’t giving up my DNA again. I already gave it up once. I’ll sit in jail. I ain’t giving it up. You’re going to have to Tase me,” the officer’s report stated.

So tase him they did. And as is usually the case when the state determines the merits of its own behavior, a Niagara County judge has ruled that the electrocution was legally permissible.

Niagara County Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza decided that the DNA sample obtained Sept. 29 from Ryan S. Smith of Niagara Falls — which ties him to a shooting and a gas station robbery— is legally valid and can be used at his trial.

Smith was handcuffed and sitting on the floor of Niagara Falls Police Headquarters when he was zapped with the 50,000- volt electronic stun gun after he insisted he would not give a DNA sample.

Smith had already given a DNA sample without protest a month earlier. So why did police feel the need to obtain it on a second occasion, you ask? Well, they sent the first sample to the wrong lab, "where it was opened and spoiled." Apparently torture is a reasonable remedy for incompetence.

Smith may very well be guilty of the crimes with which he's been charged, but even the most unsavory of characters are entitled to due process.

Sperrazza even admitted that police should have arrested the disobedient Smith -- you know, in accordance with the law -- and brought him to court where he would have been warned about the penalties for noncompliance with a court order. But instead of adhering to established precedent herself, the judge ruled that it's legally permissible to use a Taser to obtain DNA as long as it's not done "maliciously, or to an excessive extent, or with resulting injury."

Ah, well as long as it's not done "maliciously" or "excessively!" No doubt such ambiguity is comforting to anyone who understands the all-too-lethal nature of the "non-lethal" Taser.

All laws are ambiguous when the state is allowed to interpret them to its liking; that's one of the primary reasons I hate the state. However, for all the abuses such abstract terminology will henceforth legitimize in a legal sense, that's not even the biggest problem with this ruling.

Sperrazza's decision that use of a Taser is legally permissible in order to enforce compliance with a court order is severely misleading and unlawful per se -- she ruled on the means through which state officials are allowed to collect DNA evidence when she should have ruled specifically on the legal propriety of compelling it in the first place.

In other words, even if electrocution were a perfectly acceptable method of coercing the nonviolent -- it's not -- the officer(s) who tased Smith broke the law by collecting the DNA sample prior to allowing the suspect to appear before a judge to be informed of the consequences of failing to comply with a court order.

If one is pulled over and suspected of drunk-driving but refuses a breathalyzer test, standard protocol for an officer is to issue an arrest and haul the suspect to jail, not to administer 50,000 volts of electricity to someone who merely refuses an order. Yet, anyway.

However, with rulings like the one issued by Sperrazza, who herself contorted the laws so she could absolve fellow tax-feeders of their due process violations, our devolution into a full-fledged police state continues apace.

(Thanks to Wolf for sending the story.)

"It’s OK for a black man to mysteriously die in jail and no one be held accountable.”

That's a quote from Prince George's Community activist Zalee Harris after a second county grand jury determined there was insufficient evidenceto return a murder indictment in the death of Ronnie White. White was charged with murder last June after police say he ran down a police officer with a stolen truck.

State police detectives have determined the death a suicide. Vernon Herron, Prince George's chief of public safety, said "If there was a murder to uncover, the state police would have uncovered it." Yes, I am quite certain that the state police would have investigated the death of an individual suspected of murdering a police officer and held in a police custody with without prejudice.

“There were no marks found on [White’s] body,” the source said. “This was a 19-year-old young man. He would have fought if someone was trying to hang him, unless he was drugged, and there was no evidence of that either.”

Now just what entity was responsible for the drug tests?

In the season ending episode of CSI: NY, a police officer is murdered. The boyfriend of the assassinated officer is allowed to participate in the investigation of her death. I naively laughed to myself saying, "No police department in the real world would allow the boyfriend of a murdered cop to assist in the investigation. The conflict of interest is too readily apparent." Yes, even a radical like myself has occasional lapses. Sometimes the red pill momentarily loses its power. But only momentarily.

I'll Take Private Gangs over Government Gangs Anyday

Police in Anne Arundel County, Md., suspect gang links in the killing of 14-year-old Christopher Jones, who was attacked and beaten to death over the weekend in Crofton, allegedly by 16-year-old Javel Marqueth George and an unidentified 14-year-old boy.

"Whatever dispute he has, whoever he hangs around with, whatever those factors are -- he doesn't deserve to be assaulted while riding his bike," said Anne Arundel County Police Captain David Waltemayer. "It is ridiculous."

Ridiculous indeed. Just about as absurd as when Anne Arundel police officers sexually assault young women during field sobriety tests, kill unarmed suspects in the middle of the street, or murder pregnant women during tyrannical drug raids.

The difference is, private citizens are (rightly) almost always held accountable for their crimes whereas tax-eating parasites in government law enforcement are hardly ever even charged for their criminal offenses, much less prosecuted and convicted.

Kidnappers Abduct Three Children in South Carolina

The gang of criminals known as the Newberry County Sheriff's Department has kidnapped three small children from a house in which it found just over an ounce of tobacco apportioned into small baggies. Three suspects were charged with possession of tobacco with intent to distribute.

“When deputies arrived at the residence, they ...were able to see in plain view a [tobacco] plant growing at the residence,” said sheriff’s Major Todd Johnson in the press release.

“The officers also observed a partially smoked [Marlboro] cigarette on the porch of the residence.”

For the record, an ounce of tobacco fits in a small sandwich bag. But I have to come clean. The officers didn't really arrest these people for tobacco, they busted them and abducted their children over an ounce of marijuana.

So how many of you were ready to march to South Carolina with shotguns when you thought police confiscated innocent children in the name of tobacco, but couldn't care less now that you know it was actually marijuana?

In order to prosecute victimless "crimes," the state is willing to commit actual crimes by initiating violence against nonviolent people and their property. This is evil incarnate.

Another State-Sanctioned Electrocution Execution

SALEM, Ore. - A Salem man died Saturday night after police say he violently resisted arrest and they were forced to use their Tasers on him.

The incident began just after 7:30 p.m. when Salem police were called to an apartment at 1251 Royvonne Avenue Southeast on a report that a male was trespassing there.

According to the Salem Police Department, when officers arrived they attempted to arrest 37-year-old Gregory Rold but he physically and violently resisted.  The officers at the scene then deployed their Tasers and used their batons to subdue him.

Even if this guy was an unsavory character who fully deserved to be forcibly prevented from trespassing on someone else's property -- and even if you believe the state should be the entity in charge of administering "justice" -- he was nevertheless denied his due process rights and executed by the state absent the benefit of a jury trial.

I'll give the officers the benefit of the doubt here for attempting to subdue Rold with devices they probably believed to be less than lethal, especially when pulling a handgun can be a tempting proposition if a confrontation goes downhill fast. But arguing that the Taser is a non-lethal weapon is hopelessly naive at best.

Heroic 6-Year-Old Prevents Car Crash

A 6-year-old boy grabbed the wheel of his family's pickup truck when his father passed out from low blood sugar, keeping the vehicle from crashing until an officer could bring it to a halt, police said.

Tustin Mains was in the back seat with his 3-year-old brother Sunday when his father, Phillip Mains, slumped over at the wheel, the boy told police. The family had been driving home from a restaurant.

Anyone else surprised the father wasn't arrested upon recovery for allowing an unlicensed driver to operate the vehicle?

When Will We Ban 'Driving While Human?'

Yesterday while I was taking in the scenery of the Patuxent River while anchored out on my buddy's boat, I heard a new ad on the radio sponsored by the police state. Two girls had just gotten into a car accident. One girl's arm was bent the wrong way and the other said something like, "I thought I was fine; I only had a couple beers."

At which point the narrator informed us about the perils of "buzzed driving."

That's right. Apparently we've sufficiently conditioned everyone in America to believe drunken-driving is a crime unto itself, so clearly it's time to turn into criminals those who've only had a beer or two before getting behind the wheel.

The irony of this campaign is that in this hypothetical situation, the girl in the commercial could/should be held liable for her actions if her accident could legitimately be tied to her alcohol consumption, however limited. But obviously that's not the intent of these types of commercials. It's to alert us that the state's goons will be busting all of us shortly for the slightest hint of alcohol on our breath even if we've harmed no one.

Fuck tha Police

Pretty ironic I never cared much for N.W.A. when I was in college.

Will Grigg highlights everything that's wrong with government police with his concise comments related to the vidow below. Watch the video, then read this.

N.W.A. had it almost entirely right. Statist tyrants are colorblind.

Dealing with Traffic Stops

Here is an excellent post by J.D. Tuccille on what to do if you are pulled over by the fuzz.

Another Taser Shocker

A federal jury has ruled that three Nashville police officers did not use excessive force in the death of a 21-year-old man on LSD who was tased up to 19 times after he stripped naked outside a nightclub.

Apologists for state-sanctioned electrocution will argue that this man shouldn't have been on LSD, that either his actions brought on the treatment he received or the drugs exacerbated the electric shocks and he wouldn't have died otherwise.

Even if this is so, the point remains that a man was killed by government police for "acting strangely" and taking off his clothes in public.

We're Just Chump Change to the State

The Baltimore Sun reports that Andrew Leonard, a chemist with no criminal record who was handcuffed and questioned after Baltimore police broke down his front door during a wrong door drug raid (go figure!) more than two months ago, has finally received a check from the city for the damages he incurred.

How much, you ask? Why, a measly $917. And that's probably only due to the fact that the paper reported Leonard's plight in the first place.

"We're done and satisfied and moving on with our lives," said Leonard, 33. "Everything is as it ought to have been, only much, much later than one would expect."

Actually, two months is virtually a nanosecond if you're talking government time. After all, ask Cheye Calvo and his family how much restitution they've received from the P.G. County police department almost a year after they were terrorized and assaulted and watched SWAT units slaughter their dogs.

What's most unbelievable to me is that Leonard actually expected the process to proceed more quickly. I can't be too critical here -- Mr. Leonard is the victim, after all -- so I'll simply say that I hope this experience has caused him to understand the true nature of the state. In time, he may just find that the enlightenment is worth far more than any amount of money the city could ever give him.

This tripe, on the other hand, is entirely contemptible:

"Mr. Leonard's ordeal is a reminder to all city employees of the need to better communicate amongst agencies, within departments, and bring issues to the attention of the Mayor's Office when a constituent is not being rightfully served within the city," Dixon spokesman Scott Peterson said in an e-mail.

This "ordeal" should not be a reminder that government officials merely need to "better communicate" amongst themselves as they increasingly create "crimes" out of whole cloth and then track down nonviolent citizens with their guns drawn. As if we need our slave masters to be more efficient!

What this should be is a reminder that the state is a criminal gang writ large. It will do nothing but continue to enslave us by prosecuting us for any number of victimless crimes unless we put a stop to it.

Ashton Lundeby Vs. the American Police State

William Grigg shares the horrific story of Ashton Lundeby, a 16-year-old North Carolina boy who has been detained by the FBI for more than two months on the suspicion that he has made bomb threats via the Internet.

Despite the fact that Ashton has an airtight alibi for the night he supposedly made a threat against Purdue University in Indiana, he has not yet been charged with a crime. Of course, this courtesy is essentially irrelevant in our post-9/11 era of the PATRIOT (sic) Act. As Grigg writes, "the late Bush administration, with the enthusiastic support of nearly every conservative commentator and activist of any consequence, quite thoughtfully disposed of the habeas corpus guarantee."

Federal officials no longer have to provide real evidence of a crime; they merely need to claim arbitrarily that they have "good faith" reasons to suspect terrorist-related activity before whisking you or your kids away to government cages to be held indefinitely. It matters not whether you're innocent or guilty, you see; the shepherds who occupy the ranks of the American Police State simply need to give the illusion that they're "tough on crime" so the sheep believe they're "safe," civil liberties be damned.

Perhaps even more abhorrent than the detention of a boy who would quite likely be innocent of charges against him were the state to actually file any -- any real doubt as to why it hasn't yet? -- is the fact that the our taxpayer-fleecing captors apply the very same methods against us as all those terrorists they're supposedly trying to apprehend. Per Mr. Grigg:

Annette and her children were held hostage in their home until 1:30 in the morning. The 12-year-old daughter was dragged from her bed by an armed stranger – an act that left the girl traumatized (and one for which the assailant should be thrashed to within a centimeter of his tax-devouring existence). Annette insisted that Ashton not answer any questions without an attorney present, but she wasn't permitted to call one.

The Feds confiscated Ashton's computer and gaming equipment, and made off with a great deal of family paperwork. But they couldn't find a particle of evidence anywhere to suggest that the teenager had built a bomb, or that possessed the necessary knowledge and intent. Nonetheless, they handcuffed Ashton and hauled him away to jail.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who knows how the new American Schutzstaffel treats ordinary, nonviolent citizens suspected of engaging even in mere drug use. Even when our noble stormtroopers target the innocent by mistake, they're lucky to get so much as an apology, so what should we expect when we're actually accused of terr'ism?

It seems we're faced with only two options nowadays. We can sit idly by while a gang of corrupt tyrants confiscates what few liberties we actually have left, or we can wake up to this political effrontery before we're all literally enslaved by murderous thugs who have to do nothing more than point a gun and bark. Given our current state of affairs, I am not optimistic that we will make the call that results in lasting freedom.

UPDATE: Will Grigg issues an update on the case of Ashton Lundeby, who apparently is not being held in custody under the USA PATRIOT Act. It also appears that Lundeby has been known to engage in pranks where he would call in a bomb threat for kids anxious to get out of school. None of this changes the fact that we live in a supposedly free country where paramilitary police harass and terrorize the innocent as they pursue those who are ultimately found "guilty" of engaging in victimless crimes like gambling and drug use, but the state's case against Lundeby certainly appears to be stronger than I originally assumed.

'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.

Police-State Power Lust

Liberals who thought Obama would be friendlier to civil liberties than George Bush was are now getting their just deserts. The evil of the presidency (and those who seek it) primarily resides in the fact that it represents the cumulative expansion of tyranny.

Winning the presidency requires a power lust unmatched around the globe, and save for men like Ron Paul who come around perhaps once a century, the office is sought by individuals who may claim to oppose the policies of their predecessor, but who are likewise eager to assume his omnipotence and authority.

Hence this new move by Barack Obama, who wants to allow police to question suspects without the presence of a lawyer.

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.

While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Aside from this gross violation of liberty in and of itself, the fact that Obama seeks to use federal authority to manipulate the behavior of the states apparently gets lost in the shuffle, as only federal police should fall under the purview of the president in the first place.

Are Americans really so ignorant as to not realize that we are merely pawns in these foreign and domestic war games that are maintained for the amusement of the state?

(Via Lew Rockwell)

The State Creates Crime

Unfortunately, I was flying home from Mexico last Friday so I had to miss the Great Southern Maryland Police State Orgy, formerly known to most locals as "Tiki Bar Opening" -- the day on which casual partiers flock to Solomons Island to celebrate the symbolic beginning of summer.

As I documented last spring, in recent years the island has become more representative of history's most notorious state-run military regimes on the third weekend in April than the quaint waterfront tourist town that it actually is.

The police will tell you they're on hand -- with fully militarized assault vehicles in tow -- "just in case" things get out of control. In other words, should criminal activity break out, our noble law enforcement officers will be there to protect us!

But what if it's the police themselves who are responsible for the bulk of the criminality at such events? According to The Enterprise, if the cops couldn't locate "criminals" during the Tiki Bar opening, they simply created them through entrapment.

Maryland State Police on covert duty at the Tiki Bar's opening weekend in Solomons report that they arranged a drug deal Saturday with a St. Mary's man and gave him a ride to a home, where he was arrested.

Dustin Richard Cushman, 22, of California was released the next day on $10,000 bond to await a court hearing on charges including the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute the drug at the residence.

Aside from the fact that there is absolutely nothing inherently immoral about engaging in nonviolent, voluntary transactions with consenting adults, you know you live in a fairly safe area when police officers have to lure people into committing a "crime." (Well, "safe" except for when one must deal with the criminal elite known as the police.)

Like anything else subsidized by taxpayers, government policing is merely another make-work program. Most people believe the police exist to defend us against criminality, so police departments are incentivized to ensure there is plenty of it to keep their officers occupied. After all, if there were no "criminals," there would be no need for government police, right? Think about that the next time your trusty politicos pass their next law.

Of Course FBI Employees Wouldn't Spy on Teenage Girls. They Are Our Protectors.

Writes Karen DeCoster:

Sick. Grown men watching *teenage* girls trying on prom gowns for a charity event at a mall. Little girls bothering no one. Question - what are FBI agents doing in a satellite control room in a mall in Morgantown, WV? Here's the stupid comment of the day.

Organizer Cynthia Woodyard said volunteers, donors and participants are angry.

"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We're in shock."

Thank to Mark Anderson for the link.

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

Every time I read or hear that someone is "shocked" to find criminality in the State I am reminded of a quote from Albert J. Nock:

I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

According to the article, "The workers were described in a complaint as 'police officers,' but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did." Moreover, "The prosecutor would not say how authorities found out about the accusations."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the FBI generally boasts about how it catches child predators and reveals every detail of the suspects' lives before a trial even commences. There are even "20/20" and "Dateline" specials on how the FBI entraps child predators. So why the secrecy?

Too Many 'Non-Lethal' Weapon Sequels

Two weeks, two more murders-by-Taser courtesy of government police here in the land of the freefall.

Parents of 24-year-old mentally impaired Texas man Michael Jacobs are probably regretting their decision to call police to help them control their son after he was tased to death on their front lawn.

Charlotte Jacobs, Michael’s mother, says that her son was writhing on the ground and foaming at the mouth while he was being stunned and that she begged the officers to stop. Charlotte Jacobs also told police that her son was taking medications for his mental illness, relatives said.

"They have been to the house many times before, and they know Charlotte," said Helena Wigfall, 37, a cousin of Michael Jacobs. "That’s why we don’t understand why today was so different."

And a 15-year-old Michigan boy was killed a little over a week ago after he ran from police after a routine traffic stop. By the officers' own admission, it only took one jolt to kill him.

Aside from the deaths themselves and the fact that Tasers are inaccurately marketed by the government as non-lethal weapons, the most frustrating aspect of these incidents is the argument made after the fact by defenders of state-sanctioned electrocution, who insist it isn't the voltage that kills, but rather some other pre-existing condition on the part of the victim that proves fatal when combined with a Taser jolt.

Oftentimes Taser victims are found with drugs in their system, which may explain why they choose to fight police or become belligerent in the first place. It also may explain why some people are so quick to side with police in these situations. But that's beside the point. The fact is, if a pre-existing condition -- whether heart disease, asthma, or the presence of drugs -- can compound the lethality of electric shock, then it follows that the electric shock can just as easily compound the lethality of a pre-existing condition.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether the people who succumb to Taser shocks would have died at the very moment they did absent their electrocution. To argue in the affirmative has to be the height of absurdity.

The "Waco Gene"

I know that I have been writing a lot about this DHS report on right-wing extremism, but I wish to impress upon you the gravity of our situation. Our government is boldly naming those who simply oppose anything it does as enemies and traitors worthy of whatever punishment it wishes to mete out. The DHS contains a specialized section named the Extremism and Radicalism Branch (ERB). William Grigg describes the purpose of this branch thusly:

This means that for the first time in American history, the federal government has a full-time intelligence organ devoted exclusively to scrutinizing the political opinions and affiliations of U.S. citizens. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this development as a milestone in our nation's apostasy from its founding as a constitutional republic.

The Obama administration's recent decision to not prosecute the CIA for torture is a signal to the country that the president wishes to retain the ability to torture "terrorists" as he sees fit. Given that the elastic definition of terrorists now includes anyone who does not like the government, pretty much everyone not an Obama idolater is now an enemy of the State.

Moreover, the police departments of even peaceful counties are becoming militarized and working closely with the ERB. As Mr. Grigg notes

This is significant chiefly because it acknowledges that every "local" police agency in the United States is now a sensory organ, and enforcement appendage, of the Homeland Security State.

As partners with the Department of Homeland Security, your thoughtful and friendly "local" police and state police will be expected to gather intelligence on "extremists" within their jurisdictions and provide it to the Feds. And in the event that they're required to do so by their "partners" in Washington, those same state and "local" police will be expected to question, arrest, or detain those designated to be severe risks to "homeland security."

Mr. Grigg traces this right wing extremism to two episodes under the Clinton administration forever branded in the memory of the American right.

In the institutional memory of the American Right, the early Clinton years were characterized by two entirely unnecessary atrocities involving culturally isolated "extremists": The attack on the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho -- which led to the murder of Sammy and Vicki Weaver -- and the 51-day standoff at Mt. Carmel, Texas, which culminated in the holocaust of April 19, 1993.

The unbearable memory of those episodes, exacerbated by the "assault weapons" ban, did much to catalyze resistance to the Clinton administration. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a widespread, and growing, appreciation for the lethal potential of what we could call the federal government's "Waco gene" -- its latent tendency to isolate, dehumanize, criminalize, and even annihilate those considered to be incorrigible internal enemies.

A Fellow K.O.O.K. Speaks

Gary D. Barnett, fellow K.O.O.K., comments on the recent DHS report. He connects the dots of the actions of our government and does not like the completed picture. He writes in part

All the federal government’s offensive and defensive mechanisms are being put in place while the lowly sheep await the slaughter. More economic tensions with more unemployment along with over-zealous police thugs bent on revenue creation; what will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back? What will it take before civil unrest is not just discussed on talk shows, but is evident in the streets of America? How much unrest will be tolerated by the now fully armed military-type police before they become physical?

I honestly don't think most Americans will believe that their own government will kill them until they have been shot by one of their protectors. For most Americans, the State is their god and they simply can't imagine that their god who claims to be their protector will harm them. They have been deceived on a massive scale in part because the democratic process blurs the line between rulers and ruled. Clearly there are rulers and ruled, but because the people meet their potential masters who tell them sweet lies to get their votes, they then think that these cretins have the public welfare in mind. They can't imagine that the people running for office might be murderous psychopaths. 

USAToday recently carried a story about the real story behind the Columbine massacre. The piece includes a chilling comment by Dave Cullen who recently wrote a new book on Columbine:

[Eric] Harris, who conceived the attacks, was more than just troubled. He was, psychologists now say, a cold-blooded, predatory psychopath — a smart, charming liar with "a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control," Cullen writes.

If these psychologists' assessment of Eric Harris is true, then an 18 year-old high school student fooled all of the adults who were concerned with his well-being including his own parents. Do you really think that our democratic process can winnow out such people? Our democracy is a competition among liars, demagogues and potential murderers to crown the best liar, demagogue and potential murderer. The advantage goes to smart, evil people, e.g., psychopaths.

I don't want people to think that I wish for a violent end to this empire. I wish for no such thing and pray that such does not happen. As I have written many times in this space, the empire can end peacefully if a majority of people view the State as illegitimate and withdraw their consent. And indeed I could very well be wrong about the majority of the people. Ideology can change instantaneously and the majority could suddenly say, "Our government is evil." Michael Gaddy wrote to Lew Rockwell with an encouraging sign in this direction:

I am receiving an increasing number of responses from military personnel who tell me many in the military are beginning to awaken to the coming chaos, and are voicing their support for the citizens as opposed to the state. Perhaps having Obama rather than the previous office holder - who had a direct line to God - is indeed beginning to awaken some folks out there.

So there are pockets of hope. But I think the best advice is to hope for the best and prepare for the worse.

Apparently Overkill Is the Default Setting...

for all police departments. Writes William Grigg:

Just a couple of weeks ago, Forbes rated Portland, Maine America's "most livable" city.

Though the weather can be a challenge, and the recession has taken its toll on the seaside community, Portland is seen as a haven from crime and other turbulence. Indeed, Maine ranks third in a recent survey of "safest states" to live in.

According to the Portland (Maine) Police Department, the most pressing crime problems afflicting their relatively tranquil community include stolen pocketbooks, fraud, and the occasional robbery.

So, naturally, the PPD recently received a pair of M113 armored personnel carriers -- better known as "tanks" -- from the Pentagon. Oh, sure, people complain that they are a bit "too much," acknowledges PPD Capt. Ted Ross. But he insists that the vehicles will "reduce the exposure to danger for officers who approach ... hostile or armed confrontations."

They might also come in handy if the PPD ever has to deal with a handful of wound-up college students at a campus dance, as their colleagues did over the weekend at Colby College in Waterville.

Early Easter Sunday morning, police from several Maine communities responded to a call from Colby campus security. When the first pair of officers arrived, security personnel were restraining two students, one of whom supposedly interfered with attempts to provide medical care to another student who had apparently fallen ill.

Each student had been swarmed and forced face-down on the floor by campus security. One of them, Ozzy Ramirez, was bleeding into the floor. A video taken at the time (and available at the website of The Exception magazine) shows a bloody Ramirez pinned and pleading to be let up while other students angrily -- but non-violently -- criticize the use of excessive force by security personnel.

Ramirez and another student, Jacob Roundtree, were arrested and charged with assault and criminal trespass; a third, Michael Talarico, was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct.

At a campus forum held yesterday student witnesses disputed the official account, insisting (as summarized by the Kennebec Journal's Morning Sentinel) that "campus security guards ... harassed and assaulted students without provocation and that police sprayed one student with Mace three times, also without provocation."

However the incident began, the involvement of local police exacerbated it. Confronting a small crowd of angry, upset college students, the police -- rather than trying to defuse and de-escalate the situation -- went the "shock and awe" route.

Officers on the scene sent out a 10-74, an urgent call for "all available officers" to come to the assistance of an officer in "real trouble."

This emergency summons brought officers from Oakland, Winslow, Fairfield, Waterville, the Kennebec County Sheriff's Department, and the State Police -- to deal with a total of three allegedly misbehaving college students and a small but orderly crowd of their classmates.

Yes, Maine is a perfectly safe place to live, as long as you can avoid the police.

How Sick Would You Have to Be to Rape a Woman Holding a Baby?

It takes a particularly evil person to violate a woman's right to be secure in her person by forcing her to have sex against her will. But how twisted would you have to be to rape a woman while she held her baby?

This is the accusation leveled against Joseph Daniel Bynum, a 22-year-old Maryland man who currently is on probation for the "crime" of lying to a police officer (never talk to the police). He has been charged with second-degree rape, fourth-degree sex offense, and second-degree assault for allegedly raping a woman on January 20, 2008 while she held her infant son and is only now going to trial.

According to the victim’s account in court charging documents, Bynum called the victim and asked her to take a ride with him. She declined, but said he could come visit her.

Bynum allegedly sat next to her on the couch as she fed her infant son and tried to put his arm around her. She told him to stop. Instead, he allegedly stood up, turned off the lights in the room, stood in front of her and told her to put her son down.

Fearing that Bynum would harm her son, the victim stated she put the baby off to one side, still holding him. Bynum then allegedly kissed her and forcibly removed her pants.

He allegedly attempted to have intercourse with her even as she repeatedly told him to stop.

Bynum finally stopped, redressed and sat down next to the victim, trying to talk to her, before leaving the house.

When contacted by the police, Bynum claimed that he had engaged in consensual sex with the victim.

My gut tells me that it's implausible that a man who has an amicable relationship with a woman would behave so heinously as to rape her in front of her own child. But while I obviously could be wrong, this isn't the biggest reason I doubt the veracity of the woman's story.

I am extremely skeptical not only because the state's prosecutors almost always side with the woman in these cases of he said/she said and because state attorneys generally face no repercussions for charging innocent suspects with crimes they didn't commit, but also because Maryland prosecutors already have a pitiful track record of bringing rape charges against suspects based on nothing more than an accusation by the alleged victim.

While the case against Bynum pends in Charles County courts, just last year St. Mary's County prosecutors, led by Asst. State's Attorney Joe Stanalonis, held innocent 16-year-old John Edison Jr. without bond in a government cage for over five months despite the absence of any physical evidence whatsoever that he committed a violent rape. The jury didn't even have to deliberate for an hour before acquitting Edison, revealing the laziness and negligence with which lead Det. William Raddatz and ASA Stanalonis proceeded against this boy.

The fact that the state pays no penalty for violating the rights of innocent victims illustrates how unjust our "justice" system really is. Ironically, it was John Edison's naivete about the state and its machinations that ultimately saved him because he refused to accept a plea bargain, instead vehemently insisting he was innocent and forcing the state to try to prove a chump case in court. Interestingly enough, defense attorney Kevin J. McDevitt, who successfully defended Edison, is also representing Mr. Bynum.

Admittedly, I'm making a fair amount of presumptions considering the Bynum case is in its early stages. But with this in mind, one has to wonder if the charges brought against him aren't simply an attempt to get him to plead out, especially given his previous conviction where police could genuinely threaten an extended sentence. Call me a cynic, but the U.S. wouldn't lead the planet in incarcerations if states were more interested in putting only the guilty behind bars than they were in merely adding to their conviction totals to give the impression that they're "tough on crime."

And that's the real crime in all of this.

Are You a Member of the K.O.O.K.S?

Michael Gaddy has a very interesting article up on LewRockwell.com. He writes

Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.

First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.

Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.

Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?

Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.

Why would the State provoke such "senseless" tragedies? Mr. Gaddy replies

As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC, the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.

When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents?

Be Careful, Loving Liberty Makes You 'Suspicous'

Via Karen De Coster, check out this great video discussing an encounter that Campaign for Liberty worker Steve Bierfeldt had recently with TSA jackboots at a St. Louis airport because he (drum roll, please) was traveling with cash.

Remember, if you're a Ron Paul supporter or an advocate of liberty, you might be a "terrorist."

Another Example of How Gun Control Kills

I wanted to reprint a comment left in response to my post yesterday on the Binghamton shootings that I think is rather interesting and deserves serious consideration:

I'd like to know how long it took SWAT to enter to stop the shooting. My guess is it was after the killer had taken his own life.

The cops have no problem flash-banging their way into anyone's home and shooting, at the very least, the family pets. But put someone in a building with a gun and the cops are worried about their safety.

Columbine comes to mind. These bullies are cowards. Get rid of them!

As I've seen in other places: Arm the people, disarm the police!

Actually, this episode was over almost as quickly as it transpired -- 13 people were killed by Jiverly Voong between 10:31 and 10:33 a.m. before the shooter apparently committed suicide -- leaving police with little time to respond before the damage was done. However, this fact alone should compel most clear-thinking folks to ask a very important question: How many people would have died if it was legal for law-abiding citizens to conceal-carry firearms? Probably not more than a dozen.

It should be widely known that government police are under no legal obligation to respond to emergency situations or to protect you. But even when they do arrive on the scene, there's no guarantee they will do anything to defend innocent civilians anyhow (think the VA Tech massacre, where cops cowered behind trees and cars until the shooting stopped).

The Binghamton massacre proves once again how self-reighteous politicians and their gun control laws harm the innocent. This saying might be a cliche, but it's nevertheless true: When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns. When they're needed most, anyway.

Gun control laws not only result in needless deaths of those who otherwise could have armed and protected themselves, but they also inoculate the people to the fact that we're all responsible for protecting ourselves and our own families in the first place, and therefore brainwash us into believing we should ultimately place our fate in the hands of the state.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if that weren't the entire goal to begin with.

They Hate Us for Our Freedom

The "they" I am referring to is our own government. Apparently the Phoenix Police were tired of one Jeff Pataky who maintains and website and a blog that focuses on misfeasance involving Phoenix police. The police served him with a search warrant and took his computer, cable modem, and wireless routeramong other items. Pataky has a network of police sources who informed him that the search was done purposely to quite his criticisms. Regarding the confiscation of the cable modem and router, Pataky said, "They took my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem."

Anyone with a shred of common sense left in his head knows that this was a shot across the bow. The police are stepping up their war against free people, hoping that faux search warrants will keep people quiet and the police can continue their crimes unabated.

I honestly hope that people like Mr. Pataky and other heroic muckrakers will continue to document the abuses and crimes of our "protectors." It is a demanding job to remove the scales from the eyes of many Americans because they have been utterly brainwashed into believing that the State exists to protect them. Many Americans simply will not believe that police and soldiers will turn their guns on them at the command of the president or governor or mayor. This is the a priori understanding of the State I wrote about in my Conservatives and Conspiracies essay. To be honest, I really don't think most Americans will change their understanding of the State until their "protectors" break into their house, shoot their dogs, kill their son and plant a weapon next to him to claim self-defense, leave without taking anything or arresting anyone, and then receive medals for bravery. However, let's hope against hope that this information at least sows seeds of skepticism in the minds of the masses.

Finally, a 'Legit' Reason to Call in SWAT

A gunman has taken hostages and already shot several today in Binghamton, N.Y.

I don't endorse the existence of government police, but considering we're shackled with them, they should at least be deployed proportionately to the level of force required for any particular situation.

What I hate almost as much as the police state is the widespread militarization of police departments, which to be sure has contributed directly to the state's increasingly totalitarian behavior. Even the smallest counties and localities have resorted to using SWAT teams for routine police work, whether it's serving simple gambling or drug warrants, maintaining crowd control, or responding to suicide calls where an individual poses no threat to anyone but himself.

Whereas SWAT teams were originally devised for exceptional circumstances like hostage crises, fugitive situations, or commensurate threats posing an immediate threat to a community at large, today they are used systematically to intimidate, harass, terrorize, and even murder scores of nonviolent civilians.

It would behoove us to keep these rather quaint notions in mind today as Binghamton police attempt to extinguish a troubling ordeal.

You're Not Paranoid If They Really Are Out to Get You

I realize that Trevor and I have been especially hard on the police and our injustice system for the past two weeks. Let me continue to heap odium on "those malignant bastards." Here are two excellent articles on our "protectors."

An excerpt from Brian Cohoon's, "Why Fearing the Police Is Not Irrational":

Every single piece of information the cops need during a traffic stop is contained on your license, registration and proof of insurance. While there are a plethora of reasons why you should not even have to provide those (a huge topic all on its own), in my humble opinion the potential hassle of not complying far outweighs the benefits gained by attempting to circumvent these pieces of documentation. They have no reason to know neither where you have been nor where you are going. It is none of their business and has nothing to do with a traffic stop. So, do not tell them anything. Do not talk to them and do not even open your mouth. Remember they are not your friend. All they want is to find some reason to take you to the station and toss you in a cell, confiscate your vehicle (along with all the contents), put you in a situation that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to get out of (if you are lucky) or a guilty plea-bargain to avoid jail time (congratulations on the felony record, no more guns for you and good luck finding a new job after you lost your current one during the 9 month legal battle). They will ruin your life if you give them the chance, just to advance their petty careers.

An excerpt from the erudite William Grigg's "DARE and Back Again":

Roughly 120 fifth-grade students had been dragooned into taking DARE and attending the ceremony. Awards and prizes of every conceivable kind were handed out in such volume that one suspected the event was modeled after the Do-do's "Caucus-Race" from Alice in Wonderland, in which everyone wins and everyone gets a prize.

Four students were singled out to read brief essays in praise of DARE's transcendent goals and the supernal wisdom displayed by its creators and facilitators, each of which ended with a pledge to remain "drug and violence free."

This prompted me to wonder what would happen if a "DARE kid" were to use the assertiveness tools taught by the program to resist a school-mandated Ritalin prescription: "No! I won't take that reliably lethal, over-prescribed Schedule II narcotic! I'm a DARE kid! I took a pledge to be drug-free!"

Read them both.

Three PIGS Charged in Partamian Death, DA Vows to Expand Police State

In the wake of the tragic, accidental death of Arman Partamian following a night of partying during a pledging event at SUNY Geneseo, three members of the PIGS fraternity are becoming familiar with the unofficial motto of the American "justice" system: "If you can't prove someone guilty of an actual crime, invent one!"

According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Devin McClain, 21, Alex Stucki, 20, and Daniel Wech, 21, have been charged in the death of Partamian on March 1.

McClain, Stucki and Wech are each facing the following charges: criminally negligent homicide, a felony; three counts of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, one count of second-degree criminal nuisance, one count of first-degree hazing, all misdemeanors; and two counts of second-degree hazing, a violation.

All of these young men have pleaded not guilty to these charges, and rightly so. Although I don't have all the particulars surrounding the events that occurred the night Partamian died, I'm fairly confident that if Livingston County District Attorney Thomas Moran couldn't come up with any charges alleging that McClain, Stucki, and Wech intended to cause the death of their friend, they're probably innocent of any actual crimes. Even the most serious of these charges -- criminally negligent homicide -- implies the lack of intent to do harm.

Of course, that little detail doesn't matter when it comes to the state. Politicians, police officers, prosecutors, and judges all work in conjunction to craft and enforce all sorts of laws here in these United Police States of America that, ironically, intend to criminalize nonviolent behavior, which will ultimately turn us into a nation of lawbreakers.

Hence, the age-old common law standard of mens rea -- the concept that there is no crime without a "guilty mind," or no crime without intent -- has effectively been cast to the dustbin of history. Whereas the mens rea of robbery is the intent to deprive someone of his personal property, the mens rea of murder is the intent to deprive someone of his life. Note, however, that according to New York law a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when "with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person."

Clearly it would have been helpful if some teacher along the way had told the geniuses who drafted New York's penal codes that, as a general rule of thumb, you don't use the term you're defining in the definition. While this type of arbitrary language works to the state's benefit because it ensures we really don't know what's against the law and what's not, the entire concept of "criminal negligence" is an oxymoron in the first place if we apply the moral standard of mens rea: Criminality requires intent, which is absent in the event of negligent behavior; thus, a death that results from negligence should not be considered a crime.

To be sure, this is not to say that negligence should not be punished. Certainly one could bear a civil responsibility, and therefore be required to pay a civil penalty, if his negligence results in the injury or death of an innocent person. However, criminalizing any number of acts that can be interpreted as "causing the death of another person" is a highly subjective practice that invites widespread abuse. After all, should we imprison high school girls if their ex-boyfriends decide to commit suicide after an unexpected breakup?

The remainder of the charges leveled against McClain, Stucki and Wech range from absurd to downright ignorant.

First, criminal nuisance is a catch-all charge that can be applied whenever police want to round up anyone who "knowingly" creates conditions that endanger others or contribute to unlawful activity. In other words, you may want to think twice before giving your buddies a lift to the library; certainly you know that operating a motor vehicle is a risky endeavor. Of course, this charge obviously has been applied to the Geneseo Three to hold them criminally liable for providing alcohol to a minor because Arman Partamian was only 19 years old. According to the standard of mens rea, however, this cannot morally be considered criminal behavior because Partamian willingly ingested the alcohol. Moreover, drinking laws are immoral on their face -- any adult has the natural right to consume alcohol if he chooses.

As for the ridiculous charge of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, well, see my previous comment. Arman was an adult. Just because New York law considers anyone under 21 a "child" when it comes to the purchase or consumption of alcohol, it doesn't prove that the Geneseo Three are criminals; it merely proves the state's laws are unjust. And hazing laws are as ridiculous as "hate crime" legislation. Even if someone is murdered, the crime is murder -- it hardly matters why the crime occurred. These charges are ancillary and excessive, and smack of little more than a brutish attempt by the DA to publicly smear McClain, Stucki, and Wech as mere miscreants who abused a defenseless child, instead of as human beings who may be guilty, at worst, of poor decision-making. In short, they probably say a lot more about the character of Thomas Moran than the guys he's attempting to throw behind bars.

(Via Bennett Loudon, author of the D&C report I linked at the outset, the young men face a total of 1-1/3 to 4 years; Stucki faces an additional tampering with evidence charge -- he allegedly removed Arman's PIGS jersey -- which could add an additional 1-1/3 to 4 years.)

And speaking of Moran, it appears the Geneseo Three aren't the only ones the DA is coming after. Per the D&C:

"The out-of-control binge drinking is going to end," Moran said moments after the arraignment of the members of an unsanctioned fraternity accused of causing the death of Arman Partamian, a 19-year-old student at the State University College at Geneseo.

"We've learned that many of the off campus fraternities have been operating illegal drinking venues where students come, show their student ID, pay $5 and get a cup and then drink without limitation," Moran said.

"I'm going to do everything I can to stop every one of those parties. If I have to start charging the fraternities with tax fraud, I’ll do that," Moran said.

To this I say: Why stop there? Moran should just start charging anyone who provides alcohol to minors with criminal nuisance and the assorted bevy of drinking infractions! After all, just because people usually find themselves charged with these "crimes" only after someone gets hurt, it doesn't mean that's the "only" time they can be applied. Come on, I've read the laws! All that these frat guys and sorority gals really have to do is create the conditions that "endanger" all the other kids on campus who, uhhh, drop five bucks at parties even though they have no idea what's going on inside.

Tom Moran, it's time to be a Real American! You know being a petty tyrant and pestering drunk kids about the stupid tax code isn't going to put a dent in off-campus partying; you gotsta pull out your jackbooted thugs and start raiding these hooligans, yo! A couple full-auto AR-15s to the forehead and soon enough word will start getting around campus that you're not fooling around anymore!

After all, you're the DA in a small college town, where students learn best by participating in teachable moments, observing their instructors and participating in hands-on activities. If you really want to beat the concept of criminality into these kids' dense skulls, no better way than to demonstrate it yourself.

More Minneapolis Police Malfeasance

Manuel Lora at the LRC blog links to a story in Minneapolis, MN, where a family filed a lawsuit against the Minneapolis Police alleging that the police planted a gun next to Fong Lee who was shot and killed by the police. Given that this is the same city in which a SWAT team broke into the wrong house, got into a shoot-out with a father trying to defend his family, and then rewarded two of the officers for bravery, these allegations do not surprise me.

Police spokesman Sgt. Jesse Garcia said that the shooting was justified and that a grand jury cleared the officer in the shooting. Regarding the allegations of a conspiracy to plant evidence, Sgt. Garcia replied, "As for conspiracy, they might as well start that affidavit with the words, 'Once upon a time.' " I've already made an argument against jury duty as an efficient way to provide justice. But for the sake of argument, let us say that the grand jury really was trying to evaluate the facts fairly. Can we still be assured that the case was decided without prejudice? And the answer is, of course, "no" because the police department acted as an investigator in its own case.

Although the officer who actually shot Fong Lee was placed on administrative leave, the investigation was carried out by the Minneapolis Police Department. If the officer who shot Mr. Lee actually did plant evidence, such malfeasance would reflect badly on the entire Minneapolis Police Department as it should. Thus, the Minneapolis Police have an incentive to hide any information or evidence which would suggest such wrongdoing. The police department has an inherent bias and as such we cannot trust the police department to investigate one of its officers as disinterested truth-seeker.

But this problem is inherent to the State because it is a territorial monopolist of law and order and ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself. It is always a judge in its own case and will almost always rule in its own favor. However, we can undermine this claim as ultimate judge through jury service. True, jury service is conscripted labor, but it is also the last opportunity of the people to stymie the growth of the State. The jury can decide to nullify laws which they find unjust, unreasonable, or just stupid. Moreover, if the jury realizes that the State is a judge and investigator in its own case, it could decide to no longer assume that the State is being truthful. Rather, the jury could assume that the agents of the State are always lying and always tampering with evidence and always rule against them.

Keep Your Cell Phone Off When Driving in VA (or MD or DC)

At least, that's what I think you should do to avoid being pulled over by the police. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signed into a bill banning texting while driving. Maryland and Washington, DC, already have such bans (no surprise in either case, really). The Examiner reports that

Under Virginia’s ban, which goes into effect July 1, police can’t pull a driver over just for text messaging but instead need a more serious primary offense to justify the stop.

If you believe this, immediately send me your name, address, and social security number. I have some relatives in Nigeria who need someone to hold a large sum of money in their bank accounts so that the Nigerian government will not confiscate their wealth. I'll pay you a generous fee for your services.

This law simply gives our "protectors" more probable cause to keep "protecting" us. If a police officer sees you checking your phone for any reason, including just checking the time, be assured that you will be pulled over and cited for texting while driving. I would predict that the likelihood of being pulled over would increase at night since a police officer can see the cell phone light and assume that you must be doing something with your cell phone. That's good enough to pull you over.

If you disagree with the ticket, to whom can you turn for justice? To a judge who is paid by the same government as the police officer. And what will the judge rule? Of course, you were texting while driving. Police officers are upstanding individuals who would never lie, unlike you serfs whom we must protect. Furthermore, the judge would say, the government would never pass legislation simply to collect more revenue from the public. Clearly these laws are only for your protection.

You Might Be a Terrorist If...

You read this blog. At least that what the Missouri Information Analysis Center originally said before rescinding the report thanks to the outrage it generated among conservatives. If you have not read the MIAC report, I highly recommend it. You can sum up the report as follows, "A terrorists is anyone who does not like the US government." Some of the excerpts are simultaneously laughable and scary:

"There is a great deal of anger towards the Federal Reverse System and all forms of tax collection." Well, there people who actually do not like being ripped off and protest this. Who knew?

 

"Many militia organizations feel that the U.S. government will fall due to economic or racial issues..." Apparently these law enforcement officials believe that we can live off of fiat money and a heavily regulated economy indefinitely.

"They believe that during the chaotic fall of the government, moves will be made to install Martial Law, confiscate firearms, and imprison many citizens."  Perhaps this is because we have numerous examples of our government enacting such measures in our history.

 

"Statements made by President Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extremists to fear the creation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all citizens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of mandatory training." Apparently resistance to slavery is now considered "terrorist activity." A bit ironic given that Obama is our first African-American president.

 

In the Ideologies section:

"Sovereign Citizen: Individuals that see themselves as Sovereign Citizens question the legitimacy of the federal government. They argue that the government has gotten away from the intent of the Constitution and is thus not valid." Those inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence are SO overrated. Don't these people know that the intent of the Constitution was to establish a strong, centralized State?

 

In the Common Militia Symbols section:

"Anti-Government Propaganda-Militia members commonly display picture, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement, and the 'The New World Order' in a derogatory manor." Do you think the person who wrote this picked up on the fact that he criticized militia members for believing in a "One World Government" conspiracy yet included the "UN" among the Federal Reserve System (FRS), IRS, FBI, ATF, and CIA in this passage on "Anti-Government Propaganda"? Yeah, I doubt it, too.

 

Clearly all those ideas about inalienable rights, government by the consent of the governed, the right and duty to alter or abolish a government which becomes destructive of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you know, the ideas which led to secession from the British empire, are outdated. Control of the individual by the State is now the new black.

 

It should be clear to anyone who thinks that the radical ideology of freedom which led to the American Revolution was a good idea that the our government does not share our sentiments. As Ms. Becky Akers observes,

Many of the principles MIAC’s report denounced are the ideals to which the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Which makes Thomas Jefferson, the "Indians" at Boston’s Tea Party, Francis Marion, Nathan Hale, the farmers and shopkeepers who starved at Valley Forge, Sam Adams and George Washington as suspect in MIAC’s eyes as Americans today who’d rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

That pretty much sums it up and is why I believe that hatred of the State is the most patriotic disposition you can have. States do not exist to protect life, liberty, and property. All States function as a relatively peaceful mechanism for robbery. This robbery is relatively peaceful in that States generally do not engage in hot wars against its subjects. In a democratic State, the subjects believe that through voting and petitioning they can exercise some say in how the State treats them. However, the robbery continues apace as it always will because that is what the State was designed to do. The State cannot function any other way.

For all of the post 9-11 propaganda that claimed the terrorists hate us for our freedom, remember that no entity hates us more for our freedom than our own government.