Month: October 2012

Locking People in Cages

A Seattle anarchist is likely to be tossed into a cage because she’s unwilling to cooperate with a Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) witch hunt:

Today Leah Plante will again appear before a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington, for the third time, and refuse to testify about her political beliefs and political associations. It is likely that she will be imprisoned for her principled stance against what she calls a witch hunt against local anarchists.

The grand jury is investigating anarchists in the Northwest, following FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force raids in search of “anarchist literature.” Two other anarchists, Matthew Kyle Duran and Katherine Olejnik, have already been imprisoned for refusing to cooperate.

I have to give Leah Plante credit for having one hell of a backbone. Her kidnapping at the hands of law enforcement agents appears to be nothing more than a typical interstate anarchist witch hunt that the FBI likes to perform periodically (before the Republican National Convention in St. Paul similar raids were conducted on anarchist gathering spots). These witch hunts, like any form of state witch hunt, are run in a fairly specific manner. First a warrant is issued that targets anything and everything you may find at a typical target’s home (anarchist literature in an anarchist home for example) then the targeted individuals are hauled in front of a grand jury and expected to testify against their friends. These coerced (if they don’t testify they’re locked in a cage) testimonies are then used as evidence to bring charges against the targeted individuals.

If she does testify her friends may face charges and spend time in a cage and if she doesn’t testify she’ll probably spend time in a cage. As usual the state offers no escape from its wrath.

I Don’t Think You Thought Your Clever Plan All the Way Through

Every Day, No Days Off demonstrates that lunacy isn’t confined to gun control advocates in the United States. Some rather creative, although short sighted, anti-gunners in Germany are trying to crowdsource funding to bury the Heckler and Koch factory in cement:

We plan to put a sarcophagus, similar to the one that encases the Chernobyl reactor, over Germany’s deadliest factory, so that none of its lethal “products” can illegally escape.

We will drop a sand and concrete mixture from helicopters onto the weapons factory in Oberndorf – a work of art changing reality. We need to shut down this gigantic wreck of humanity now, the German factory of Heckler & Koch in Oberndorf, once and for all!
Tons of sand and concrete will bring all deadly activities to a halt (see video). We need at least €4.000 ($5.200) to rent helicopters! For a donation of €10 ($13), you will receive a poster of the sarcophagus (Format: A1 – see below)!

The site has some really shitty renders of the Heckler and Koch factory (along with several neighboring houses by the looks of it) encased in cement. They’re goal is to raise €3,400 (even though they state they need €4,000 to rent a helicopter, obviously they’re not good at math), which isn’t going to be enough to rent and fuel a helicopter for enough trips that it will take to bury the entire factory in cement. Needless to say anti-gunner craziness is an international phenomenon.

Cause and Effect

It appears that my predictions for France after electing a socialist president are coming to fruition. As promised the new administration in France is hiking taxes on the wealthy and, as I predicted, the wealthy are fleeing the country in droves:

France’s luxury property market has hit a selling ‘panic’ as millionaires rush to flee the socialist government’s looming tax hikes, a leading estate agent has revealed.

More than 400 Paris homes worth more than €1million have been put on the market since President Francois Hollande came to power in May – more than double the same period last year.

Many of France’s super-rich want to escape to ‘wealth-friendly’ countries like Britain, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

Why would anybody want to live in a country where three quarters of your labor is stolen by the state?

France’s new tax scheme depend on the wealthy staying in the country so I’m predicting some kind of emigration control will be implemented in that country soon (either through an exit tax or a decree requiring anybody leaving the country to get the French government’s permission first).

Two Politicians Opened Their Mouths

Two politicians opened their mouths and, as expected, said something incredibly stupid:

Regarding slavery, Hubbard wrote:

“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.” (Pages 183-89)

Yes, “representative” Jon Hubbad of Arkansas is actually trying to claim that slavery was a positive thing for African Americans because it eventually allowed them to gain citizenship in America… fuck yeah! Not to be outdone “representative” Loy Mauch also had to say something positive about slavery:

In two letters, Mauch wrote about the Bible and slavery. The Arkansas Times quotes from a letter Mauch wrote in 2009:

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

Apparently Mauch hasn’t read through the Bible or, if he has, he’s forgotten Acts of Apostles 5:29, which states “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!'” Since slavery is effectively obedience to another human being it would seem that the Bible does oppose it. In fact Christian anarchism is based on this very ideal.

As for the Constitution, slavery was included in the document because the document was written as a power grab. You know what document didn’t have slavery in it? The Articles of Confederation. I’m just saying.

Needless to say Hubbard and Mauch did what politicians do, they said something incredibly stupid and offensive. There isn’t much else to be said regarding their statements as they are pretty effective at condemning the speakers.

If You Can’t Ban it Tax it

The state loves to prohibit goods and services. Most of the time the state’s prohibitions are met with popular support because a majority of those voicing their opinion bought whatever propaganda the state issued. However there are times when the state bans something that doesn’t go over well with the people. One example of this was alcohol during Prohibition, while the ban was enacted most people either simply ignored it or actively fought against it. Firearms are another example of this. Chicago has tried to maintain a complete ban on private firearm ownership within the city but that ban was shot down in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago. Since Chicago can’t have its ban it’s looking to take a page from the neoprohibitionist’s manual and do the next best thing, tax firearms and ammunition:

Drawing the ire of the gun lobby, Cook County Board President Preckwinkle is eyeing a violence tax on guns and ammunition sold in the city and suburbs, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

Such a tax alone wouldn’t close a $115 million budget gap in 2013, but it could at least funnel money into the county’s $3 billion operation — where roughly two-thirds of the budget pays for both the county’s public health clinics and two hospitals along with the criminal justice system that includes the courts and jail.

“If we were to pursue a tax on something like guns and ammo, clearly that wouldn’t be popular with the [gun lobby] out there, and it may not generate $50 million, but … it is consistent with our commitment to pursuing violence reduction in the city and in the county,” Kurt Summers, Preckwinkle’s chief of staff, said on Monday.

You have to love how a politician can use the phrase “it is consistent with our commitment to pursing violence reduction” when they really mean “it is consisten with our commitment to ensure the serfs of our manor remain disarmed.” Gun control is strictly about the state’s control over the people. Even though the nation’s gun control laws have become more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) the violent crime rate has been decreasing. That only leaves one plausible reason for the state to continue pursuing means to increase the barrier between individuals and firearms.

Mitt Romney is Promising More War

It’s good to see that Romney isn’t going to disappoint the war mongers as he’s openly stated support for embroiling the United States in more wars:

On Iran, Mr Romney said he would “not hesitate to impose new sanctions”, describing Tehran as “never closer” to a nuclear weapons capability.

“For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.”

On Syria, Mr Romney said Mr Obama had “failed to lead” and said that his administration would work “with our partners to identify and organise those members of the [Syrian] opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets”.

So who do you want America? A man who is advocating more wars or a man who is advocating more wars? This election more than any other demonstrates the illusion of choice we have in the United States for the president. When Romney or Obama gets elected is entirely irrelevant because nothing is going to change. The economy will continue on its downward spiral, the United States military will continue to kill innocent people in foreign countries, and the police state will continue to expand here at home.

The Failing NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest gun rights advocacy group in the United States (and probably the world). They’re feared by gun control advocates and cheered by most gun rights advocates. It’s easy to see why since the NRA has a notable history of success when it comes to fighting gun control legislation. Unfortunately success is often followed by stagnation and it has become apparent that the NRA has become stagnant.

The NRA’s primary power is its influence in the political system. When the NRA throws their support behind a politician gun control and gun rights advocates perk up. In the case of gun control advocates they take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to oppose a politician while gun rights activists take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to support a politician. This presidential election is important to note because both of the leading candidates have a history of opposing gun rights. It would seem in order to remain consistent supporters of gun rights the NRA would have to either endorse a third-party candidate or nobody. Instead they have decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney:

NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.

When all you have is a hammer it’s easy to see every problem as a nail. Let’s consider the situation, the NRA’s most effective tool to defend gun rights cannot be applied in this presidential election because both leading candidates oppose gun rights. Instead of searching their toolbox for a different tool they’ve allowed themselves to give their support to a candidate who open supports an “assault weapon” ban.

I’m glad the NRA isn’t the only game in town. If organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) didn’t exist we would soon find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. The NRA exhibits typic behavior or a large behemoth organization, wild success has cause it to be entirely unable to innovate. While the NRA continues with its strategy of endorsing candidates even though no pro-gun candidates exist SAF has opted for the strategy of filing lawsuits against violators of gun rights. Both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were SAF lead initiatives (which the NRA later tried to claim credit for) that ended up being very successful. Being smaller and more nimble SAF was able to recognize a failure in the NRA’s strategy and try something else.

It’s come to the point where I wish an NRA membership wasn’t required to maintain my Oakdale Gun Club membership. That requirement is the only reason I keep renewing my NRA membership. Instead of sending additional money to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund I send money to other organizations like SAF. Endorsing Romney is an overt move against gun rights and I don’t support organizations that oppose gun rights.

This is Nothing New for Gun Owners

The Supreme Court is looking at a case that may prevent individuals from reselling foreign made devices containing copyrighted works:

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

I know many of my friends will be in a tizzy over this case but such shenanigans are nothing new for gun owners. Federally licensed firearms dealers have long been required to perform a background check on anybody purchasing a firearm. On top of that many individual states, including California, Illinois, and New York [PDF], require all firearms sales to go through federally licensed dealers making it illegal for an individual to sell a firearm directly to another individual. Last year gun control extremist extraordinaire, Chuck Schumer, was pushing to ban all private sales of firearms in the United States. Effectively all federally licensed firearms deals and all individuals in several individual states are prevented from selling their firearms without the state’s permission.

State power only increases. When the state managed to control the sale and transfer of one good it set a precedence for controlling the sale and transfer of all other goods. Those of us in the gun community are well aware of the state’s power over the sale and transfer of firearms so we’re probably the least likely to be surprised by any ruling that would prevent the sale and transfer of foreign made devices containing copyrighted material.

The question we must now ask if how will the Supreme Court rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if they uphold the current ruling (which states it is illegal to resell foreign made devices containing copyrighted works without permission). It would be trivial to uphold such a ruling using the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause. At that point I will gladly welcome owners of electronic devices into the club of individuals possessing goods that cannot be sold without state approval.

The Ministry of Propaganda is in Full Swing

I have to say that the Obama campaign has succeeded in employing some of the slickest propagandists in the country. Take a look at this site that purports to show how Obama’s policies have directly helped local municipalities.

Don’t mind the fact that the information contained on that site is pure malarkey since all of the listed projects are funded through the Recovery Act; funding that Congress controls. Still it’s a damn slick site and the boys over at the Romney campaign really need to get their shit together if they hope to combat Obama’s propaganda with their own propaganda. Seriously, Joseph Goebbels would be in awe of the Obama campaign’s ability in marketing.

How to Get Away with Committing Crimes

Do you want to commit crimes and not worry about any consequences? If so I have good news, you can commit any crime you want and not worry about being arrest so long as you do it on the state’s behalf:

The nation’s top drug and gun enforcement agencies do not track how often they give their informants permission to break the law on the government’s behalf.

U.S. Justice Department rules put strict limits on when and how agents at the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can authorize their informants — often drawn from the ranks of the criminals they are investigating — to commit a crime. But both the ATF and DEA acknowledged, in response to open-records requests and in written statements, that they do not track how often such permission is given.

Is anybody surprised by the fact that one criminal organization has no problem giving another criminal organization permission to commit crimes? While it was known that the state often gives informants permission to commit crimes it was also assumed that the state kept track of such granted permissions. If the state was interested in law enforcement you would think they would keep track of the times they’ve authorized thefts, smuggling illicit substances, or more heinous crimes. Instead such permissions are thrown down the memory hole. The lesson from this news is clear, if you want to commit crimes become an organ of the state.