Tag: Shut Up Slave

The Only Tool of The State is Violence

I’ve said it many times but it bears repeating; the only tool available to the state is violence. Every rule, regulation, and law passed by the state is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Even blowing a stop sign can ultimately lead to violence being brought against you as explained so well by Jeffery Trucker in the video posted here earlier today. This is why libertarians are so wary about passing new laws, doing so necessarily means the people will be subjected to more force. A man in Austin, Texas named John Bush explains this fact all too well:

Mr. Bush was prohibited from to the Austin City Council for one year. Think about the implications of that for one moment. In our country you’re supposedly able to address your government and take your grievances to them yet they hold the power to prevent you from doing so. Any number of excuses can be used to prohibit you from addressing state agents meaning you really have no right of redress.

What one organization is given a monopoly on creating and enforcing the rules you can’t be truly free.

Fined for Not Using Nonexistent Biofuel

Uncle once again brought another story to my attention that demonstrates how nice is must be to be the state. In their desire to extract as much money as possible from everybody the state decided to make a regulation requiring fuel companies to use a nonexistent biofuel and is now fining those companies for not complying with the impossible:

When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs.

Obviously I’m not a rocket scientist but it seems rather difficult to comply with a regulation that requires the use of unicorn farts. Even though complying with the state’s regulation is literally impossible the fuel companies have no option but to pay less the state bring violence to play. If I were agents of the state I would just make a regulation against emitting CO2 and fine everybody for exhaling.

Just Because You’re Forced to Pay For It Doesn’t Make It Yours

Statists often claim that the government is necessary to fund research that private interests won’t. While I entirely disagree with this at least most of the statists have the decency to also state any research paid for with public funds should be made freely available. Unfortunately for statists the state doesn’t agree:

THROUGH the National Institutes of Health, American taxpayers have long supported research directed at understanding and treating human disease. Since 2009, the results of that research have been available free of charge on the National Library of Medicine’s Web site, allowing the public (patients and physicians, students and teachers) to read about the discoveries their tax dollars paid for.

But a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month threatens to cripple this site. The Research Works Act would forbid the N.I.H. to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In other words, taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.

This is the only result of the statist ideology. Unlike libertarians, statists believe government is benevolent and will work for the benefit of humanity. In truth the state believes that the people are peasants who exist only to serve those in charge through labor and taxation. Those in power are the only ones who benefit from statism, we individuals are merely forced to pay for it.

Flag This Website

The European Union is feeling a bit jealous of Joe Lieberman’s ability to bring tyranny down upon a populace and have decided if they can’t beat him they’ll just join him:

Internet users may soon be asked to ‘flag’ for police review any web content they believe might incite terrorism, under new counterterrorism proposals put forward in Europe.

The ‘flagging’ mechanism is one of a number of initiatives proposed by a group of European Government officials participating in the ‘Clean IT Project’.

When (these things are no longer a matter of if) this passes I’m sure my site will get flagged as promoting gun rights, liberty, and unregulated commerce is likely an act of inciting terrorism in the European Union. In fact I would feel downright horrible if my site didn’t get flagged because I try really hard to be against everything the European Union is for (namely tyranny).

Asking people to flag ‘terrorist’ websites is nothing more than an evolution of asking neighbors to spy on their fellow neighbors. Only the introduction of anonymity is really different and that anonymity may make things far different as neighbors no longer have to worry about being caught spying on their fellow neighbor before turning them into the Stasi. On the other hand the denizens of the Internet are a notoriously fickly and anarchistic group and will likely use any flag feature to troll the living shit out of those who read through the reports. How many times do you think a reviewer is going to be stuck reviewing a Rick Astley video or horrible porn?

United States Government Looking for Power to Revoke Citizenship without Charges

During the passing of the PATRIOT Act so many years ago many people were arguing the act violated the Bill of Rights. As this debate went on many “representatives” in government claimed that the Bill of Rights only protected citizens of the United States. It appears as though out government is sick of even this restriction and are moving to enact legislation that would grant the government power to revoke American citizenship:

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

Information related to the bill including the full text can be found here. As it common for these tyrannical pieces of legislation Joe Lieberman is one of the primary sponsors. The exact text of the legislation is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

Once you citizenship is revoked Obama no longer has to worry about his empty promise to not detain American citizens as he can first have their citizenship revoked.

The war on terror has resulted in some of the most idiotic actions being labeled as terroristic meaning grounds for revocation of citizenship may become something as minor as insulting the government of the United States. With the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised to see a return of the Alien and Sedition Acts with a new clause claiming those in opposition of the government be labeled terrorists and treated as such.

We live in dark times where we no longer enjoy any rights whatsoever. Free speech, protections against illegal search and seizure, and protection against self-incrimination are nothing more than illusionary.

The United States Government Coercing Other Governments into Censoring the Internet

While our “representatives” are debating the Internet censorship bill known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) other agents of the state are busy coercing other government’s into enacting various forms of Internet censorship:

Though a deeply divided Congress is currently considering Internet website censorship legislation, the US has no such official policy—not even for child porn, which is voluntarily blocked by some ISPs. Nor does the US have a government-backed “three strikes” or “graduated response” system of escalating warnings to particular users accused of downloading music and movies from file-sharing networks.

Yet here was the ultimatum that the US Embassy in Madrid gave the Spanish government in February 2008: adopt such measures or we will punish you. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have the text of the diplomatic cable announcing the pressure tactics.

We propose to tell the new government that Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008. First, issue a [Government of Spain] announcement stating that Internet piracy is illegal, and that the copyright levy system does not compensate creators for copyrighted material acquired through peer-to-peer file sharing. Second, amend the 2006 “circular” that is widely interpreted in Spain as saying that peer-to-peer file sharing is legal. Third, announce that the GoS [Government of Spain] will adopt measures along the lines of the French and/or UK proposals aimed at curbing Internet piracy by the summer of 2009.

The Watch List referenced is the US Trade Representative’s “Special 301” list, updated annually. Spain was duly put on the list in 2008 after failing to take such measures. (“The United States is concerned by the Spanish government’s inadequate efforts to address the growing problem of Internet piracy, described by U.S. copyright industries as one of the worst in Europe,” said the 2008 report.) Spanish copyright holders applauded the move; indeed, the cables show that they repeatedly asked US officials to make it.

At least United States citizens aren’t the only people on the federal government’s watch lists. Whether through direct invasion or underhanded threats the government of the United States likes to force other countries to obey its bidding. What’s frightening about this is when the government here finally enacts Internet censorship legislation there are going to be fewer safe havens that can be proxied into.

The United States isn’t satisfied until the entire world is one big fucking police state. What’s next? Is our government going to give the Spanish government military weaponry to better suppress it’s citizens? Wait, that already happened (what’s really sad is I was going to make that quip but did a quick Google search to ensure it wasn’t false, my default assumption was that the United States had given Spain military aid at some point and apparently it was the correct assumption).

Obama Signs the National Defense Authorization Act into Law

The savior of civil rights and advocate of peace signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, effectively neutralizing the Bill of Rights and placing further economic sanctions on Iran:

The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority.

[…]

The White House also wrestled with Congress over requirements that the United States punish foreign financial firms that purchase Iranian oil, including through Iran’s central bank. Such a step would greatly increase the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

But the administration feared that if the measures were imposed too hastily, they could disrupt the oil market, driving up prices and alienating countries, including close allies, that the United States is seeking to enlist in its pressure campaign against Iran.

It’s OK though because the President has given us is word that he will never order the indefinite detention of American citizens:

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

After all Obama is a candidate you can trust! Sarcasm aside he may actually keep this promise, instead of indefinite detention he seems to favor ordering the murder of suspected terrorists and their children.

Have I Every Mentioned How Much I Love the Word Drill

OK I seriously don’t give a shit about the word drill I just wanted to be flagged by Department of Motherland Homeland Security (DHS) goons who are apparently watching Twitter for keywords:

The Department of Homeland Security makes fake Twitter and Facebook profiles for the specific purpose of scanning the networks for ‘sensitive’ words – and tracking people who use them.

Simply using a word or phrase from the DHS’s ‘watch’ list could mean that spies from the government read your posts, investigate your account, and attempt to identify you from it, acccording to an online privacy group.

[…]

The DHS outlined plans to scans blogs, Twitter and Facebook for words such as ‘illegal immigrant’, ‘outbreak’, ‘drill’, ‘strain’, ‘virus’, ‘recovery’, ‘deaths’, ‘collapse’, ‘human to animal’ and ‘trojan’, according to an ‘impact asssessment’ document filed by the agency.

I guess that’s another government watch list my name is likely on. Since the article claims DHS agents are attempting to identify people posting watched material let me just cue you in to the URL of this site, it’s my name. Let me also state that I live in Minnesota and very recently renewed my driver’s license. If that isn’t enough information for you goons to identify me I don’t know what is.

Either way my goal of appearing on every possible government watch list should be closer to fruition with this post.

Obama Believes Himself Above the Law

I know you read the title of this post and thought, “No shit Sherlock.” While the title of this post is pointing out the bloody obvious overall, this post is referring to a recent development:

The funding provision for the federal health agency says that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The language aims to ban taxpayer dollars from supporting gun safety research.

“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

The president’s signing statement also says he could end up ignoring a provision that bars taxpayer funds for paying for the “salaries and expenses” of so-called White House czars, including the director of the White House Office of Health Reform. The office was abolished earlier this year.

That provision “could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials in the execution of their statutory responsibilities,” Obama said. “I have informed the Congress that I will interpret these provisions consistent with my constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Did Obama seriously claim he has the Constitutional authority to ignore Congress? That’s how I interpreted his statement. While I’m not a “constitutional scholar” as Obama claims himself to be I can read and comprehend basic English. Let’s look at what the Constitution has to say about federal funding:

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

I read two things in this section; any bill involving money must originate in the House of Representatives and if a President finds any legislation passed by the House and Senate not to be to his liking he can refuse to sign it and send it back. In other words Obama doesn’t get any say in how money is spent and if he didn’t like the prohibition against using money to advance gun control he can only refuse to sign the legislation and tell the House and Senate why he doesn’t approve.

When a bill saying money can’t be used for a specific task hits the President’s desk it doesn’t mean he can simply say, “LOL, this part doesn’t apply to me.” Upon signing the bill the President must either agree to the entirety of the document or toss the entire bill back to Congress. It’s all or nothing.

Recalling Federal “Representatives”

Something I’ve often recommended over the years has been initiating recalls on politicians who attempt to expand the powers of the state (be it an individual state or the federal state). People in Montana are attempting to recall their senators who voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

(HELENA) – Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 – 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

It appears as though my recommendation has been for naught as recalling a federal “representative” isn’t a straight forward as I first believed. Each individual state is able to set internal policy including settings grounds for which “representatives” can be recalled or otherwise removed from office before their term is up. Unfortunately those working on the federal level believe themselves to be immune to any for of early removal not initiated by the House or Senate [PDF]:

The United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States
officials such as United States Senators, Representatives to Congress, or the President or Vice
President of the United States, and thus no United States Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives has ever been recalled in the history of the United States

[…]

Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members
of Congress, other judicial decisions indicate that the right to remove a Member of Congress
before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides
within each house of Congress as expressly delegated in the expulsion clause of the United States
Constitution, and not in the entire Congress as a whole (through the adoption of legislation), nor
in the state legislatures through the enactment of recall provisions

Not surprisingly this interpretation on individual state power was produced by the Senate. The bottom line is clear, according to the federal government a federal “representative” can only have his or her stay terminated early if a federal body initiates the expulsion. Some people are quick to bring up the Tenth Amendment as it reserves all powers not expressly mentioned in the Constitution for the individual states. Unfortunately the Constitution does describe how to send a “representative” home early in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Nowhere in the clause does it state that expulsion of a member is solely reserved for the respective House but our federal “representatives” are interpreting it that way. Their justification is since removal of a federal “representative” is mentioned in the Constitution that power is exempt from the Tenth Amendment. I always find it funny how selectively the Constitution is interpreted. In the case of removing a federal “representative” the Constitution must be interpreted exactly at written, that is to say no unmentioned powers may be used. Meanwhile the Second Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” yet, according to our “representatives” and the Supreme Court it leaves room for some infringements.

Sadly the Constitution wasn’t a well written document and contains a lot of vague language that can be twisted to grant the federal government more power than was originally intended. The purpose of the Constitution was to restrict the powers of the federal government but that intention was entirely lost when the individual states allowed the federal government sole authority in interpreting the foundational document. Now that the federal government reserves sole power of constitutional interpretation they have effectively made themselves immune to constituent scrutiny.