Tag: Shut Up Slave

Police Officer Removed from Obama Visit Because Guns are Apparently Scary

Before I make any comment on this story let me first point out a big of fear mongering performed by the article’s author:

THE US Secret Service removed a woman with a gun from the audience minutes before President Barack Obama was due to speak to a crowd at Greensville County High School in Virginia yesterday.

Oh my god! A woman with a gun near the President? Obviously she must have been a crazy tea party participant! It’s a good thing the Secret Service moved in to stop this obviously violent individual… wait what:

The woman was not considered a personal threat to the US President – she was a uniformed African-American police officer from the local Greensville County Sheriff’s office.

False alarm everybody, the woman was a cop and they’re good enough to carry a gun and not be scary. The reason she was removed makes no sense whatsoever:

But her presence as an audience member standing with friends close to the stage where Mr Obama would soon speak about his jobs plan was a serious security lapse following supposedly thorough crowd screening.

The risk for the Secret Service, which is responsible for protecting the President, was that another person could have grabbed the pistol from her belt holster.

Right… because a person couldn’t grab a gun from one of the Secret Service members? What they really meant to say is that they removed the woman from the audience because the Secret Service like to feel big and tough by claiming they’re the only ones qualified to protect the President. A simpleton police officer is obviously only good enough to protect the peasantry.

It’s good to see actors of the state are completely assholes to one another and not just us.

A Complete Lack of Government Transparency

Our government has a wonderful knack for keeping secrets while claiming to be a government “by the people, for the people.” It’s rather hard to keep tabs on the government that’s supposedly working for you when you haven’t a clue what they’re up to. People complained that the Bush administration unnecessarily increased the amount of information deemed classified by our government and when Obama was campaigning he promised to reverse this trend and unleash an era of unprecedented government transparency. Surprising only to his supporters Obama didn’t deliver on that promise and we are still living under a government that’s keep absolutely ridiculous stuff classified:

In 2009, President Obama famously promised “an unprecedented level of openness” in his administration, and a lynchpin in his open government plan was an overhaul of the government’s bloated secrecy system.

[…]

Unfortunately, besides the most peripheral and cosmetic changes, government secrecy has only increased since Obama took office. Last year, as part of their Washington Post series and subsequent book Top Secret America, Dana Priest and William Arkin reported, “An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.” Yet incredibly, when the government released its official count as part of an intelligence community report to Congress two months ago, the number of people holding the Top Secret clearance had ballooned to 1,419,051. And the same report noted that 4.2 million people hold some level of security clearances for access to classified information.

I guess we can sweep this hole mess under the old hope and change rug. Whenever I bring up the government’s abuse of classification I inevitably get told by somebody that these practices are absolutely essential for national security. What those people must not realize is that the government classified plenty of documents that have nothing to do with the realm of national security:

Document classification, already at record highs under the Bush Administration, has continued to explode as well. The government classified a staggering 77 million documents in 2010, a 40% increase over the previous year.

Overclassification causes a myriad of problems. It can open the government up to ridicule, like when the CIA recently refused to release a single passage from its study on global warming, claiming it would harm national security. It can stifle public debate, like two months ago when the CIA tried to censor the memoir critical of its post-9/11 tactics (despite the fact that much of the information that had already been revealed in Congressional testimony). It can encourage waste and incompetence, as it has at the Department of Homeland Security, where even the budget and number of employees is classified. And most critically, it can be used as a veil to hide illegal conduct, such as the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.

I’m sure the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) study on global warming holds significant concerns regarding this country’s security. The government is even using their power of classification to remove any threat of being held responsible for killing an American citizen without due process:

Nowhere was this absurdity starker than when the media reported on the death of Yemen’s alleged al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, at the hands of a (classified) C.I.A. drone. The evidence against him, the panel of U.S officials who decided he was to be put on a “kill list,” and the legal memo “authorizing” his killing were all “Top Secret,” despite the extraordinary constitutional implications of extrajudicially killing an American citizen.

While our government says we should simply trust them to judge which American citizens should live and which should die they’re not willing to present the evidence they used to come to their decisions. We have no clue what evidence existed that nominated al-Awlaki for the kill list.

In a free country where the people are supposed to keep an eye on their government nothing can be accomplished if those very people are kept in the dark on what their government is doing. We are left to speculate on every little action they take and most people know that those concealing their intentions are usually up to no good.

Who Needs Crime When You’ve Got Pre-Crime

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained some rather chilling documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The documents cover the Department of Motherland Homeland Security’s new Fast Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), or as I like to call it pre-crime:

EPIC filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Science & Technology Directorate (S&T) to obtain information about the agency’s public testing of a new sensor array used to conduct covert surveillance of individuals who are not suspected of any crime. The sensors secretly collect and record information concerning individuals, including video images, audio recordings, cardiovascular signals, pheromones, electrodermal activity, and respiratory measurements.

[…]

According to documents published by the Department of Homeland Security, FAST is a Minority Report style initiative that seeks to determining the probability that an individual, who is not suspected of any crime, might commit a future criminal act. Under the FAST program, the DHS will collect and retain of a mix of “physiological and behavioral signals” from individuals as they engage in daily activities.

Not only do we have our government secretly collecting information on citizens but that information is being used to determine whether or not the target has committed a crime without already existing evidence. I would make an argument that any such “evidence” would never hold up in court but, sadly, our “justice” system has demonstrated a willingness to bypass due process in the name of stopping supposed terrorism.

As I’ve said before this country isn’t becoming a police state, it already is a police state. In fact we have a police state to efficient and with such amazing technology at the state’s fingertips that all previous police states would be insanely jealous.

I would like to know how much money has been sunk into these initiatives. I’m sure trillions of dollars have gone into the so-called “war on terror” and we have nothing to show for it other than ever more draconian legislation and technology used to specifically target American citizens.

Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter California

Not surprisingly Governor Jerry Brown of California has signed into law the ban on openly carrying unloaded firearms in his state:

Gov. Jerry Brown announced early Monday that he had outlawed the open carrying of handguns in public in California, a controversial practice that top law enforcement officials had denounced as dangerous.

Clearing his desk of final bills sent to him by the Legislature, Brown signed the ban into law after it was backed by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and other law enforcement officials throughout the state.

“I listened to the California police chiefs,” Brown said in a statement.

He listened to the police chiefs by forsaking the people he supposedly represents. So there you have it, your Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms no longer applies on the People’s Republic of California. This supposed right wasn’t eliminated due to intolerably high gun crimes being committed by those legally carrying but because some police chiefs don’t like the idea that mere serfs could carry an unloaded firearm openly. Although it’s been known for quite some time that police officers, as agents of the state, receive priority over the serfs it’s still sad to watch actual demonstrations of this fact move through the legislative process. Here’s a gem of a quote from one “representative” of California’s serfs:

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Canada Flintridge), author of the ban, and his supporters said California is no longer the wild west, where citizens had to carry six-shooters on their hips for protection.

“The bottom line is the streets will be safer for law enforcement and families,” Portantino said.

I’m sure the streets are going to be much safer without those horribly law-abiding people walking around with openly displayed and completely unloaded firearms. Those unloaded guns certainly are known for jumping out of the holsters of the law-abiding and gunning down random people on the street, which is why states that have looser restrictions on carry permits have much higher rates of violent crime… oh wait, that’s not true at all.

Those of you living in California may want to consider either fleeing to the United States or performing mass acts of civil disobedience. Personally I’d take the first option and run to Arizona where your right to keep and bear arms is fully recognized.

Welcome to the United Kingdom, Leave Your Rights at the Door

I feel fortunate to live in a country where the right to bear arms is at least codified in our Bill of Rights. Although the second amendment has been violated time and time again I firmly believe that if it were absent from the Constitution we would be in the same spot as the United Kingdom. What I mean to say is we would be arrested for defending our property:

A man in his 60s who allegedly shot a suspected burglar in the leg has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

He is believed to have been attempting to protect his property in Whitbourne village, Herefordshire.

How in the fuck does that work? Two thugs who pose an unknown but likely threat to your life attempt to burgle your property and you’re tossed in the clink for having the audacity of defending you and your’s. Just the thought that such an egregious law could be passed sickens me.

More Proof That The Government Views Us as Serfs

I often throw around the word serf as a tongue-in-cheek description of how the government views us. Sadly it’s not as tongue-in-cheek as it should be. A serf was a term used for somebody who worked land owned by a lord. While the lord reaped all of the benefits of the land the serfs were merely allowed to work said land and live there. This is basically the relationship that exists between government and people. Minnesota decided to give a great example of this fact to the citizenry by auctioning off mineral rights to private property:

Private property owners from the Ely area will make a final appeal Wednesday to the state’s top leaders to stop exploration for copper on their land, which lies in a part of the state cherished for its clean lakes and stately forests.

The state’s Executive Council, made up of the governor, the attorney general and other elected officials, is holding a special meeting to hear out citizens who have been fighting the state’s decision last April to sell 50-year mineral leases on their land.

Residents and cabin owners in what may become a new copper mining district near Ely say they were shocked that the state’s century-old minerals law seems skewed to favor mining companies over property owners. It was also their introduction to a side of the Department of Natural Resources that they had never seen — the one with a mission to promote mining.

This is very common throughout the world, while the government will “sell” you property they will keep all mineral rights over that property even after the sale. Canada is a great example of this where the government claims ownership to the mineral rights of all property sold after the early 1900s.

While the people living in Ely, Minnesota thought they owned their land they’re now realizing that they don’t. If they truly owned their land they could forcibly remove the mine speculators from their property as trespassers. Instead those speculators have permission from the government to not only search “private” property for minerals but also mine those minerals without having to grant the “owner” of the property anything but minor compensations.

How disgusting is it that you don’t even own your own property? If you find gold somewhere on your property you’d best not tell anybody as the government may gain knowledge of it and move in to take that gold from you. For a society to be truly peaceful absolute property rights must be recognized.

Why Not, We’ve Limited Every Other Right

Is it bad when our “representatives” are so brazen in their hatred for our supposedly constitutionally guaranteed rights that they flat out say we should reinterpret those rights as privileges? I think it’s bad and that’s exactly what they’re doing:

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Wow… I’m really at a loss for words. Can you imagine what would happen if you could only exercise speech at the blessing of the state? This blog would be gone in a heartbeat along with, likely, 99% of the other gun blogs. The Mises Institute would likely get the gag order along with Reason Magazine and every other publication that dares criticize the government.

Then again the government has already turned every so-called right into a privilege that requires state approval to exercise so why not speech? While we’re at it why not require passports to travel between the various states of the Union? Perhaps the government could install cameras in every home to ensure nothing seditious is taking place within.

Make no mistake, unless people demonstrate visible outrage over statements like this the critters in Congress will think they can get away with acting on these statements.

The EPA isn’t About Environmental Protection, it’s About Extortion

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of those agencies that are deemed absolutely critical by most environmentalists. These tree huggers claim that the environment would be totally destroyed by evil corporations if it wasn’t for the EPA stepping in and protecting our fragile planet. What most environmentalists never do is actually look at what the EPA does because if they did they would see that the EPA isn’t in the business of protecting the environment, they’re in the business of extortion. Case in point a couple purchased a piece of land and started construction on a home until the EPA stepped in and threatened the couple with absurdly high fines unless they paid a fee to ask permission to build on the land:

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.

That’s the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

See the couple made the mistake of buying an unassuming piece of land in a development that wasn’t located in any wetland registry. The EPA decided all of this was irrelevant and are treating the property as protected wetland:

The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.

[…]

Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if “you’re buying a piece of property you should know if it’s in wetlands.”

“I started to do research. I said, ‘So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]’? And she said, ‘Here’s the coordinates.’ When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it’s not there.”

Apparently you’re just supposed to know that a piece of land is protected even if it’s not listed in any registry of protected lands. If this piece of property is protected then the government should have noted as such by placing it in their registry. Remember how people say that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? How the fuck are you supposed to know you’re violating the law when there is no information available that would alert you to such?

Either way when you look a bit more into the story you’ll see that this move by the EPA has nothing to do with protecting a piece of wetland but instead it has everything to do with demanding the peasants pay their tribute to the ruling king:

So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can’t address a decision like this, as it’s an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the “compliance order” and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.

Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.

If the couple pays $250,000 for a permit I’m sure the EPA will suddenly see that it’s OK for the couple to build there. That’s usually how these government extortion schemes work. First the government waits for you to take an apparently legal action, then they step in and threaten you with fines for violating some obscure law, and finally they tell you if you pay them for a permit (which is always cheaper than the fines you’re facing) the entire mess will go away.

You know what the most sickening part about this story is? Tax dollars stolen from you and me are being used to steal even more money from other people.

Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t

As Jay will tell you Massachusetts is one messed up state. I’ve mentioned before that the state’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s OK to charge people to appeal a ticket and now they’ve ruled that it’s OK to charge somebody who successfully fought a ticket:

Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.

Emphasis mine. In the state of Massachusetts you can be punished for not even committing a crime. How fucking convenient is that for agents of the state? If the local police department is running low on money they can just write a bunch of tickets to everybody and collect money whether or not their victims are able to get the bogus tickets overthrown.

This precedence sets up a huge conflict of interest. What’s to stop police officers from issuing bogus tickets now? No matter what happens they win and get money out of the deal.

Freedom of Speech is Dead

Although most of my readers already know this I feel it necessary to state this for the record, the freedom of speech is dead. The freedom of speech has been under attack in this country for a very long time, going back at least as early as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Still the fact that somebody can be punished simply for having an unpopular belief is a bit disconcerting:

An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

[…]

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

I’m sure somebody will say I’m anti-gay for writing this article but if you do a little browsing on this blog you’ll know that’s not true. It is my personal belief that all people should enjoy equal rights regardless of your race, religion, or sexual orientation. I also believe everybody has the right to their opinion and should be allowed to express it without fear of punishment. Vengeance shouldn’t be brought against somebody simply because they’re racist, bigoted, etc. While I reserve the right to call such people idiots they reserve the right to call me one and so long as nobody initiates violence it’s all good.

The fact that this kid was given three days of suspension is disgusting. What kind of message do you think that sends the kid? If the teacher was disgusted by the child’s belief maybe he should have had a discussion about it with the kid or the entire class. Punishing somebody for disagreeing with you only generates resentment and will likely strengthen their belief. Reason is the most effective tool for promoting logical ideas. Had the teacher used reasoning to express why he believed the child’s belief to be wrong perhaps he could have helped the kid understand that homosexuality isn’t wrong as it harms nobody.

Instead the teacher went all authoritarian on the child and likely generated resentment which will strengthen the child’s belief that homosexuality is wrong.