Tag: Shut Up Slave

An Expedient Alternative To The Election Cycle

I’m not in the market for a master but a lot of my fellow countrymen apparently are. Millions of them spent an evening watching a debate to decide what master they would most like to submit to. One potential master has been enjoying record turnouts to his appearances. Soon many of these people will be investing hundreds of hours door knocking, working call centers, and annoying co-workers to evangelize for their preferred master. And that’s not even the tip of the iceberg. Most of these people will also be giving their hard earned money to their preferred master and even take time out of their day to vote for them!

It doesn’t have to be this way. They don’t have to invest hundreds of hours and dollars to submit to a master! There are people who will actually lord over them for cash alone! That’s right, they can just buy a dom who will beat them mercilessly to their heart’s content and it won’t require a year of political bullshit to realize!

If you know somebody who is searching for a master do them, and everybody else (so we don’t have to listen to them), a favor and let them know about FetLife. It’s a website to help people interested in bondage, discipline, sadomasochism, and masochism (BSDM) connect with one another. Submissives can connect with masters without suffering a year of fruitless politicking first and the rest of us can enjoy a little peace and quiet.

The EPA Investigated Itself And Found It Did Nothing Wrong

After dumping millions of gallons of polluted mining water into a clean river the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed a quick investigation and decided it won’t suffer any punishment:

DENVER — Unlike BP, which was fined $5.5 billion for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, the EPA will pay nothing in fines for unleashing the Animas River spill.

“Sovereign immunity. The government doesn’t fine itself,” said Thomas L. Sansonetti, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s division of environment and natural resources.

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and other lawmakers have called on the EPA to hold itself to the same standards as it would a private company in the aftermath of Wednesday’s accident, in which an EPA-led crew uncorked a 3 million-gallon spill of orange wastewater from the abandoned Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado.

However, “The EPA does not fine itself the way that you would fine an outside company like BP,” said Mr. Sansonetti, who served from 2001 to 2005 under President George W. Bush.

OK, I was joking about it performing an investigation. But this harkens back to what I said yesterday. Depending on the state to protect the environment is foolhardy because it has no incentive to actually protect the environment. When a company violates its regulations it merely demands a piece of the action in the form of fines. And when it violates its own regulations is declares “sovereign immunity,” just like a “sovereign citizen” would, and says it may pay the cost of cleanup and compensation for damages but only if Congress appropriates money for it:

What the EPA can be expected to cover is the cost of the cleanup and compensation for the damage caused, funding that would have to be appropriated by Congress, meaning that the taxpayers will foot the bill.

“That’s going to have to be appropriated because that sort of thing is not included in the EPA’s budget,” said Mr. Sansonetti, now a Denver attorney.

Not only will the agency go unpunished but it won’t even have to pay the costs out of its budget! Consider this fact what motivation does the EPA have to protect the environment? It seems like the agency wins whenever the environment is polluted. If a private entity pollutes a river the EPA enjoys a cash payment and if it pollutes a river it does nothing unless it receives additional money from Congress to fix its fuck up.

Go ahead statists, explain to me how the state is necessary to protect the environment after this fiasco. I could use a good laugh.

Seattle City Council Used Fear To Enrich Themselves

Gun violence is one of those phrases spoken by politicians who want to drum up fear in the general public. Although it’s no different than any other form of violence the idea of gun violence tends to be scarier to most people than, say, knife violence (which is kind of strange because I’d far prefer to be shot than stabbed) so it lends itself better expanding the surveillance state. The Seattle City Council took things a step further though. Instead of using gun violence as an excuse to expand the surveillance state it used it to directly enrich itself:

The Seattle City Council gave its unanimous approval Monday afternoon to a plan that slaps a $25 tax on each gun sale and 5 cents on each bullet sold in the city limits.

The proposal, introduced last month by Council President Tim Burgess, is billed as the city’s solution to the $17 million in medical costs from 253 gunshot victims at Harborview Medical Center last year, which Seattle underwrites with public funds.

How will this new tax solve the problem of gun violence? It won’t because it doesn’t impact people who are actually committing acts of violence with firearms (you know, the ones who generally acquire their firearms through theft). The only people this tax will impact are non-violent gun owners who aren’t part of the problem. In fact this tax doesn’t even address the root of the city’s $17 million medical bill, which is violence. But this tax will rake in more cash for the city government, which is the point. After all, how else will the City Council vote itself a raise if it’s not finding new revenue sources?

Once again we get to witness the lie of government solutions. Governments have no motivation to fix problems because the existence of problems allows it to further cement its power and enrich its members.

Remember When Obama Argued Peace Instead Of Bragging About The Number Of Countries He’s Bombed

It’s hard to remember the days of Obama’s first presidential run. Bush was in office, had dragged us into wars throughout the Middle East, and had lead the charge to increase the already pervasive and unaccountable surveillance state. Obama promises to end the wars and dismantle the surveillance state.

Since then Obama has dragged us into more wars and further empowered the surveillance state. His love of war has become so strong that he can’t even pretend to be reluctant about it anymore. Hilariously a lot of Republicans have been accusing him of not being a big enough war monger because of the deal he’s been negotiating with Iran. Not wanting people to question his dedication to bombing children in the Middle East Obama rebutted the Republicans’ accusations by pointing out just how many countries he’s bombed:

Beyond accurately describing Iran Deal opponents, Obama also accurately described himself and his own record of militarism. To defend against charges that he Loves the Terrorists, he boasted:

As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. . . .

I’ve ordered military action in seven countries.

By “ordered military actions in seven countries,” what he means is that he has ordered bombs dropped, and he has extinguished the lives of thousands of innocent people, in seven different countries, all of which just so happen to be predominantly Muslim.

It’s amazing how much things have changed since his first presidential run. He’s not even pretending to be anti-war anymore. And why should he? It’s not like he can run for a third term anyways. I think it’s also amusing, and sad, to see how his supporters went from being a huge percentage of the anti-war movement to either entirely silent on the issue of war or proponents of these new wars.

Surveillance Is For Me, Not For Thee

Law enforcers always want more power to surveil. If they had it their way they would have cameras on every street corner and in very house and every form of communications could be easily tapped whenever they saw fit. They tend to be a bit hypocritical here because they don’t want to be spied up themselves. Santa Ana police officers are coming under fire for a raid they performed on an illegal cannabis dispensary. During the raid surveillance footage shows officers making derogatory comments towards a disabled woman and scarfing down an edible. The dispensary is unhappy with the officers’ conduct and the officers are unhappy that they were recorded:

SANTA ANA – Three Santa Ana police officers want to quash a surveillance video that shows officers making derogatory comments about a disabled woman and possibly snacking on pot edibles during a recent raid of a medical marijuana dispensary.

A lawsuit, filed last week in Orange County Superior Court by three unidentified police officers and the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, seeks to prevent Santa Ana Police Department internal affairs investigators from using the video as they sort out what happened during the May 26 raid of Sky High Collective.

[…]

The lawsuit argues that the video doesn’t paint a fair version of events. The suit also claims the video shouldn’t be used as evidence because, among other things, the police didn’t know they were on camera.

“All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks,” says the suit.

The dispensary also did not obtain consent of any officer to record them, the suit says.

“Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer,” the suit says.

Pappas counters that the suit is baseless because the officers were aware the dispensary had video cameras and managed to disable most of them.

As far as arguments go that one is downright laughable. Places that use security cameras usually have a sign indicating the premise is under surveillance so it’s difficult to claim that you don’t know you’re being recorded. Furthermore the officers disabled most of the cameras so they knew the premise was under surveillance. With that knowledge the officers should have expected that they would miss a camera or two.

But the officers’ lawyer seems to be arguing that the officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy because they disabled most of the cameras. Somehow that makes the footage illegal, or something.

You have to hand it to law enforcers, they can twist logic to its absolute limits to justify their surveillance while arguing against being surveilled.

When It Comes To Establishing A Police State America Will Never Have Anything On Mum

239 years ago the United States told its mum it was moving out. Mum, having always been a clingy parent, didn’t take the news very well but in the end there was nothing she could do. Every since then the United States seems to have always had a chip on its shoulder. It wanted to show the world that it could surpass its parent and in many ways it did. But to this day old age and treachery have proven far more able to establish a police state than youth and exuberance:

Nursery school staff and registered childminders must report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists, under counter-terrorism measures proposed by the Government.

The directive is contained in a 39-page consultation document issued by the Home Office in a bid to bolster its Prevent anti-terrorism plan.

[…]

The consultation paper adds: “Senior management and governors should make sure that staff have training that gives them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism and challenge extremist ideas which can be used to legitimise terrorism and are shared by terrorist groups.
Related Articles

“They should know where and how to refer children and young people for further help.”

But concern was raised over the practicalities of making it a legal requirement for staff to inform on toddlers.

That is some beautiful fear mongering. Toddler terrorists! How could any other country come up with such a concept and be serious enough about it to use it as the basis for a law? Here you have children who have probably just mastered the fineries of bipedal motion and have just begun learning the very basics of arithmetic and the United Kingdom as managed to apply the very complex concepts of radicalization and terrorism to them! To top it all off it then legally required school teachers to do the same!

I’m sorry but that’s some advanced level shit right there. I think it’ll take some time before the politicians here even begin to approach this idea. They simply don’t have the cunning dear old mum does.

The White House Is Still Pissed At Edward Snowden

Since Edward Snowden aired the National Security Agency’s (NSA) dirty laundry the United States government has wanted his head. Meanwhile far saner individuals have been begging the White House to pardon him. This begging came in the form of a petition posted on the White House website that has been ignored since 2013. After two long years the White House has finally given its answer — Edward Snowden will not be pardoned:

Unsurprisingly, the White House formally announced Tuesday that it will not be granting a pardon to Edward Snowden anytime soon.

Immediately after Snowden was formally charged in 2013 with espionage, theft, and conversion of government property, supporters began petitioning the White House to pardon the famed former National Security Agency contractor.

I don’t think anybody is surprised. Snowden’s actions made the Internet a safer place for everybody and that directly conflicts with the White House’s desire to spy on everybody. Any decent nation would give somebody like Snowden, who revealed unlawful activities being perpetrated by a government agency, a medal and declare a nation holiday in his honor.

Adding further insult to injury Lisa Monaco, who is apparently the president’s adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism, made this laughable statement to justify the White House’s decision not to granted a pardon:

Instead of constructively addressing these [civil liberties] issues, Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.

If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and—importantly—accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers—not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.

I say the statement is laughable because the last time a whistle blower tried to “constructively address” the NSA’s unlawful activities the state sicced the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) on them. Back in 2001 William Binney tried going through the appropriate channels to get the NSA’s domestic spying activities addressed. He ended up looking down the barrel of several FBI agents’ guns as they raided him home in an attempt to intimidate him into shutting up. That was one of several good stories he told on the panel discussion I was on with him.

When you threaten somebody at gunpoint for trying to get the NSA’s domestic spying addressed through proper channels you can’t expect the next person to do the same.

Man Criminally Charged For Fixing The Roads

The roads are the purview of the state. Some claim this is because transportation infrastructure is so complex that the market couldn’t handle it. Of course this claim is bullshit. But the fact remains that the state will use its capacity for violence against anybody who tries to involve themselves in transportation infrastructure improvements.

A Massachusetts selectman got sick of the road repair teams not fixing the faded crosswalks in his town. Instead of impotently pounding his fist on a desk he actually decided to go out and fix the crosswalks himself. Now he’s facing criminal charges because, even though he’s an agent of the state, he didn’t respect the bureaucracy:

George Simolaris, a selectman in Billerica, about 25 miles from Boston, said he was tired of constituents asking when the white paint would be freshened up, so he fixed the problem himself. He said he bought cans of green paint, the town’s official color, and spent the weekend painting over six faded crosswalks.

“All I’ve heard for months is: ‘When is this going to get done?'” Simolaris said. “I got sick of it.”

Police and town officials said painting the street without authorization was illegal and charged him with two counts of destruction of property, according to Billerica police spokesman Roy Frost.

As if that wasn’t enough they are also planning to coerce him into “repairing” the “damage” he created:

He added that Simolaris would be required to repay the $4,000 cost of cleaning up the paint, which he said chipped and smeared.

Even though many of the crosswalks in question are going to be torn up as part of a pedestrian safety project:

Town Manager John Curran said the town was in the midst of a $400,000 pedestrian safety project that requires digging up the street including some of the crosswalks in question, which are slated to be repainted once construction is complete.

So he’s facing criminal charges for painting faded crosswalks that were slated to be ripped up anyways and he’s being criminal charged for it. I think this shows just how ridiculous the “justice” system in this country is. At most I’d say he could be demanded to pay for removing the paint if the crosswalks weren’t going to be ripped up anyways. But they’re going to be ripped up so I don’t think any grounds exist for punishing him in any way.

Either way, this story shows that the state will violently enforce its monopoly on transportation infrastructure. If people are willing to repair roads and the only thing stopping them are government guns then I think the entire claim that the market can’t handle transportation infrastructure has been rendered laughable.

Rand Paul Wants To Bring Back Religious Profiling

Here’s a reminder, for those who need it, that Rand Paul is not a libertarian nor an advocate of liberty. After the shooting in Chattanooga the presidential wannabe took some time out of his busy schedule to urge for the reimplementation of a program that almost exclusively profiles Muslims entering the country:

Yet, Paul commented to Breitbart:

I’m going to have our subcommittee and maybe committee in Homeland Security look into whether or not we could reinstitute this NSEERS [National Security Entry Exit Registration System] program.

So what did this program do? It not only singled out Muslims entering the country for extra interrogation at the airport (which is stupid because if they pose a threat then why grant them a visa at all?), it required Muslim foreign boys and men over 16 years already in the country to personally appear before Uncle Sam’s functionaries and register. Explains the Migration Policy Institute:

Registration includes a meeting with an immigration official where the interviewees are fingerprinted (both digitally and with ink), photographed, and asked a series of questions under oath. In addition to the initial registration, foreign visitors must also appear at a U.S. immigration office within 10 days of the one-year anniversary date of initial registration. All of these foreign visitors are required to complete a departure check only at a designated departure port (of which there are approximately 100 nationwide) on the same day that they intend to leave the country. Willful refusal to register is a criminal violation; overstaying a visa is a civil violation.

Expecting terrorists to voluntarily stroll to an immigration office to be fingerprinted and IDed is absurd, of course. So the entirely predictable upshot of the program was that although it managed to obtain not a single terrorism-related conviction, it did ruin plenty of lives of peaceful Muslims caught in its dragnet. Consider the case of Abdulameer Yousef Habeeb, a refugee from Iraq. As per the ACLU:

he was lawfully admitted to the United States after suffering imprisonment and torture by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Habeeb was on a train from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to start a new life when Border Patrol agents singled him out for questioning without any individualized suspicion. As a refugee, Habeeb was not required to register with NSEERS, but when he showed the border agents his refugee documentation, the agents insisted—incorrectly—that he was in violation of NSEERS’ registration requirements. Detained for a week, Habeeb lost his job. Habeeb was terrified of being returned to Iraq, yet the government stubbornly continued deportation proceedings for six weeks. Ultimately, after the ACLU filed suit, Habeeb won an apology from the government stating: “[T]he United States of America acknowledges that, by not registering under NSEERS, you did nothing wrong [and] regrets the mistake.”

Paul maintains that immigration is not a right; it’s a privilege. But the Constitution guarantees immigrants in the country the same due process and other basic rights as citizens because it understands that a Leviathan that is authorized to abuse the rights of one set of people is not likely to respect those of others for very long.

I checked the link that explains what NSEERS is and it clearly noted that, “Except for North Korea, nearly all of the countries designated in Special Registration are predominantly Arab and Muslim.” In other words this program places special restrictions on people from specific countries that grants Border Patrol agents the right to harass them without cause. Even somebody who advocates for controlled immigration should acknowledge that placing additional restrictions on specific people is not an acceptable way of handling immigration. It’s necessarily collectivist in nature, which should be the first clue that it’s a bad program, since it focuses on where a person is from and not the person themselves.

Unlike his father, who was a true advocate for liberty, Rand Paul isn’t even pretending to be an advocate for liberty anymore. He just wants to be president and will say anything that he thinks will gain him the nomination. If he gets elected there is absolutely no reason to believe he won’t continue this trend of kowtowing to neocons as he will likely want a second term.

TSA: We’re Not Happy Until You’re Not Happy

When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently performed an internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) security procedures it discovered a 95 percent failure rate. Were the TSA a private security provider you would probably have seen some serious housecleaning to rid itself of individuals who obviously don’t know what they’re doing. But the TSA is a government agency, which means you and I are punished for its failures. In response to the 95 percent failure rate the TSA is demanding more tax victim money and planning to make air travelers wait even longer to get through security:

The Transportation Security Administration has a new strategy for improving its woeful performance in catching airport security threats — and it will likely mean longer lines and more government bucks.

A month after the TSA was embarrassed by its almost-total failure in a covert security audit, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has ordered the agency to pursue an improvement plan that will require more hand-wanding of passengers, more use of bomb-sniffing dogs and more random testing of luggage and travelers for traces of explosives. It will also consider reducing travelers’ chances of being sent through the expedited PreCheck lines at airports.

Let us not forget the TSA motto: we’re not happy until you’re not happy. This “improvement plan” should tell you everything you need to know about government agencies. If you look at the list of “improvements” you’ll see the word “more” in front of everything. The TSA’s response to its 95 percent failure rate is literally trying more of the same thing only harder.