Tag: Shut Up Slave

How the Obama Administration Justifies Murdering a 16 Year-Old

When confronted about the murder of Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16 year-old son, by drone the Obama administration defended the their actions with one of the sickest justifications I’ve heard:

ADAMSON: …It’s an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he’s underage. He’s a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

It was Abdulrahman’s fault for being assassinated by a United States drone because he had an irresponsible father. I guess that means the Obama administration is going to start murdering a lot of children because there are a lot of irresponsible fathers out there. The current administration is made up of some truly sick sons of bitches.

More on the State’s Witch Hunt Against Anarchists

The more I research the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) recent arrest of anarchists the more it’s appearing to be a state witch hunt. During this witch hunt the FBI has claimed that the anarchists were arrested for property damage that was caused during May Day. A warrant accidentally unsealed in the Seattle United States District Court shows that the agency’s story is questionable at best:

May Day began with peaceful demonstrations in downtown Seattle, but shortly before noon a swarm of protesters, dressed all in black, massed together and began striking out. They targeted Nike and banks; they slashed tires and broke windows and sprayed anti-capitalist graffiti as some made their way to the Nakamura courthouse. Afterward, members of the so-called “black bloc” protesters shed their dark clothing and blended into the crowd.

The search warrant says the courthouse building, on Spring Street and Sixth Avenue, sustained tens of thousands of dollars in damage, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office could not provide a specific dollar amount. Destruction of government property in excess of $1,000 is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

[…]

Meanwhile, the FBI set out to find those responsible for the courthouse damage. Agents reported spending long hours reviewing surveillance-camera footage, news video and still photos of the crowd that day, trying to identify suspects based on clues: the white strip around one suspect’s waist, the “fringe” of a shirt, the shape of a backpack.

What the warrant makes clear is that state and federal agents were watching some members of the small group of Portland anarchists even before May Day. The affidavit says they were tracking members as early as April 9, when they and others were “all observed by FBI surveillance at an event” in Portland that day changing out of black clothing.

If this investigation was related to damage caused on May Day why was the FBI spying on the arrested individuals beforehand? My guess is the FBI wanted to create more glory for themselves. Since they lacked any cases that would put them on the front page of newspapers throughout the country they reverted to their usual trick of making up a boogeyman. Historically anarchists have made excellent boogeymen because the state has most people convinced that all anarchists are violent. When the headlines say the FBI arrested a group of anarchists most people say, “Good job, those guys deserve to be in prison!” Going after anarchists is a fairly safe thing to do when you’re an agency trying to create a little hero worship.

After selecting their boogeyman the FBI sat back, spied on some anarchists, and waited for the proper opportunity to move in. That opportunity came on May Day when a peaceful demonstrated suddenly turned violent. The state has a history of using police provocateurs during anarchist demonstrations to incite violence and the FBI has been caught creating and “stopping” terrorists so often that the mainstream media has even caught on. Considering those facts I would not be surprised if the individuals who incited the violence in Seattle on May Day were actually state agents. After all anarchist black bloc demonstrations involve participants covering their faces, which makes identification almost impossible. It’s not difficult for police officers to dress in black, cover their faces, and break things in order to create an excuse to make mass arrests.

Combining the evidence accidentally revealed through the unsealed (and quickly resealed) warrant, the fact that not enough evidence exists to press charges against the arrested anarchists, and the FBI’s history of making up criminals gives this case has all the indicators of being fabricated malarkey.

The State Releases One of Its Three Political Prisoners

I reported earlier this month that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) were holding Leah Planet, Katherine Olejnik, and Matt Duran prisoner. Leah was being held for refusing to testify against her fellow anarchists noting that the arrests were effectively a witch hunt as the FBI was unable to obtain any evidence that lead to charges. The state has released Lead:

On July 25, Plante, along with two of her closest friends (co-conspirators, if you’re filtering reality through the brain of an FBI agent), Matt Duran and Kteeo Olejnik, were arrested after FBI agents and Joint Terrorism Task Force officers broke down her door with a battering ram.

The officers had a warrant for computers, black clothing, and “anarchist literature.” Plante was then arrested without a warrant, and for items that any of us might have in our possession right now.

[…]

On Friday, October 19, however, she was released with very little information as to why. Her only post-prison comments were attacks against misogynistic posts on her website.

Apparently it was too hard to justify caging somebody for refusing to condemn her friends. Unfortunately Matt and Katherine are still being held in cages. We’ll see how long it takes for the FBI to either create some trumped up charges or release the two and pretend there wasn’t a state sanctioned witch hunt going on.

Same Tactics, Different Party

People, especially self-proclaimed Democrats, often chided the Bush administration for using patriotism to silence their opposition. Now that Bush is out of office and the tables have turn the Obama administration is trying its damnedest to show that there is only one party, the party of the state, by using Bush’s exact tactics to silence its opposition:

In the eight years since then, Democrats haven’t learned how to beat Bush’s tactics. What they’ve learned instead is how to mimic them. “There were very important moments in the discussion about Libya,” Obama adviser David Plouffe told CNN last night. “Gov. Romney looked like someone playing politics, and I think the president looked like a resolute commander-in-chief.” On MSNBC, Obama strategist David Axelrod said the president “is aware every single moment that he’s responsible for the lives of the Americans he sends overseas. … He feels that intensely. So it is offensive, the suggestion that somehow he would play politics with this issue.” Today on Good Morning America, Vice President Biden added:

It became so clear to the American people how Gov. Romney and the campaign continue to try to politicize a tragedy. … The president was clear: We are going to get to the bottom of this. The whole world will know it. And I think when the president turned and looked at Gov. Romney and made that assertion, saying, basically, “Don’t question me on this, in terms of my caring,” I thought it was a powerful moment.

Patriotism is a powerful and frightening tool. It allows the state to great a religious zealotry in those it expropriates from. Instead of fighting against the exploiters the people defend and even worship them. When you speak out against the exploiters the people throw out accusations of treason and being unpatriotic (as if that is supposed to be bad). The state itself uses this reverence for all it’s worth in an attempt to silence all critics. Unfortunately people often fail to see “their” party use patriotism to silence opposition, they only see it when “the other” party does it.

We must avoid succumbing to patriotism. If we allow yourselves to worship the state, to see the state as benevolent, then it becomes far easier to sucker us into supporting heinous crimes such as the stripping of liberties, wars, and ever increasing expropriation.

That Race Card is Wearing Thin

I really hate it when accusations of racism are used as a generic method of silencing opposition. Take this conversation that I had with a friend on Facebook:

The test on the picture seemed to imply that anybody who opposes Obama, or at least a majority of those who oppose Obama, are doing because of the man’s race. What bothers me about such an accusation is that there is no evidence to back it up. Without the ability to read minds one cannot know for certain what another is thinking. Yet one must consider the number of reasons one could oppose Obama. Obama is a very loathsome human being. He was swept into office on the promises of reducing the police state, ending Bush’s wars, shutting down Guantanamo Bay, and restoring many of the civil liberties that were lost when the state implemented tyrannical laws after the 9/11 attacks. After getting into office Obama has expanded the police state, continued Bush’s wars and started some of his own, kept Guantanamo Bay open, took more civil liberties from Americans, and even managed to find time to outright murder two American citizens without even pretending to hold a trial. As you can see there are many reasons to oppose Obama that have absolutely nothing to do with his race.

Yet some of his supporters continue to play the race card. This faction of Obama supporters like to take pictures such as the one shared by my friend and use it as evidence that everybody who opposes Obama, or at least a majority of those who oppose Obama, are racists. What’s funny is that we don’t even know if the person who defaced that sign was a racists. It very well could have been a racist or it could have been an Obama supporter attempting to make his political opponents look bad. There is no proof either way and even if there was it would prove nothing about the majority of people who don’t support Obama.

Obama’s supporters need to put the race card away unless there is a provable case of racism. If a member of the Ku Klux Klan argues against Obama because of his race then the race card is applicable. The race card is not applicable every time somebody criticizes Obama. Furthermore the race card should not be played against individuals who are entirely uninvolved in any racist acts. Trying to imply everybody who opposes Obama is a racist because one of Obama’s opponents is a racist is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to silence those who hold a different political viewpoint.

We Should Address Real Voter Fraud

We’re being told that voter fraud is rampent. In Minnesota there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot that, if passed, would require voters in the state to present state issued photographic identification in order to vote. Minnesota Republicans have been blaming two of their highest profile losses on voter fraud. I’m here to tell you that voter fraud is a real threat, it is happening, but it’s happening in the courtroom not at the polling places:

Around the country, Republican operatives have been making moves to keep Mr. Johnson from becoming their version of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate whose relatively modest support cut into Al Gore’s 2000 vote arguably enough to help hand the decisive states of Ohio and Florida to George W. Bush.

The fear of Mr. Johnson’s tipping the outcome in an important state may explain why an aide to Mr. Romney ran what was effectively a surveillance operation into Mr. Johnson’s efforts over the summer to qualify for the ballot at the Iowa State Fair, providing witnesses to testify in a lawsuit to block him that ultimately fizzled.

Libertarians suspect it is why Republican state officials in Michigan blocked Mr. Johnson from the ballot after he filed proper paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline.

And it is why Republicans in Pennsylvania hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive in Philadelphia, appearing at the homes of paid canvassers and, in some cases, flashing an F.B.I. badge — he was a retired agent — while asking to review the petitions they gathered at $1 a signature, according to testimony in the case and interviews.

The Republican Party has been doing its best to prevent Gary Johnson from appearing on the ballots just as the Democratic Party previously attempted to do to Ralph Nader. Both major parties have a history of actively trying to prevent potential competition from being valid options in presidential races.

What’s more fraudulent, a potential handful of individuals voting multiple times or major political parties actively trying to silence those who oppose them? I would say the latter. Preventing candidates from appearing on ballots not only takes votes away from those candidates but it also disenfranchises supporters of those candidates. If you believe the voting system is how an individual expresses their desire during an election and Gary Johnson is prevented from appearing on the ballots how can a libertarian express his or her desire during the presidential election? They can’t. Doesn’t that effectively cheat libertarians out of expressing their desire in this system where everybody supposedly has a voice?

If you want to address voter fraud look no further than these tactics being used by the two major political parties to silence third party candidates. Entire blocks of the voting public are being prevented from expressing their desires during the election.

Foxes Guarding the Hen House

Statists often claim that the state is necessary to protect the people. I find it rather strange to argue the need to have murders, extortionists, and rapists employed to protect us from murders, extortionists, and rapists. The police are not men of good will who benevolently protect the people from evil. Instead the police are criminals themselves. They murder anybody who resists their tyranny, extort people by issuing fines for nonviolent actions, and even commit rape:

The FBI defines rape as “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object … without the consent of the victim.” By this definition, Vagnini raped multiple people while he was on the job. In one instance, he allegedly caused his victim to experience anal bleeding for days. In another, he added insult to injury by allegedly planting drugs on his victim.

Rather than serving and protecting, other officers chose to aid and abet. In one incident, Vagnini’s victim was held down by other officers while Vagnini raped him. Furthermore, the Milwaukee Police Department was aware of these incidents for “a couple of years.” They waited “until authorities recognized a pattern” before they did anything to hold him accountable. Translation: The police department was aware that Vagnini was committing rapes, but they waited to do anything about it until they had determined that he was a serial rapist.

This story is appalling, but sadly it is not unique. For example, in Utah police officers have been known to conduct “forced catheterization” searches, which consist of forcibly inserting a catheter into the victim’s urethra to perform drug tests. In 2004, Haley Hooper was held down by four officers while a catheter was inserted into her vagina. While this met the legal definition of object rape, her lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the officers were protected by “qualified immunity.” Officers involved in another forced catheterization were promoted rather than prosecuted.

State protection is a fallacy because it implies the state actually protects people. In reality the state claims a monopoly on violence and uses that claimed monopoly to do whatever it pleases. Those tasked with enforcing the state’s decrees are often given special privileges including the ability to break the very laws they’re supposedly upholding. While the state claims any form of penetration without consent is rape it often forcefully penetrates individuals under the guise of searches. By their very definition they are committing rape. How can we expect individuals to uphold the law when they are given permission to break the law?

Leah Plante Joins Fellow Anarchist in Prison

I have an update on yesterday’s story about Leah Planet. She refused to testify against he fellow anarchists during the grand jury hearing and is now being held in a cage:

A third self-described anarchist from the Pacific Northwest has been jailed by federal officials for refusing to speak before a secretive grand jury that the accused have called a politically-motivated modern-day witch-hunt.

Leah-Lynn Plante, a mid-20s activist from Seattle, Washington, was ushered out of court by authorities on Wednesday after refusing for a third time to answer questions forced on her by a grand jury — a panel of prosecutors convened to determine if an indictment can be issued for a federal crime.

She joins fellow anarchists Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran as state prisoners in their fishing expedition. Even though the state goons had enough cause to get a warrant issued (in other words they were able to drop the word anarchist near a judge) they apparently couldn’t find enough evidence of wrongdoing to charge the three with any crime so they’ve resorted to coercive tactics to wrest testimonies from the three. Fortunately Leah, Katherine, and Matt are reusing to play the state’s game.

I can do nothing but commend the three’s refusal to cooperate with the criminal gang generally referred to as government. Whether they do anything wrong or not isn’t really relevant in this case as responsibility to gather evidence of wrongdoing falls to the prosecutors. Seeing insufficient evidence exists to even bring up charges this is looking more like an anarchist witch hunt than a serious attempt to get justice for wronged individuals.

The State Protects Its Cronies Part Two

At the beginning of this year the state ruled that telecommunications companies can’t be sued for participating in warrantless wiretaps. Needless to say the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court who, not surprisingly, upheld the ruling:

WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court let stand Tuesday an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by rights activists as a flagrant abuse of executive power.

The top US court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency monitor its customers’ phone calls and Internet traffic.

It’s not surprising to see the state protecting its cronies. If you’re providing a service that allows the state to ignore the declared rights of individuals you’re all but guaranteed some amount of state protection (so long as you’re useful). Telecommunication companies not only receive protection from the state for participating in warrantless wiretaps but they also make a great deal of money off of wiretaps.

For those of you who still believe the Constitution is the be all and end all for fighting tyranny I must ask you a question: do you like the fact that nine assholes in robes get to, according to the Constitution, determine your rights?

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.