Your Government Doesn’t Love You – Page 299

When Did the Definition of Voluntary Change

I’m a bit confused. Some point between the time I learned the definition of voluntary and yesterday the definition of the word was changed. I say this because Harry Reid has stated that paying taxes is voluntary:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8]

Thankfully Google still has my back here as it contained the old definition of voluntary which reads in part:

of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled

Voluntary action is action taken by choice and free of any coercion. Paying taxes on the other hand is something we do because the government has threatened us with violence if we do not. If you or I don’t pay our taxes the government will take one or all of several actions which include taking the money from us (garnishing wages), tossing us in prison, taking your property, or having one of their hired thugs beat us should we refuse to comply with either of the two previous retaliatory actions.

So I’m very confused and would like to know this new definition of the word voluntary that Harry is using. It’s not in any dictionary so I’m guessing it’s probably in the newest version of the Newspeak.

Because They’re Better Than You and Me

Getting a permit to carry in California is almost impossible unless you’re rich or politically well connected. I also learned that it’s illegal to carry in their state capitol unless you’re a law enforcement officer or a legislator:

When state lawmakers return to Sacramento this week, a few will carry guns. Four members of the Assembly have been given permission to carry concealed weapons in the Capitol.

Anyone entering the Capitol building in Sacramento passes through a metal detector at a security checkpoint. State law prohibits concealed or deadly weapons in public buildings, including the Capitol.

But law enforcement officers are exempt – and so are legislators under limited circumstances; the Assembly or Senate sergeants-at-arms can give permission for a lawmaker to carry a concealed weapon.

See, they need to be protected from us serfs. If they allowed lowly serfs to carry guns who knows what kind of terrible things could happen. Hell just look at all the shootings that have occurred in the capitol buildings in Texas and Minnesota… you know all zero of them.

You have to love how California legislators can’t carry in the state capitol under “limited circumstances” which basically amounts to asking permission from your fellow legislators. Then again these are the same punks that can also give themselves raises. I believe we should hold legislators to the exact same standards as actual productive people. Thus if you or I can’t carry at the California state capitol neither should those critters who call themselves “representatives.”

I Don’t Think Asking Nicely Will Work

Apparently Pakistan has the audacity to ask the United States to reduce the number of spooks (CIA agents) operating inside of their country and restrict the number of people being blown up with drones:

Pakistan has asked the US to reduce the number of CIA agents in the country and to limit drone strikes along the Afghan border, US media reports say.

The reports quote unnamed officials and come as US and Pakistani spy chiefs met at the CIA’s US headquarters.

An official spokesman described those meetings as “productive”.

By productive he meant he was allowed to leave with his life. I’m sorry but I don’t think asking nicely is going to work in this case.

Car You Can’t Own

Many people claim that we have a free market in the United States. These same people also blame the lack of regulations on our recent financial problems. Neither fact is true as we haven’t had a free market since… well ever honestly as there have always been regulations on the free exchange of goods between two people. Well I have yet another example of market regulations in the United States that I feel few are aware of, a list of cars the government says you can’t have:

Sure, some lustworthy Euro-spec cars can make it in. Witness the list of Show and Display cars the overlords at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OK’d despite the fact that not one of them meets government safety standards.

Such cars must be exceedingly rare, historically significant and driven a mere 2,500 miles annually. But if you think a boatload of money and reams of paperwork can get any car into the country, think again.

Today, we present some of the cars people tried to import under Show and Display that were rejected by Uncle Sam. We aren’t talking about fanboy fantasies here, but actual cars that someone went to the trouble of tracking down and applying to the feds for.

The list contains 17 vehicles that us measly peasants can’t be trusted with.

Don’t Perform Criminal Acts for the State

If you are approached by the State to perform illegal acts for them don’t do it. When you’re finally caught they will ignore you and allow prosecution to be brought against you. That seems to be the problem Albert Gonzalez is now facing. He’s been found guilty of creating one big ass credit card heist and has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. The problem? His actions were likely authorized by the United States government:

The government has acknowledged that Gonzalez was a key undercover Secret Service informant at the time of the breaches. Now, in a March 24 habeas corpus petition filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, Gonzalez asserts that the Secret Service authorized him to commit the crimes.

“I still believe that I was acting on behalf of the United States Secret Service and that I was authorized and directed to engage in the conduct I committed as part of my assignment to gather intelligence and seek out international cyber criminals,” he wrote. “I now know and understand that I have been used as a scapegoat to cover someone’s mistakes.”

Good luck to you Mr. Gonzalez. The United States government has a long and proud history of leaving those who’ve helped them behind. It’s likely that if what Mr. Gonzalez claims is true the government will disavow any knowledge and let you rot in prison for 20 years. This should go as a lesson to everybody else though, don’t perform acts that are illegal in the United States for the government of said United States. Government agents are pricks and spend more time covering their own asses then doing any real work. Part of covering their asses involves finding other people to take the heat for the illegal acts they’ve committed.

The CIA Assassination Program

There is a saying, “Where the CIA goes bodies aren’t far behind.” OK it’s not really a saying since I just made it up but it certainly is descriptive of the actions taken by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A long history of bloodshed lies in the shadows of the CIA’s history and Bruce Schneier has found a great interview with John A. Rizzo, the former CIA general council . The article is mainly about the selection process used by the CIA to determine who they are going to off in the name of national security. Here’s the base logic the CIA uses:

How CIA staffers determine whether to target someone for lethal operations is a relatively straightforward, and yet largely unknown, story. The president does not review the individual names of people; Rizzo explains that he was the one who signed off. People in Washington talk about a “target list,” as former undersecretary of state Richard Armitage described the process at a recent event in Washington. In truth, there is probably no official CIA roster of those who are slated to die. “I never saw a list,” says a State Department official who has been involved in discussions about lethal operations, speaking without attribution because of the nature of the subject. Officials at the CIA select targets for “neutralization,” he explains. “There were individuals we were searching for, and we thought, it’s better now to neutralize that threat,” he says.

Emphasis mine. Basically the CIA likes to kill people before they could potentially threaten the United States. This logic sounds good on paper but is nothing more than a justification for conniving murder. If you or I were to use such logic to kill somebody we would be brought up on charges of murder and tossed into the klink. Yet when the state decides to commit preemptive murder without any form of public trial it’s considered justified and for the good of the American people.

Put into perspective this would be akin to you killing your neighbor because you are reasonably sure he may cause harm to you in the future. This isn’t considered self-defense as your neighbor hasn’t actually initiated violence against you. Anybody who has to be considered a future or potential threat hasn’t initiated violence and thus their murder shouldn’t be justifiable. If the CIA believes a person to be a threat or or that somebody has initiated violence against the United States why don’t they put that person on trial? Allow the public to determine whether or not the potential target is a threat instead of a few people who are just a wee bit biased.

Wait I forgot, if people were to know who was a threat they would… do something I guess because this information is always classified super top secret. Um mere serfs aren’t allowed to know who is a potential threat to us because… well because the state said so. Shut up slave!

Brazilian School Shooting

12 children are dead after a crazed fuckwit went through a Brazilian school. Of course like most of these lunatics this pussy offed himself as soon as opposition showed up. This demonstrates two other reasons I’m such a proponent of carry laws and against so-called gun-free zones; these shootings always happen in gun free zones and the shooter almost always offs himself the second he meets any form of resistance. If school faculty were allowed to carry while at work they could present this resistance sooner than the police could arrive which would likely cause the shooter to off himself earlier on thus potentially saving lives.

I’m sure this event will be used by the anti-gunners in Brazil to further restrict what can and can’t be owned by the mere serfs but after looking up Brazil’s gun laws I have to say they’re not as bad as expected but certainly are restrictive.

All firearms must be registered, a person must be 25 years-old before purchasing a firearm, and in order to keep a firearm you must pay a registration tax every three years. I’ll also mentioned the scumbag shooter broke Brazilian law as it is apparently almost impossible to get a carry permit there. I also found it interesting that there was a referendum in 2005 to ban all civilian firearm and ammunition sales in Brazil. It failed but the following got my attention:

The ban also had the backing of the federal government (which wanted a government monopoly on gun possession), the Roman Catholic Church, and Rede Globo. The anti-gun lobby received vast support and free coverage from the press.

It would seem that the Brazilian government is in favor of disarming the serfs and was willing to give anti-gunners free coverage in order to accomplish it’s goal of disarming the public. I’m not at all shocked by this though.

Another thing that is interesting about this story are the weapons chosen by the scumbag shooter:

At least 12 others were wounded when the man entered the school with two revolvers and began shooting.

It would seem a ban on standard capacity magazines wouldn’t have done jack shit here. I’m not at all surprised.

White House Attempting to Bar Communications Privacy Act Reform

For those of you who believe the government requires a warrant in order to obtain your e-mails from an ISP’s server you would be partially correct. As the law sits now any e-mail left on a server for more than six months is considered abandoned and thus can be obtained without the hassle of a search warrant. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been trying to change this law for a while now but the current critters in the White House are urging Congress to prevent such measures from being adopted. James A. Baker, the associated deputy attorney general, stated the following in relation to the subject:

Congress should recognize the collateral consequences to criminal law enforcement and the national security of the United States if ECPA were to provide only one means — a probable cause warrant — for compelling disclosure of all stored content. For example, in order to obtain a search warrant for a particular e-mail account, law enforcement has to establish probable cause to believe that evidence will be found in that particular account. In some cases, this link can be hard to establish. In one recent case, for example, law enforcement officers knew that a child exploitation subject had used one account to send and receive child pornography, and officers discovered that he had another email account, but they lacked evidence about his use of the second account.

First let’s hand Mr. Baker bonus points for using child pornography since we know anything to “protect the children” is good. Second don’t we see having to provide evidence in order to obtain a warrant just gets in the way? Hell we should all support legislation that would allow the government to just walk into our homes whenever the fuck they want. Not supporting such legislation simply means you have something to hide and thus are likely a terrorist.

I also love how law enforcement officers know a target was sending and receiving child pornography via one e-mail account but were upset that they couldn’t access the other e-mail account which they had no evidence against. Guess what? That’s what we call due process and at one time was believed to be the basis of our legal system.

This is probably the best reason to have your own mail server. If you own the mail server it doesn’t matter how old any e-mail stored on the system is as the government requires one of those pesky warrants in order to sieze it.

Government Shutdown and NICS

With the looming government shutdown one interesting question that has been going around the gun community is whether or not the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) will be operational. This is an interesting question to which no answer appears to be in sight. Personally I doubt the NICS systems will be offline as even in a government shutdown law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) will continue running (and our soldiers will be expected to continue working even though they won’t be receiving paychecks, how’s that for a stab in the back).

With that said part of me would almost welcome a shutdown of NICS. Why? Because it would open the door for questioning whether or not NICS is at all constitutional. There are two possibilities that could occur if NICS were to shut down; gun stores would be unable to sell firearms or all firearms sales would go through after three days (if NICS doesn’t get back to a dealer in three days the owner can treat it as an automatic approval). In the first case having a non-operational NICS system would effectively bar people their right to keep and bear arms by effectively creating a blanket gun ban for the time of government shutdown. In the second case ineligible people may acquire firearms placing the question as to whether or not the NICS system is worth anything on the table.

I could see grounds for a lawsuit if the NICS system was shutdown preventing somebody who needed a firearm to self-defense from obtaining it.

More Bad News for California Gun Owners

Bad news denizens of the People’s Republic of Kalifornistan, three bad news for guns bills are coming up for a hearing. These seem really stupid and absolutely asinine which means they have a real chance in that state forsaken by the major deities of every religion:

SB 124 would create a broadly expanded and technically flawed definition of handgun ammunition which would encompass virtually all rifle cartridges. It would also ban the possession of many types of rifle cartridges and make it a felony to possess them. SB 124 doesn’t stop there, it could also ban virtually all non-lead ammunition used in California by reclassifying them as “armor piercing.” If passed, this bill could result in a complete ban on hunting in the California condor zone in which the use of lead ammunition is prohibited for hunting.

In an effort to further stifle law-abiding gun owners from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44) has introduced legislation that would change the state’s gun laws and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying an unloaded handgun openly. It is currently legal to carry an unloaded handgun into most public places within the state, including restaurants and malls, but if approved, AB 144 would make it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded handgun in public under most circumstances.

AB 809, introduced again by F-rated Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42), would establish a state registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired rifles and shotguns. Under AB809, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

Banning, registration, and removal of a right all in one hearing. Those statist fucks in California’s legislature sure are a busy bunch. Honestly, if you’re a gun owner who lives in California it would be smart to just move. I think the state is completely beyond help at this point and there is not chance of reforming it back to a place where free people may live. Get out of there before they make it illegal to leave the state without papers and direct permission from the state government.