An interesting three part article (here, here, and here) that explains just how the law is supposed to function as an order of defense of individual freedom and property. Also, this series explains how the individuals is entrusted to make as much of himself as possible, and anything to the contrary is nothing more than a perversion of the natural rule of law (and thus a perversion of founding).
Of course, the author does an excellent job in describing how politicians have motives expressly to the contrary of those objectives of the rule of law. Read it, because it says what we think!
Showing posts with label Tyranny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tyranny. Show all posts
01 June 2011
16 December 2010
WikiLeaks: Liberty vs Tyranny in Real Life
Where does one start in this saga? It is quite hard to grasp all the facts, simply because there are so many facts, and so many talking heads debating the facts. With the twenty-four hour news cycle, it is easy to react and debate the rumors, only to have to recant and face the truths, or rather half truths.
Obviously, over the past few weeks, we've seen calls for Assange to be tried for espionage, or even treason. The calls for the whistle blowing website to be shut down, permanently, have resonated from a multitude of Washington officials. We have even seen the CEO of WikiLeaks defended for his actions by people we wouldn't ordinarily consider as his supporters, including those whom often kill their political enemies with rare radioactive isotopes (speculative that is).
So, how is it that one of the most noted libertarians in the US as well as one of the most noted totalitarians in Russia can be in agreement on the same subject? Also, how is that foreign countries who were or are less free than the United States have leaders that sound more open towards freedom than our leaders? These are the questions that should be asked and answered, not the "how do we charge this guy" questions that are being asked.
Consider this; a brand new law made to be able to prosecute Assange for his dissemination of the cables, despite the legal precedent and tradition of the freedom of expression offered in the USA. Not to mention the fact that Assange is not a resident of the US nor has he stepped foot inside the country to commit any of his alleged crimes, there should be no over reach of sovereignty in this instance. Even if the man behind the leaks had been a state sponsored conspirator, countries don't simply hand over their spies in an effort to save the spied upon country's face. Not to mention that passing the SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) Act and using it to charge Assange would be completely unconstitutional.
Not to worry, as it seems that law and justice are not something the US government bureaucrats are interested in any more. Have we gone the way of the Romans? An empire in such decline that we are witnessing the last gasp efforts to retain knowledge (which is power) in any and all efforts?
According to this guest post on Zero Hedge, that seems to be the way things are going. If you read no other link from this post, or this blog period, you should read the one by Charles Hugh Smith. His depth and brevity of the situation, and why there has been so much feigned outrage by the ruling elites, is
spot on in my opinion (emphasis added).
Obviously, over the past few weeks, we've seen calls for Assange to be tried for espionage, or even treason. The calls for the whistle blowing website to be shut down, permanently, have resonated from a multitude of Washington officials. We have even seen the CEO of WikiLeaks defended for his actions by people we wouldn't ordinarily consider as his supporters, including those whom often kill their political enemies with rare radioactive isotopes (speculative that is).
So, how is it that one of the most noted libertarians in the US as well as one of the most noted totalitarians in Russia can be in agreement on the same subject? Also, how is that foreign countries who were or are less free than the United States have leaders that sound more open towards freedom than our leaders? These are the questions that should be asked and answered, not the "how do we charge this guy" questions that are being asked.
Consider this; a brand new law made to be able to prosecute Assange for his dissemination of the cables, despite the legal precedent and tradition of the freedom of expression offered in the USA. Not to mention the fact that Assange is not a resident of the US nor has he stepped foot inside the country to commit any of his alleged crimes, there should be no over reach of sovereignty in this instance. Even if the man behind the leaks had been a state sponsored conspirator, countries don't simply hand over their spies in an effort to save the spied upon country's face. Not to mention that passing the SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) Act and using it to charge Assange would be completely unconstitutional.
Not to worry, as it seems that law and justice are not something the US government bureaucrats are interested in any more. Have we gone the way of the Romans? An empire in such decline that we are witnessing the last gasp efforts to retain knowledge (which is power) in any and all efforts?
According to this guest post on Zero Hedge, that seems to be the way things are going. If you read no other link from this post, or this blog period, you should read the one by Charles Hugh Smith. His depth and brevity of the situation, and why there has been so much feigned outrage by the ruling elites, is
spot on in my opinion (emphasis added).
02 October 2010
Castro on Guns, circa 1959
We have all too frequently heard the phrase that if we do not study history, we are often doomed to repeat the misfortunes of its errors. More so when history is in a modern form, as the chance to learn from those errors are too fresh in our minds and too easily dismissed to poor implementation rather than poor theory, principle, and asinine institutions. Obviously, the worse the atrocity against freedom (specifically the right to personal defense and arms), the more quickly the lesson can be forgotten by those whom wish to wield great power.
Hence our good buddy FerFal down in Argentina came across an archived speech from Cuba, circa 1959, which expresses Castro’s desire to have the counter revolutionaries “turn in their guns and stop smuggling them into caches.” (You can see FerFal’s own thoughts on this speech here).
It’s an interesting read, once you get passed the communist propaganda, but it does give us great insight into the minds of a despot and their attitudes towards the ability of the commoners to defend their freedom. It is truly the same sad song that the gun-grabbers here in the USA use, stating that "why use violence when we can critically think and talk about our problems.” Even better, Castro appeals to his audience members and revolutionaries that arms are not necessary to the individual, even though his “freedom fighters” used them to over throw the Cuban government. (Paraphrasing here) "If we want to solve problems now, we have a free press and a freer society than yesterday with which to solve problems. If the people want us to go, please ask us and we shall leave." Real rich philosophy right there.
These are the lessons throughout the course of history that us armed patriots have taken note of and point to and respond with “ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.” In death, freedom reigns, under despotism, and even soft tyranny, there is no freedom.
25 August 2010
Street Scanners, Crime Predictors, GPS Tracking: 1984 Has Finally Arrived
Other blogs have been hot all over the story that broke last night about full body scanner technology being downsized and shoved into van sized vehicles for mobile scanning abilities of cars, buses, trucks, or even our homes. The word outrage isn't even strong enough to describe how I personally feel about this blatant violation of 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Refresher: The Bill of Rights is written in simple English, to those who have studied it properly, to understand precisely what our enumerate protections actually are.
Oh yes, you read that correctly. Synopsis: Guy growing weed has GPS tracker placed on his car, in his own driveway in middle of the night by DEA agents who then proceed to "follow" him around, electronically, until he leads them to his pot field. Sounds like sound police work to me. Instead of using good old tail and chase techniques with physical man power, they go high tech and violate his property rights and personal effects. Warrant? We don't need no stikin' warrant!
What is far worse is the mere fact that the 9th Circus AGREED to allow the use of this tactic for this case and all future cases! Yeah, the guy screwed up, was violating the law, but that doesn't mean that the law enforcement agents get to violate the laws meant to protect innocent people from the law enforcers, at least not without prior judicial approval. Don't give me the crap about "not doing anything illegal, you got nothing to worry about," either. This country's heritage is meant to protect innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around. Remember, we work within a system that our founders agreed to that would let 10 guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man. If you don't like that system, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION? Yes, the amendment process is significantly hard. Meaning that there has to be an almost unanimous agreement, for good reason, to prevent a slow take over of tyrannical forces (it's a shame that's forgotten today).
With usurpation like this, can we ever be completely sure that we are free in mind and spirit with big brother watching us or even a small portion of us? As the saying goes, the average American commits at least three felonies a day. (Tip on WSJ onlie: If you want the full article, simply Google the web address). Is it really that far fetched that you could violate some obscure law and then get a shake down from the fuzz? What would some newbie government enforcer, who wishes to rapidly advance through the bureaucratic system, do to us in an effort to bestow great honor upon himself? Will they hassle you into a confession? Charge you with lying to a federal official? Obstruction? Sounds outlandish, but ask yourself, does it? Given how simply crazy stories like this are and how frequently they occur, it's quite possibly in the realm of reality.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Simple enough to understand, even for the laymen or arm chair lawyer. This shit (excuse my French) ain't rocket science! It really should come as no shock that two other major fourth and fifth amendment violations stories are also plastered all over the bandwidths today.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Oh yes, you read that correctly. Synopsis: Guy growing weed has GPS tracker placed on his car, in his own driveway in middle of the night by DEA agents who then proceed to "follow" him around, electronically, until he leads them to his pot field. Sounds like sound police work to me. Instead of using good old tail and chase techniques with physical man power, they go high tech and violate his property rights and personal effects. Warrant? We don't need no stikin' warrant!
What is far worse is the mere fact that the 9th Circus AGREED to allow the use of this tactic for this case and all future cases! Yeah, the guy screwed up, was violating the law, but that doesn't mean that the law enforcement agents get to violate the laws meant to protect innocent people from the law enforcers, at least not without prior judicial approval. Don't give me the crap about "not doing anything illegal, you got nothing to worry about," either. This country's heritage is meant to protect innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around. Remember, we work within a system that our founders agreed to that would let 10 guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man. If you don't like that system, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION? Yes, the amendment process is significantly hard. Meaning that there has to be an almost unanimous agreement, for good reason, to prevent a slow take over of tyrannical forces (it's a shame that's forgotten today).
With usurpation like this, can we ever be completely sure that we are free in mind and spirit with big brother watching us or even a small portion of us? As the saying goes, the average American commits at least three felonies a day. (Tip on WSJ onlie: If you want the full article, simply Google the web address). Is it really that far fetched that you could violate some obscure law and then get a shake down from the fuzz? What would some newbie government enforcer, who wishes to rapidly advance through the bureaucratic system, do to us in an effort to bestow great honor upon himself? Will they hassle you into a confession? Charge you with lying to a federal official? Obstruction? Sounds outlandish, but ask yourself, does it? Given how simply crazy stories like this are and how frequently they occur, it's quite possibly in the realm of reality.
Minority Report comes to real life! Excellent. Again, this is only currently being implimented for "known" criminals, but how can we ever be so sure. Police agencies in major cities across the country have been using closed circuit TV systems to "monitor" for years. Other countries, like England, have tried to pass "pre-crime" laws. What exactly constitutes a pre-crime, and who gets to make that determination? Hell, at least I know that Google is just trying to make a buck with their rover vans and UVA drones for street view and Google Maps. The power of the almighty dollar is more trust worthy than those who serve as the last line of defense that are meant to protect the Republic (read Judges enforcing the rule of law).
It is simply mind numbing to see where we are headed and how we are getting there. When insanity reigns, the psychopath's are considered normal. If that's the case, than please sign me up to be considered a psychopath.
12 August 2010
Electoral College Drop Outs
A news story that flew under the radar two weeks ago was that Massachusetts has now become the sixth state to enact legislation changing how their electoral college votes are cast for the election of the President. Unlike most states that certify their electors based on popular vote within the state, the winner of the national popular vote will get all the votes from the Bay State.
If this seems a little odd to you, it definitely did not pass my smell test. Doing a little further research, it seems my home state has also passed similar legislation. From a 2007 WaPo article, it would appear that Maryland's legislation does not take affect until a majority of states pass and enact similar laws.
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, aforementioned Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts are the states that have enacted this law. These states total 61 votes of the electoral college, where there are a total of 538 possible votes. Investigating further, I turned up a link from the CBS article to an organization that is pushing for legislation in every state in the union. In addition to the six states with laws enacted we can follow this breakdown:
Continuing to dig around on this website (which I refuse to give publication for), yields a free book published by a who's who of those who have taught at Standford, run law firms, are for Obamacare, have run financial institutions, as well as others who are "independents" and malcontents that do not understand the inner workings of our Constitution.
They claim that "one man" should have "one vote," which is how the current electoral college system works. If it isn't known to the American populace, our Republic's charter is meant to provide a balance of power. It is meant to prevent any one group from wielding too much power against those who do not possess power. In other words, the Constitution is meant to prevent tyranny and hence the reason why the founders conceived the electoral college system. The electoral college system is also meant to preserve power across the several states, and ensure each state has an equal ear of the Presidential Candidates and the POTUS himself. Our founders wanted to make sure that Presidential candidates didn't migrate to every major metropolis, ignoring the rural parts of the country in an effort to garnish the majority of the popular vote.
If every state were to have this popular vote legislation, all that would be nessecary to win is to campaign in every major city and win solid majorities from those cities. I've seen this before where in theory, 49 states can elect one president, yet if one state has the right turnout in a popular vote situation, the one state can overrule 49 of their peers. For instance, without the protections of the electoral college, every state in the nation can vote for candidate A who wins by 500 votes giving him a 24,500 vote lead going into the final state. Let us assume the final state is California where candidate B wins in a state landslide by 24,501 votes. In that instance, Candidate B would win the plurality of votes for the entire nation in the popular election by one. Candidate B would have only won, one state's support. Doesn't seem how our Federal Republic is supposed to be run, at least to this individual.
Those in this group clam to be creating more "individual freedom" which usually would be an admirable campaign. Don't be fooled, it is simply a ruse! Presidential popular vote agendas are nothing more than an effort to undermine the Constitution and it's safeguards. This group willingly wishes to destroy the inherent protections afford to the people that our founders created. Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution where they know they would never succeed, this group instead attacks the states whom have sympathetic ears. Obviously, this is one blogger that is onto their shenanigans and doesn't appreciate their plot to tear apart the parchment paper we hold so dear.
If this seems a little odd to you, it definitely did not pass my smell test. Doing a little further research, it seems my home state has also passed similar legislation. From a 2007 WaPo article, it would appear that Maryland's legislation does not take affect until a majority of states pass and enact similar laws.
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, aforementioned Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts are the states that have enacted this law. These states total 61 votes of the electoral college, where there are a total of 538 possible votes. Investigating further, I turned up a link from the CBS article to an organization that is pushing for legislation in every state in the union. In addition to the six states with laws enacted we can follow this breakdown:
- 4 States have passed legislation by both houses
- 10 states have passed by one house
- 9 states have passed 1 committee
- 11 states have held hearings
- and 11 other states have had bills introduced
- 50 states and DC with bills
Continuing to dig around on this website (which I refuse to give publication for), yields a free book published by a who's who of those who have taught at Standford, run law firms, are for Obamacare, have run financial institutions, as well as others who are "independents" and malcontents that do not understand the inner workings of our Constitution.
They claim that "one man" should have "one vote," which is how the current electoral college system works. If it isn't known to the American populace, our Republic's charter is meant to provide a balance of power. It is meant to prevent any one group from wielding too much power against those who do not possess power. In other words, the Constitution is meant to prevent tyranny and hence the reason why the founders conceived the electoral college system. The electoral college system is also meant to preserve power across the several states, and ensure each state has an equal ear of the Presidential Candidates and the POTUS himself. Our founders wanted to make sure that Presidential candidates didn't migrate to every major metropolis, ignoring the rural parts of the country in an effort to garnish the majority of the popular vote.
If every state were to have this popular vote legislation, all that would be nessecary to win is to campaign in every major city and win solid majorities from those cities. I've seen this before where in theory, 49 states can elect one president, yet if one state has the right turnout in a popular vote situation, the one state can overrule 49 of their peers. For instance, without the protections of the electoral college, every state in the nation can vote for candidate A who wins by 500 votes giving him a 24,500 vote lead going into the final state. Let us assume the final state is California where candidate B wins in a state landslide by 24,501 votes. In that instance, Candidate B would win the plurality of votes for the entire nation in the popular election by one. Candidate B would have only won, one state's support. Doesn't seem how our Federal Republic is supposed to be run, at least to this individual.
Those in this group clam to be creating more "individual freedom" which usually would be an admirable campaign. Don't be fooled, it is simply a ruse! Presidential popular vote agendas are nothing more than an effort to undermine the Constitution and it's safeguards. This group willingly wishes to destroy the inherent protections afford to the people that our founders created. Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution where they know they would never succeed, this group instead attacks the states whom have sympathetic ears. Obviously, this is one blogger that is onto their shenanigans and doesn't appreciate their plot to tear apart the parchment paper we hold so dear.
25 July 2010
Hazard Co. Prosecutor Seeks 16 years for Illegal Wire Taping?
A few months ago, a Maryland Air National Guardsmen was driving his motorcycle on I95 above the posted speed limit and in a manner not necessarily legal. That was just the beginning for staff sergeant Anthony Graber, who also happened to be filming the incident with a video camera mounted on top of his helmet.
As seen on the link provided and explained in detail by ABC News, Graber never did anything seriously wrong, until he became the unwilling victim of Maryland's egregious wiretapping law. In this non-free state, it is perfectly acceptable for the police to film your actions from within their police cruiser, but if you so happen to record their spoken speech, you are guilty for not having two party consent. Never mind that any police officer is a public official, doing a job on the citizens dime, in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy that would be a conversation carried over a "wire" or "wave."
I used to have some respect for the Harford County States Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly, but this is just a ridiculous abuse of the law and the power of the prosecutor's office. So much for the 4th Amendment in Maryland! Just make sure that if you get pulled over, before the officer speaks to you and you are recording, notify him/her that you know you're on their camera, make them aware that they are on yours.
As seen on the link provided and explained in detail by ABC News, Graber never did anything seriously wrong, until he became the unwilling victim of Maryland's egregious wiretapping law. In this non-free state, it is perfectly acceptable for the police to film your actions from within their police cruiser, but if you so happen to record their spoken speech, you are guilty for not having two party consent. Never mind that any police officer is a public official, doing a job on the citizens dime, in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy that would be a conversation carried over a "wire" or "wave."
I used to have some respect for the Harford County States Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly, but this is just a ridiculous abuse of the law and the power of the prosecutor's office. So much for the 4th Amendment in Maryland! Just make sure that if you get pulled over, before the officer speaks to you and you are recording, notify him/her that you know you're on their camera, make them aware that they are on yours.
20 July 2010
Run Fat Boy!
First, they record our body mass index, then they give us a mandate. Oh yes, here come the first waves of needless health care regulation of the Country Class. Or, if you're the power hungry Washington bureaucrat, just another justification for more power over the "stupid serfs."
I suppose that I should take up running again, only so I stay off one more government watch list.
I suppose that I should take up running again, only so I stay off one more government watch list.
Go Forth and Educate: Our Ruling Elites
Codevilla does a better job at explain in more detail, the thoughts and substance I was trying to convey in my Cojones in Politics post from the same day.
While I hate to keep referencing 1984 over and over again, the truth is that the plot line is ever present in today's Washington. Instead of dividing the nation into three different classes of people, the high, middle, and low, Codevilla's piece divides them into just two; The Ruling Elite Class and the Country Class.
The distinction is quite simple between the two. The Elites want nothing but power, and look down upon those who don't have it. Like I discussed on Friday, the two parties are really one in the same, using their opposition of one another for mutual beneficial distraction of the masses. Those who belong to the Country Class, have a severe lack of connection to the Ruling Elites, and for the most part, despise everything associated with their hellbent power grab. A distinction between Codevilla's article and Orwell's book however is that those who follow the ruling elites are members of the party themselves; i.e. if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Find yourself a good 30 minutes to dig into the meat of this article, as it is well worth the read.
While I hate to keep referencing 1984 over and over again, the truth is that the plot line is ever present in today's Washington. Instead of dividing the nation into three different classes of people, the high, middle, and low, Codevilla's piece divides them into just two; The Ruling Elite Class and the Country Class.
The distinction is quite simple between the two. The Elites want nothing but power, and look down upon those who don't have it. Like I discussed on Friday, the two parties are really one in the same, using their opposition of one another for mutual beneficial distraction of the masses. Those who belong to the Country Class, have a severe lack of connection to the Ruling Elites, and for the most part, despise everything associated with their hellbent power grab. A distinction between Codevilla's article and Orwell's book however is that those who follow the ruling elites are members of the party themselves; i.e. if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Find yourself a good 30 minutes to dig into the meat of this article, as it is well worth the read.
06 July 2010
Independence Day Passes, Tyranny Abounds
Fellow blogger and friend falnfenix sent this link to me today. It is a list of 50, not so, absurd items that are news stories I've followed through various channels over the past 6 months. Some were new to me. Of course, you won't see them on the Six O'Clock "news."
Each fact has the original news story linked in the item and probably deserves a post unto itself. What are the highlights from Michael Snyder's column?
#50) A new report released by the United Nations is publicly calling for the establishment of a world currency and none of the major news networks are even covering it. (Happened just last week, and went completely unnoticed).
#27) Federal border officials recently said that Mexican drug cartels have not only set up shop on American soil, they are actually maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona.
#26) The U.S. government has declared some parts of Arizona off limits to U.S. citizens because of the threat of violence from Mexican drug smugglers.
#22) Four of the biggest U.S. banks (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup) had a "perfect quarter" with zero days of trading losses during the first quarter of 2010.
#14) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement.
#6) The total of all government, corporate and consumer debt in the United States is now about 360 percent of GDP.
Take a look and see how smart, or informed you are. I'd say, without scientific reporting, I recognized just over half of the related news stories in the link, and I consider myself well read. GO FORTH AND EDUCATE young champions of liberty!
Each fact has the original news story linked in the item and probably deserves a post unto itself. What are the highlights from Michael Snyder's column?
#50) A new report released by the United Nations is publicly calling for the establishment of a world currency and none of the major news networks are even covering it. (Happened just last week, and went completely unnoticed).
#27) Federal border officials recently said that Mexican drug cartels have not only set up shop on American soil, they are actually maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona.
#26) The U.S. government has declared some parts of Arizona off limits to U.S. citizens because of the threat of violence from Mexican drug smugglers.
#22) Four of the biggest U.S. banks (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup) had a "perfect quarter" with zero days of trading losses during the first quarter of 2010.
#14) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement.
#6) The total of all government, corporate and consumer debt in the United States is now about 360 percent of GDP.
Take a look and see how smart, or informed you are. I'd say, without scientific reporting, I recognized just over half of the related news stories in the link, and I consider myself well read. GO FORTH AND EDUCATE young champions of liberty!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)