Tag Archives: freedom

Alexander Lovett, My Veterans Day Celebration

11 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In honor of Veterans Day I write in memory of my father’s father’s grandfather, Alexander Lovett. This ordinary yet exceptional American fought and suffered nobly for his country and his family.

Genealogy is not a hobby of mine. As a result, I am woefully short on specific information for this story. My apologies. I presume this will not dampen the experience here.

Veterans Day began in 1919 to commemorate the ending of America’s inexplicable involvement in the first chapter of Europe’s great civil war, World War I, on November 11, 1918. Originally, the day was Armistice Day. In 1954 it became Veterans Day.

I claim numerous relatives who fought in just about every American war. My father’s father, for example, was a Marine during WWI. He survived the Battle of Belleau Wood. I would not expect younger readers or those formerly interred in government schools to know of  this battle. Few, too, know much about the American “Civil War,” which wasn’t. A civil war is where two or more factions wrest for control of a nation or national government. The Southern states no more wanted to control Washington than they did Paris.

I honesty refer to it as the Southern Revolution or, simply, the War Between The States. It was in this romantic yet senseless conflict that Alexander Lovett served as a foot soldier for the Confederate States Army.

Private_Edwin_Francis_Jemison

Young Confederate Soldier, not Alexander. Google.

In the 1930s the U.S. government recognized Confederate Veterans as American veterans and hero’s. Alexander never claimed to be a hero though he was a proud veteran.

His service was as mundane as any. I do not know if he volunteered or if he was drafted after 1862.

I do know where he ended up. Sometime during the war he was captured and held as a POW at Rock Island, Illinois. He was one of more than 12,000 Confederate prisoners held there during the war. Nearly 2,000 did not leave alive, being buried on the grounds.

The conditions of the facility and the treatment of the prisoners was deplorable. If I ever visit the site I intend to at least spit on it.

When the war ended the men were simply shown to the street – “free” to go where they would. Like the rest Alexander was forced to walk home – to Georgia! The journey lasted many months. Upon his arrival home he weighed less than 90 pounds (being a man of average stature at the time).

Many men never made it home. Many died during the trip of starvation and exposure.

Alexander never talked much (that I am aware of) about either his prison torture or his service. He simply resumed his daily life in rural Georgia.

Veterans Day is, these days, another excuse to celebrate all things military. That really means celebrating (worshipping, maybe) the glorious state. That I cannot abide. The state is evil incarnate, to be cursed and shunned by the free. Instead, I choose to remember individuals who did their part, in noble fashion, for the cause, right or wrong.

There would be no veterans without war. There would be no war without government. Remember that. It is important to accord proper respect to men who sacrificed. A few of these men fought, some dying, for freedom. Men like Alexander Lovett. Praise to them. To hell with the system which sacrifices them.

Happy Veterans Day.

Remove Your Belt, Shoes, and Freedom

07 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Remove Your Belt, Shoes, and Freedom

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Remember when flying was fun? Neither do I, unless it was far away in the excitement of childhood. Since 9/11 I have flown commercial as little as possible and not once in the past 5 years.

I’m not worried about “terrorists.” I worry about the government. All of the new security theater makes me feel quite unsafe. It’s a personal thing and it goes beyond my general disdain for a system that treats citizens like criminals and criminals like heroes.

Short trip? I drive. Long trip? I drive. Boston isn’t that far away. One thousand miles can be done in a day or so and, as a bonus, when I arrive I don’t have to rent a car!

Where was I? Tragedy, yes. Hundreds are dead following the crash of a Russian airliner in the Sinai. The sh!threads at ISIS have claimed responsibility. Terrorists and politicians always claim responsibility, true or no. The facts are few, the speculation wild.

Assuming the crash was actually terror related, our true friends at the TSSA have pondered even more acts in their play pretend airport screening processes.

None of this will bother me as I cruise the mountains on I-81, good coffee, gun and cigar all at the ready. It does weigh on my libertine sensibility and common sense. And, I feel for the flying public, complacent as most may be. I also felt bad for the little pigs in the straw and twig houses.

The Fatherland Security crowd is touting new measures both “seen and unseen.” You will see the burly agent molest the pretty college girl at the metal detector. You won’t see his friends rummage through your bags in search of pawn-worthy merchandise.

A DHS official, who asked not to be identified because he’s not authorized to expand on the secretary’s statement, said the new measures would be phased in as quickly as possible.

“This is all within TSA’s capabilities, within their power, within their authorities and resources,” the official said.

…

“Obviously we could dial it all the way up and say you can’t bring anything at all in your carry-on, but that’s not workable, and it’s going to make everyone very angry,” the official said.

Not everyone would be angry. Sheep never seem angry. I wouldn’t be the least bit miffed, at the rest area outside of Jacksonville. As for the flyers, why not have them all travel bagless and nude? This would certainly reduce the likelihood of a bomb being brought onboard and it would make the co-eds much more accessible for groping.

19475_TSA_Frisks_Little_TerroristFight’n Tha Tarh-ists. Google.

Here’s the rub. This rank speculation centers on an incident involving a Russian, not American, plane in the Middle East, not the Midwest. It’s, for alarmist sake, being presupposed the work of ISIS. No real facts yet, if you recall. But, let us assume, for a moment, it’s all truth.

The facts about ISIS are known. That club was founded, funded, trained and supported by the CIA and other American alphabet outfits – all with your taxes. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having fizzled and the Banksters and the MIC needing new profits, ISIS was developed in order to stir the pots in places like Syria and Libya.

So, bases on our assumption, the TSSA is plotting more restrictions on you based on something done by the CIA. Tell me again of the wonders of government. This is a page straight out of Hitler’s playbook: a series of false flag operations to start wars and simultaneously subdue the home folk. It’s a proven plan.

My plan also works. The TSSA has yet, YET, to interrupt my weekend road trip to Winston-Salem. If and when they do, I advise them to bring ISIS along for support. They’ll need it.

On a completely unrelated note: this posting was field both by my demented imagination and failing intellect and by coffee and a Gurkha Reserve 6×60. What a great smoke! Smooth, strong and well constructed. The cigar set will appreciate my fortitude in this undertaking pre breakfast.

Cheers!

Mark of the Beast?

02 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Mark of the Beast?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I do not like the Book of Revelation. Rather, I am not fond of the modern “rapture” interpretation of the text. “Rapture” appears nowhere in the Book and the John Hagee telling (gleefully alarmist) is at odds with Christ’s admonishment about the end.

Revelation is the written account of a dream by John. We’re not even sure which John it was. Most say Saint John the Apostle. It is perhaps the vaguest part of the Bible.

That being said I came across a news story which eerily reminded me of the mark of the beast of Revelation fame.

In its never-ending quest for relevance or dominance the United Nations has released a plan to biometrically track all humans on planet Earth by 2030. I suppose that means a tracking chip implant.

To achieve this Satanic goal in America the UN would need Congress to pass an implementation treaty or law. Don’t think they wouldn’t do it. They too have plans to command and control everything and everyone.

Should this become the law of our land I ask my conservative law and order friends if they will obey. Will you? I will not.

At some point will a universal biometric ID be required for everyone, including you and your family?

And what would happen if you refused to take it?

I could definitely foresee a day when not having “legal identification” would disqualify you from holding a job, getting a new bank account, applying for a credit card, qualifying for a mortgage, receiving any form of government payments, etc. etc.

At that point, anyone that refused to take a “universal ID” would become an outcast from society.

  • Michael Snyder

What would happen if you refuse? I intend to find out. I am not a box for UPS to track. Already I chaff under my own government’s “identification” schemes. A UN 666 chip is where I will draw a line. A line of sight on a blue helmet if necessary.

UN_helmet-bullet-holes-paranoid-republicans

Need be? Google.

Your freedom ranks up there with your health and your happiness. They are all bound together. Always be conscious some want, at all times, to eliminate them.

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms).  Part of this is reasonable.  Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Caution Sign Isolated On White - Political Corruption Ahead

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects.  Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before.  I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane.  So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof.  If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

An Empire Not A Corporation

29 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on An Empire Not A Corporation

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pat Buchanan wrote a great book – A Republic Not An Empire, (2002). I wrote this piece to answer something which troubled me from time to time. There is a theory out there in internet-land the United States is a giant corporation. It’s based on the same whimsical thinking that drives lottery sales and horoscopes.

Contrary to what you may read on Facebook the United States is not a corporation. Your birth certificate is not a stock certificate. You will not get rich by cashing in on the national debt. You might go to prison or worse but no money will come of it.

I’ve seen this enough to respond. It’s really a minor issue but I thought I should address it. I see the posts on Facebook from time to time. Posts like this:

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation.

“The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation.Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.”

I did look at the law; not what it says or means. The mis-cited law only has to do with the government hiring attorneys for debt collection and similar purposes. See: 28 USC 3002. Boring, yes; Constitution shattering, no.

The theory also revolves around The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419 (1871). Yet, all this law did was regulate the governance of the District of Columbia. Such is one of the very few explicit powers granted Congress by the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8, CLS. 17.

Never have I met anyone in person who openly espoused this theory. And, I visit with quite a few conspiracy theorists. Should you meet such a person, humor them – unless they try to involve you in a scheme to collect on your shares or something. That road leads to prison or the poorhouse.

TinFoilHatArea

It’s a scam. Google.

Here’s a more in-depth look at the claim: Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, The Daily Render, 2009. That’s really not worth reading and not worth quoting. It does shed light on the theory though. Why conceive of such fancy?

It seems simple. We do face some major problems today with “our” government. The theorists posit the U.S., in a state of disarray, bankrupted itself out of existence. In the place of the old republic those 19th Century geniuses left us with a national corporation. You, by birth, are a stock holder citizen and entitled to some vast sum of money based on the current national debt.

While the root rests on some disturbing truth, the rest is rubbish.

Some people really believe all of this. Part of the faith comes from a real realization that something is fundamentally wrong with America today. Part is based on tv-induced naivety and ignorance. Part on greed

This does not make sense economically. In order to cash in your “stock” – if everyone did, the only solution would be to print so much more funny money the currency would be worthless. So much for your shares. This fanciful belief makes the real problem even worse.

Let me briefly explain what the U.S. really is. The nation, following the too good success of the loose Confederation, was formed into a Constitutional Republic. Allegedly the rights of the free people were protected and the powers of the new government limited. Somewhere we fell off the wagon and those ideas were reversed. Both the authorities and the people were corrupted.

Today, the Constitution is an ignored artifact stuck away in a museum. Buchanan’s book aside the U.S. has degenerated into Empire, now approaching the late stages thereof. It’s an Empire without an emperor. Specifically, the political power is uneasilly split between ochlocracy (mob rule) and oligarchy (rule by the elite). The elite keeps the mob happy with handouts and spectacles and the mob keeps re-electing the elite. Cozy if crazy.

I’ve said before this country has owners – banks, insurance companies, and other well-connected entities. But their ownership is less like a corporation and more like a plantation. The mob plays the part of the slaves, stupidly trading their sacred freedom for false security and debased entertainment.

What to do? The corporate angle is too good to be true. Don’t believe it. Instead, believe in yourself and put your faith in a Higher Power. Whatever its form, if enough of us ignore the government long enough, it will go away.

The People

24 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Down along the left-hand side of this article and all others on my site a reader will find a list of words. Seventy-five words to be exact. These are the most popular descriptive terms or “tags” found here at the blog. I recently increased the number from 50.

You, dear reader, may have noticed some of those terms are larger, others smaller. The larger the word the more times it has appeared in my writing here. Should you click on one, all the columns featuring that term will pop up. No, these terms do not appear on the simplified mobile version of perrinlovett.me. If you’re on your phone just scroll to the very bottom of this page and click on the regular web tab.

Of the larger search terms one of the biggest is “The People.” I mention these mysterious folk on a very regular basis, especially in my legal and political works (the majority). Who, exactly, are “the people?”

Well, when I put them in a column I usually have two meanings. One is prominent, primary. The other is a bit more subtle and deployed less frequently.

The first and most common usage refers to you, my readers. You and like-minded people everywhere. This site is admittedly Amerocentric. “America” is another of the largest words on my list. I happen to live amidst the ruins of the Old Republic. Many or most of my stories concern the U.S. though “The West” is also a frequent topic. I am concerned with that heritage descended of the Romans, the Greeks and the English.

I also often conjoin “people” with “free.” These are people who live in an idyllic world of liberty, the kind still romanticized by American conservatives. Others live in otherwise unfree settings but personally choose to live free. Sometimes we call ourselves anarchists. Believe it or not, this lifestyle is easier than one would imagine.

All you have to do is live in peace, largely ignore popular culture, and beware of the authorities when necessary. Sometimes playing along and humoring the stupidity of the state goes a long way. It can also be a fun game.

I digress.

The free people live in harmony with others or at least try to. They work and mind their own business. They are folks you would want as neighbors. However, they are generally the most aggrieved victims of government aggression. They are expected to shut up, pay the taxes, obey the rules, and pull the load for society.

Great is my sympathy for free people wherever they may be. Without them the horror stories I explore here would be all too appropriate. Without them my regular references to Natural Law would have no context. They live the ideals of Western Civilization. Sometimes they stumble but they are on the right path.

The other group I sometimes delve into are of an opposite disposition. Lacking most individuality and fortitude, they go along with the herd, right or wrong. Whereas the former crowd is concerned with truth and the eternal, the latter is obsessed with the here, the now, and the easy.

Paul Craig Roberts once referred to these folks, domestically, as “the shit stupid American people.” A bit cruel perhaps but generally accurate.

They are the majority – always accepting and seeking out fair masters. The free and independent minded are a small sect indeed.

For these miserable many I express scorn or weary tolerance rather than empathic support. You can always tell the difference. I use descriptive words like “masses,” “zombies,” “fools,” “sheep” and so forth. Like Roberts’s, my labels fit if uncomfortably.

I truly bear them no ill will unless or until their pitiful, unthinking indifference affects me and mine. It is my desire, in addition to informing and entertaining you, to wake these sloths from their collectivist sleep. I wish them happy freedom.

For most freedom is a frightening idea. Along with the loss of annoying management comes the loss of perceived security. Said security is always false. But, it is, apparently, very difficult to shake off.

So, there you have it. If you have made it to this end of the article you likely belong among the true and the free. If, by odd chance you are, ashamedly, of the other variety, then join us! It is really better over here.

swad1g1xmyolckwhxvev

W. Wallace understood the difference. Google.

Free Speech Free Zones

24 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Free Speech Free Zones

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A long time ago the government pretended its constraint under the Constitution. It was to be neutral regarding religion. It supposedly did not treat the people like criminals unless they actually were. It begrudgingly consented to the armament of the citizenry. It allegedly allowed people to voice their opinions, even if the expressed notions were unpopular. Those days are behind us.

Today there remains but a paper pretense of freedom in America.

A Colorado judge just ruled that a political Facebook post was impermissible “free” speech.

A state judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate.

In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common’s principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an “excellent education leader” who would provide “sensible stewardship” of Thompson.

Nick Coltrain, The Coloradoan, Oct. 22, 2015.

The judge said the violation was “minor,” but that [T]he school’s action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity…”

A Colorado law professor, one Scott Moss, was rightly alarmed by the ruling: “I don’t buy that under the First Amendment speech about a candidate can be deemed a contribution … Is speech valuable? Yes. But that’s not a basis for restricting core political speech.”

Naturally speaking, the good professor is correct. Legally and politically, he would have been correct in the former United States. Not today. Not in modern Colorado. Not in modern, post-Constitutional America.

I warned of this in postings prior. The particular judge in this case was likely just doing his job.  Rather than being a “judicial activist,” he was simply carrying out a bad law. Bad governments enact bad laws, historically. As governments all become debased, the outcome is always the same – the people are stifled. In a representative government this usually occurs at the people’s bidding. Odd, yes. Whatever Colorado election law rests at the heart of this ruling likely mirrors current federal law in spirit and/or form.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“The McCain–Feingold Act”), Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. and blah, blah, blah (effective January 1, 2003) set new limits on political speech.  This First Amendment nullifier was the brainchild of Republican Senator John McCain and signed into “law” by Republican idiot George W. Bush (who, at the time, admitted he did not understand what he was signing).

The Supreme Court later upheld the speech crushing effects of the Act in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).  The gist of the opinion was that as the issues were political in nature and the two political branches had approved, the Court would simply defer to the esteemed wisdom of Congress and the White House.  They seem to forget all about the rights of the People and that thing … the um … the Constitution maybe? Whatever…

In his raging dissent Justice Scalia noted that modern elections were already so complex that only the well-connected and well-funded were safe to engage in them with any hope of success. He blasted the Act as limiting the speech of the people – their only remaining tangible connection to the process. So long as they comply with the Byzantine laws, the moneyed interests are free to support any candidate they choose. The little people, usually poor financially and in legal knowledge are now constrained to even voice political support.  Scalia noted that of all free speech political speech is the most important in a free society.

Of course, this might matter if we still were a free society.  We are not. Fred Reed succinctly nailed down the problem as to the political:

Democratic? As Stalin had show trials, America has show elections. These serve to distract the public while keeping them away from issues of importance. Who do you vote for if you want to end the wars, halve the military budget, end affirmative action, get the government out of family life, control criminal minorities who burn cities, and slap down NSA?

Fred Reed. Emphasis mine.

I love Reed’s work.  This particular gem of an article concerns more than just electoral politics – it explains the pitiful state of thinking (or lack thereof) across the whole American landscape.

2820722052_34312f65a5

About the half of it.  Google.

Election season is once again upon us.  It’s always election season it seems. Daily, I see many of you voicing support for this or that candidate on Facebook and elsewhere. Be careful what you say lest you commit the “minor” violation of free speech.  Me, I need not worry.  I never support any candidate. I support freedom.

 

 

 

A Dichotomy Of Arms

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A man in Wyoming was out riding his bicycle. According to him he was attacked by a vicious German Shepherd (Belgian Malinois). Fearing for his life he shot the dog to death with his trusty revolver. It’s a story you may have missed. It only made the news because the dog in question was a former military service dog, a Bronze Star recipient, no less. I find the story interesting because it sheds light on a schism amongst the American people.

Mike was a nine year old dog who previously served two combat tours in Iraq. Upon his retirement Mike was adopted by Matthew Bessler, a retired Army Ranger. Both veterans suffered from PTSD; they provided each other with beneficial companionship.

Bessler went hunting. He left Mike in the care of a friend. Mike wandered off and encountered the cyclist – with deadly results. There, the news story ends.

The cyclist was not charged, his use of deadly force deemed by police to be justifiable self-defense. A GoFundMe page has been set up in order to provide Mike with a military burial.

A sub-controversey surrounds the fact the lethal shot hit Mike in the rear or back. I discount this factor. Attacking dogs move very fast. Shooting scenarios move fast too. A shot in the back does not, by itself, disqualify self-defense, especially concerning an animal. The old, false adage that retreat is better if possible is dangerous when one crosses a predatory animal. Withdrawal might trigger a chase or hunt instinct which could be worse than the initial confrontation. Like everyone else, I was not present and I can only go by the shooter’s account, tempered by reasoned thinking.

On the surface I find this story sad all the way around. I regret Mike’s death. I regret the cyclist felt his life was endangered to the point of resorting to shooting. I’m sorry Mike and Bessler suffered PTSD. I’m sorry their conditions were the results of the government’s inexplicable and indefensible war in Iraq. It’s terrible some think we need that government.

2D7F373900000578-3277028-image-m-6_1445086822138

Mike, another victim of the State. Daily Mail, UK.

Based on the bare facts reported by the (British) press, I support the cyclist’s account of the incident and his use of force. I can see a dog with PTSD (even if usually docile) becoming aggressive around a stranger. It happens.

I also hold Mike blameless. Even a vicious, dangerous animal is still just that, an animal. Mike was utterly blameless, too, regarding his military service and resulting illness. A human soldier with a conscious can object to illegal wars of aggression. A dog can’t.

Any blame here rests with the friend who was supposed to watch Mike. Large dogs should be leashed or fenced. Maybe there is no one to blame. Mike could have escaped a reasonable containment. Dogs do things like that. Maybe this was just a bad thing that happened – like a tornado or a freak accident.

At any rate, all of this is merely supporting background for my story. I noticed themes in the comments which accompanied the news which, upon further consideration, formed my titular dichotomy.

There were hundreds of comments which roughly divided into two camps. The first was supportive of the cyclist. They found the shooting justified. Most of these also held a pro Second Amendment bias. The other group was mortally offended at the death of a military hero, albeit a dog.

The former group fully supported the individual right of self preservation even if they found Mike’s death lamentable as I do. The latter hold the shooting of a military veteran indefensible under any circumstance.

There were a few other reactions. Some found the existence of the subject firearm the problem. I suppose some might hate bicycles or hate dogs. These opinions are outliers and safely factor out of my analysis.

Some pro-shooter comments:

Should have been on a leash.

…

Too bad for the dog but most communities have leash laws for a reason…and yes, many joggers and bicyclists are bitten by uncontrolled dogs, that’s why pepper spray is a good idea.

…

“Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said: ‘Essentially, if you feel your life is in danger or threatened by an animal, you can act against it.’ Exactly

Pro military, no matter what:

Sounds like another Democrat got there hand’s on a gun !!

…

this cyclist had no business killing this dog. Charges should be brought against him immediately.

…

I would not blame or feel bad at all and I would even back the dog owner if he wanted to take fatal retaliation against the cyclist. It is just. What the hell is wrong with people that want to kill a dog like that…This soldier has one more mission to accomplish! …huh rah!

…

I hope the shooter gets hit by a car and suffers a long painful death

These views show a division between otherwise aligned interests. Most of the folks are likely “conservative” by political philosophy, perhaps a few libertarian. “Liberals” would abhor the gun itself.

I see this as a difference of opinion between “red staters.” I suspect the majority of both sides generally support the carrying of individual arms. Both likely support justifiable self-defense. Here’s the division: the first group seems to support self-defense regardless of the aggressors status. They find a man free to act when illegally threatened. Period. I’ll call these the people “freedom lovers.” The others support self-defense unless the aggressor is a member of the hallowed legions of the state. I’ll call them “government lovers.”

The government lovers are more extreme. Not only do they want the cyclist prosecuted, they want him dead – by a “long painful death” – for a situation they did not witness. But, to them, the facts do not matter. They are more worshipers than mere lovers of the state. The government and its uniformed agents (even dog agents) must not be challenged – ever.

The worship of the state may be increasingly seen in American churches, particularly Evangelical protestant churches. Government has seemingly replaced God for many. Much of this stems from an overzealous but false interpretation of Romans 13. Paul was only speaking to legitimate state authority – authority not acting against God’s Natural Law.

The Nazis, acting under Hitler’s “legal” orders, carried out the murder of dissidents and other war crimes. Were these too God-sanctioned acts of official authority? I think not.

The statists see it otherwise – at least concerning the American government.

If American soldiers kill innocents overseas, regardless of conditions, it’s acceptable collateral damage. If the police shoot a dog it’s okay, even if the police are breaking their own laws during the shooting. The same standard applies to police shootings of innocent civilians. No matter the cause, no matter the circumstance, the government is never at fault.

In the odd event the government is at odds with one of its servants the lovers will throw the individual under the bus without thought or hesitation. The false god of the almighty state suffers NO challenge.

This highlights both a disdain for individuality and a lack of logic among the parishioners of official authority.

For those of us who value freedom over safety this dichotomy and this particular example illustrates both a dire problem and a hazardous solution for liberty. It reminds me, for some reason, of the Melian Dialogue (with a twist).

A bit of archaic history: In 416 B.C. Athens was perhaps the most powerful military force in the known ancient world. The Athenians sought to subjugate the small, peaceful island state of Melos. The Athenian navy arrived at Melos. The dialogue went something like this:

Athens: “Surrender and join us.”

Melos: “No.”

The Athenians then proceeded to exterminate the Melians and seize their island.

download

Ruins of Melos. Google.

Many in the freedom camp rightfully seek to resist the evil of the modern state. However, as to outright martial confrontation, they see no hope. Maybe they are right. The American military and police state is almost powerful beyond measure. Outright rebellion would be almost impossible.

It may though be possible to indirectly oppose state oppression. An individual might be able to resist a single agent of the state and legally get away with it. Such resistance is still fraught with gravest danger. After such an incident the individual will be faced with resentment and hatred of the government’s unthinking masses. Hatred to the point of murder in revenge.

A safer if slower strategy might be to seek out those of the opposing camp and convert them to the truth of freedom. If they can think and reason this may be possible. They can be armed without an army. They can be safe and secure absent official structure. They can act as individuals. They can regard God as God and alone the Supreme source of authority.

All of this is open for consideration. What say you?

 

Five Easy Steps To Start a Civil War

07 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Five Easy Steps To Start a Civil War

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Austin Bragg wrote a hilarious satirical essay over at Reason: How to Create a [Individually-owned] Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps: Guns – and the Second Amendment – won’t just disappear. There’s a video too.

The last part of Step 5 gets to the problem:

The rest you have to take.

You’ll need the police, the FBI, the ATF or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed individuals. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

Or, we could just have freedom.

Murder Inequality

04 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Murder Inequality

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are all murders equal?  The short answer is, “yes.”  All human killing in general is bad enough.  Premeditated and unjustifiable killing is utterly deplorable whenever and wherever it happens.  Most people understand the concept.  Most, that is, except for the rodent political class.

The shooter in the Oregon community college rampage last week, Christopher Harper Mercer (an anti-Christian lunatic and loser), had barely been identified before President Obama embarked on a twelve-minute oration as much against American guns laws as against the tragedy itself:

“I would ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws and to save lives, and to let young people grow up. That will require a change of politics on this issue,” he said. “If you think this is a problem then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views.”

Shut up, Barry.  Pay attention to the beam in your eye first.  How about first condemning your hospital bombing in Kundez, Afghanistan this weekend.  You know, the bombing so many are saying amounts to a war crime.

Nineteen are dead and 37 or more injured in the bombing (don’t forget the Afghan war ended last year…) and all the Whitehouse can do is issue a short statement:  “‘The Department of Defense has launched a full investigation, and we will await the results of that inquiry before making a definitive judgment as to the circumstances of this tragedy,’ the President said.”

When it is politically expedient to exploit a domestic terror the political class immediately demands action.  However, when they are responsible for the deaths, they want to wait before making any judgments.  When some idiot murders another, they want to take away all of our guns.  When they are the idiots who murder others, it’s just collateral damage.  “Oops!  Sorry we burned your kids alive.  Won’t happen again.”

Again, most people see this glaring difference and inequity.  Again, the pols just can’t.  Their cover-up artists in the popular press can’t either.  The best CNN can do combining the issues of gun violence and war/terrorism is to release a graph showing a disparity between the number of Americans killed between 2001 and 2013 by guns (406,496) and by terrorism (3,380).  Their slant is obviously towards the Obama-ite view of changing gun laws and further restricting the freedoms of normal Americans.

Four hundred thousand deaths (taking their numbers for granted) in twelve years is terrible – that’s roughly 33,333 deaths per year.  But, statistically speaking and with an eye towards liberty, what about the net effect?  The government criminals and their media lackeys never talk about lives saved by guns.  In America every year that number approaches somewhere close to 2.5 Million.  That’s 30 Million lives saved by guns over twelve years!  That’s 75 times as many lives saved as lost due to firearms.

Little of this matters to those degenerates who bomb hospitals full of helpless people.  The rest of us are painfully aware that (although imperfect) an armed society is much safer than the alternative (see also the experiences of disarmed citizens faced with the likes of Hitler and Stalin).  Least safe of all is an armed government.  Yes, Barry, we need policy changes.  We need common sense government control.  Many lives depend on it.