Tag Archives: H.L. Mencken

Pay to Play Legislation

05 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Pay to Play Legislation

Tags

, , , , , ,

Bribery, in other words. This is how it works. This is “your” system. I’m a little surprised that some people are shocked to discover it just now.

Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks.

Disguised as the work of lawmakers, these so-called “model” bills get copied in one state Capitol after another, quietly advancing the agenda of the people who write them.

A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic  and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation.

USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.

The investigation examined nearly 1 million bills in all 50 states and Congress using a computer algorithm developed to detect similarities in language. That search – powered by the equivalent of 150 computers that ran nonstop for months – compared known model legislation with bills introduced by lawmakers.

The phenomenon of copycat legislation is far larger. In a separate analysis, the Center for Public Integrity identified tens of thousands of bills with identical phrases, then traced the origins of that language in dozens of those bills across the country.

Yes, that is precisely how democracy works. “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – Mencken.

Screenshot 2019-04-05 at 2.05.36 PM

Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)

17 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Gun Control: The Great Divide (Over Nothing)

Tags

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

Mass shootings, terror attacks, and assassinations always prompt a heated national “discussion” on the matter of firearms and firearms control (the private ones, mind you). As with any important issue there are many competing ideas and angles though there are two predominant groups that get attention – pro-gun control and anti-gun control. While I am solidly in favor of the private ownership and use of firearms, my anarchist disposition gives me a unique, almost outside view.

As I see the current debate one side, the gun controllers, really want a complete ban on all private firearms though they present their ideology in terms of “responsible”, incremental measures designed only to ensure safety. The other side, the NRA side, nominally defends the Second Amendment while agreeing to many of the same incremental controls sought by the other side. I see both groups ultimately seeking to use the power of government to advance their own agendas and the agenda and existence of the government itself. They are both allied with the state. I have no use for any of them.

Some of the gun grabbers are blatant about their ultimate aim – Rolling Stone called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Other grabbers pretend to agree that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms while insisting that those arms never be used for defensive purposes.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm.

The author of this insane Huffington Post statement wants to alter, rather than abolish, the 2A in order to nullify it. The author takes into account only those relatively few crimes committed and lives lost to the illegal use of guns. Considered in totality, privately owned guns save far more lives every day and every year than they take. Then again, by this man’s standards, each such lawful defensive usage constitutes a deprivation of the original aggressor’s right.

The only thing I can think of to attempt to justify this kind of logic is that this fellow obviously worships the government as a god and regards laws as a religion. Like a Natural Law theorist, he seeks to conform all positive law to the designs of and the adoration of his god. He would happily place the primacy of the state over the lives of human beings. He is a statist’s statist. Some on the other side do a good job of refuting this nonsense:

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the U.S. where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters—as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents—over and over and over again.

How dumb are these politicians who want to remove the right to self-defense? There are thousands of crazies in the U.S. who are filled with hate—whether motivated by politics, self-loathing, religion, or fear. If they want to kill, they will find a way to do so. The only way to stop them is by superior firepower. Disarming their law-abiding victims not only violates the natural law and the Constitution but also is contrary to all reason.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

The NRA is the poster child of the pro-Second Amendment movement. They are vilified by the New York Times:

What makes the legislative inaction all the more maddening is that there is general public agreement in favor of attempts like these to reduce the bloodshed. An overwhelming majority of Americans — including gun owners and even N.R.A. members — support universal background checks, while strong majorities want to block sales to suspected terrorists and ban high-capacity magazines.

And yet the N.R.A. rejects these steps, even though it says that terrorists shouldn’t be able to get guns. Instead, it clings to the absurd fantasy that a heavily-armed populace is the best way to keep Americans safe. That failed in Orlando, where an armed security guard was on the scene but could not stop the slaughter.

There is no truth to any of this dribble from the fallen Gray Lady. The worst of the lies is that the NRA is complicit with terrorism and that it blocks those “common sense” gun control measures. It does not. The NRA seems more than happy with the bulk of the existing gun control measure – all of them unconstitutional. While the NRA backs lawsuits to overturn various local measures, they roundly accept the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Both of these laws treat all Americans like criminals and bar the easy or economical possession of the type of weapons actually protected by the Second Amendment.

The NRA also agrees with the opposition regarding the expansion of watch lists – to exclude terrorists from the gun pool of course, and no more… Their own words on the matter:

Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

This statement places the NRA (and Donald Trump by association) in the same position regarding gun control as Senate Democrats and the Obama administration – though the Executive seems a little at odds with itself as to how the proposed list measures would be (will be) implemented. Proposals to expand the “no-fly” list to cover firearms purchases has even drawn the ire of the ACLU as the list procedures (as they exists and as proposed) violate fundamental due process.

The NRA, Donald Trump, Hussein Obama, and their friends are all wrong. There is no due process at all concerning these controls. The new Senate proposal, S.551, mentions due process protection and then negates it in the same paragraph.

The government really has no dog in this fight as it is the primary creator and enabler of terrorism today. If not for the unceasing meddling and misadventure of the state there wouldn’t be any terrorists in our nation to worry about and no need for any lists nor for gun control.

A former CIA agent admits the government and the elites are the problem:

A former CIA counterterrorism agent has said it is time to talk about why terrorism really happens, and to address the “misguided narratives” that lead to oversimplification of the situation and continued war.

Amaryllis Fox worked on counterterrorism and intelligence in the CIA’s clandestine service for ten years. She told AJ+ that the beliefs surrounding terrorism are “stories manufactured by a really small number of people on both sides, who amass a great deal of power and wealth by convincing the rest of use to keep killing each other.”

Fox says the current conversation about Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in the US “is more oversimplified than ever.”

“Ask most Americans whether ISIS poses an existential threat to this country and they’ll say yes. That’s where the conversation stops,” she said.

Her observation echo what H.L. Mencken said about the government’s imaginary hobgoblins a century ago. Hitler concurred that terrorism (real or manufactured) is the best way to keep people panicked and, therefore, controlled. Gun control is about people control. Terrorism, war, and government in general are about creating and maintaining power for a few. It’s that simple. That’s what they’re working towards.

And, they are working hard. After Washington stirs up an already volatile region in begins to import the angered locals into America. Some really are hapless refugees. Others are terrorists – as the CIA admits. Oddly … or not, many of the recent notable terror suspects in America have had some ties to the CIA. This should raise serious questions and red flags about the state’s motives and how those motives negatively affect the rest of us – but it doesn’t. The bulk of the discussion put forward by either side of the political divide or by the government itself is: what else can the government do?

What they are doing is just more of the same. The people keep seeing their freedoms chipped away. The elites keep amassing power. The useless laws grow. The attacks, foreign and domestic, continue. They unvetted “refugees” keep pouring in – over 400 from Syria alone – since the Battle of Orlando this past weekend.

The horror and the comedy of the divide is how pointless it all is. Until the ridiculous, blasphemous, and hellish cult of government is dealt with, none of it matters.

Google.

Dying to Vote?

18 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

This morning I drove between two government welfare operations (a “school” and some sort of dance hall/basketball court). Dozens of merry-looking people lined the street (many of them heavily heavy) waving and holding signs proclaiming the need to vote for one criminal busybody or another. The otherwise pleasant neighborhood was clogged with hideous campaign signs. I waved at a few of the sign holders and laughed to myself.

Ah! Another election. Another chance for the slaves to make suggestions about their overseers. Another chance to remember Mencken: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Later at the supermarket I observed some of the overweight and/or disabled and/or EBT-empowered citizenry sporting cute little “I voted!” stickers. I am so happy for them. I’m glad they are proud they think they made a difference. I know they didn’t but it is good for folks to have something to believe in.

I believe in freedom. I have it. I have it because I take it. I do not need to waste time playing political games with people who despise me and who are not fit to shine shoes let alone hold important offices. I know the concept is so simple that it cuts against the grain of what most have been taught. I get it. They vote to feel comfortable. I say let them. I’m happy for that one in a million that finally notices that after election after election after election, after all the lies and broken promises – that nothing changes. It’s a rigged game and the house always wins. I’d love to see people stop playing. If everyone stopped the politicians and their false god would shrivel up and try to slink away by night.

Some people get militant about elections and “their” state. It is usually the militants. They are generally given to a particular faction. They even get militant about militancy – often in conjunction with their partisanship. Facebook provides a lot of examples. Take this one:

nimbus-image-1463613669280

One sees the darndest things on Facebook.

This post is an attempted admonishment of people like me, insinuating that by not supporting the criminal regime we insult the memory of dead soldiers (valiant every one of them).

Let’s start with the picture. I said it was about partisanship. “Republicans who stay home elect Democrats.” I suppose this is not targeted specifically at me, the anarchist. Shame on the non-voting Republicans! Shame! But, what happens if they decide to vote and vote Democrat? What it the Democrats do the opposite? What if everyone stays home and nobody votes? Who cares, really? I’ve noticed over the long years that both parties tend to push the same thing – their god of omnipresent government. It never works out for anyone except the politicians, some bureaucrats, the banksters and other corporate criminal hacks. Again, why participate in such a stupid scheme?

For non-voting Republicans the shame goes deeper than just seeing the other team in office. “Keep this in mind when you turn your back on the millions who died to give and keep your right to vote as you choose to stay home and not vote.” Modern Republicans tend to be jingoistic and pro-military – to the point of making the armed forces a demi-god under almighty government. Support the troops!

As with the subject picture, this caption is complete and total bullshit. Millions did not die to give you the right to vote. But, if they did, then they also would have given you the right to not vote. Rights do not have to be used. The freedom thing again – to do or not to do as one chooses.

In fact, “millions” dying is a stretch to begin with. The author of the caption obviously means the millions of American soldiers who died. At the outside maximum only 1.354 Million men have died in all of America’s wars. Out of that number only 664,440 actually died in combat.

nimbus-image-1463615600264

Who knew we were in the middle of Operation Inherent Resolve? Resolve what? To vote? Wikipedia.

Wikipedia lists about 80 American wars or conflicts. That’s about one war every three years since we told off King George. We’re a warlike people it seems. Most of those wars had absolutely nothing to do with voting. At best I would say three were somewhat election related and those are very complicated cases. The Revolution set us free from England. That war was over before the current Constitutional (ha!) form of government was created. The statutory right to vote, indeed the existence of the government for and under which to vote was not around when those 25,000 soldiers (maximum estimate) died. Can they really be counted for Facebook shaming purposes?

The English struck back in 1812. Presumably they did not want to deprive Americans of the right to vote; they just wanted to change the voting system. Do we include the 15,000 (maximum estimate again) who died fending them off?

Then there is the strange case of the Civil War. It wasn’t a civil war by definition – more a war to stop a second revolution. It wasn’t a declared war either. The “wisdom” goes that Lincoln couldn’t get a declaration of war against the Confederacy because that would have required a facial acknowledgment of the CSA as a distinct nation. Semantics and legalities aside, Lincoln killed a whole hell of lot of people. The War of Northern Aggression was America’s deadliest conflict to date. 214,938 men were known to have perished in combat and an estimated 750,000 died all toll.

Of course, those numbers have to be divided into two sides. 364,511 died fighting for Lincoln; 299,524 died for Davis and Co. (By government math those numbers add up to 750,000). If by modern geography I identify myself with the Confederate dead, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that the 364,511 Union troops died trying to take away my (my ancestors) right to vote? Oh yeah, all those marauding Union troops came to my family’s home under orders from a Republican. Details…

Going with the above supposition, I’ll count the 299,524 CSA dead along with the maximum estimates of those killed in the other two wars for a grand total of 339,524 dying for the right to vote. If you subtract the Union dead from that number (they did die trying to take away the right, right?), then the total number of dead soldiers deceased for the electorate is 24,987 – terrible, but not in the millions. If the Yankees run a similar scenario, they come up with another number nowhere near one million, let alone millions plural.

The other wars? No voting consequences. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War were arguably results of WWI and the awful aftermath. America entered WWI at the behest of bankers and other criminals who stood to make a lot of money. Ask Smedley Butler about that. The Germans did not ever want to take away your “I voted!” stickers. Neither did Ho Chi Minh. Saddam was no threat to the ballot. A huge number of our wars were fought against American Indians for the sole purpose of genocide (wave the flag about that). I cannot believe Wikipedia actually included the 34 killed on board the U.S.S. Liberty but, even so, those men died while minding their business in international waters while monitoring someone else’s war. No votes affected.

As sure as people will keep voting, America will keep on fighting more wars. I challenge the assertion that all those who died and those that surely will die deserve our respect (fighting for the vote or not). Columbia County, Georgia is a hotbed of pro-military, flag-waving, GOP voters. It is also the home of U.S. Army Sergeant Chris Muse. I have no idea if Sgt. Muse is willing to lay down his life in the very real possibility the Apache decide to attack an Evans polling place. I do know the police seem to think him capable of kidnapping and raping a 14-year-old girl. Should said girl’s parents thank Muse for his “service”? Should they go out and vote about it? Were I the girl’s father I would rather hang the criminal upside down and disembowel him with a rusty hacksaw. Then again, I am not a Republican.

This pitiful episode and others were about power, money and killing – not voting, freedom or slavery. Google.

No Republican nor Democrat nor any other fairy-tale believer am I. I am repulsed by the idea of giving my sanction to the government – the government known for wantonly killing at home and abroad for no other reasons than to exterminate Injuns and enrich slimy merchants. If you vote, you do so to honor murder and mayhem, not to honor the right of voting itself.

Keep yours ugly signs, your stickers, your child molesters, and your death merchants to yourself if keep them you must. Or, in the better alternative, join me in happy, unobtrusive freedom.

Simple Solutions From The D.C. Comedy Club

08 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Simple Solutions From The D.C. Comedy Club

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

President Obama spoke 1910 words Sunday on the threat of Islamic terrorism. Actually he only used 160 words for ISIS. He spoke almost as many, 131, chastising Americans for owning guns and another 372 telling Americans what a bunch of racists they are. His speech on terrorism was only 8% terrorism and 27% It’s all your fault. The remaining 65% was empty political babble.

Gun control, says Obama will stop terrorism. He has the brilliant idea to restrict gun ownership for anyone on the government’s “no fly” list. This almost sounds like the common sense reform liberals are always going on about.

The problem, one of them, is that the list is compiled in secret with a total absence of Due Process. One can land on the list for any reason or for no reason. There’s little one can do about it. To be deprived of Second Amendment rights one needs to be convicted in a court of law or have a court agree with a physician’s assessment about mental health. There has to be a trial or a hearing. Attorney representation. Examination. Appellate procedure. Notice. Evidence. Due Process. A former Constitutional law professor should know that.

Not to be outdone, Republican front-runner Donald Trump has called for a total moratorium on Muslims entering the United States. I have no idea how the word count worked out.

Muslim control, says Trump, will stop terrorism. Again, there’s a temptation to agree with The Donald here. Most Islamic terrorists are, in fact, Islamic. His recommendation set off a firestorm amongst his GOP and Democratic rivals. I found it a comical firestorm.

Trump’s plan is full of problems. For one, it won’t, by itself, fix the problem. Unless and until the U.S. starts minding its own business, terror-prone lunatics will never cease to wish us harm. It would be better to let them all continue their centuries old feuds by themselves and far away. Our business, concerning terrorism, should consist entirely of stamping it out in America. We don’t need to venture abroad in search of ISIS as they are right here, right now. San Bernardino. Chattanooga. Boston. A man who travels the country should know that.

Both of these suggestions are somewhat tempting and may appear somewhat plausible. They are very, very simple. Our problems a little more complex. That is the trouble. Mencken said: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

220px-Simple_Simon_2_-_WW_Denslow_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_18546

Simple Simon met a politician…

Liberty, Death, or Something In Between?

09 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Liberty, Death, or Something In Between?

Tags

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

Much, over the long years, has been made of freedom and the unnecessary curtailing thereof. Consider the following quotes:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, Richmond, VA, 1775.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken.

I think I have quoted all of these lines before. They are worth repeating.  John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has a terrific article along similar lines on the false security based demise of freedom in 21st Century America:

‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’: The Loss of Our Freedoms in the Wake of 9/11.

What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. Since then, we have been terrorized, traumatized, and acclimated to life in the American Surveillance State.

The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time, but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has transitioned us to life in a society where government agents routinely practice violence on the citizens while, in conjunction with the Corporate State, spying on the most intimate details of our personal lives.

Whitehead.

The good news is that as the American Empire collapses under its own weight, things will get better for the free people. The bad news is that things will be painful along the way. Of course, for the sheep, the unaware, and the unfree, things will get worse and stay worse. In any event, I think Henry had it right.

 

Overhauling the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Fix a Car, Go to Jail

26 Sunday Apr 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Some, mostly of the ivory-tower dwelling variety, still suffer the delusion that America is a “democracy,” a free land governed by the will of the people.  I am ever happy for the elation of this crowd; ignorance is bliss.  In truth we live amidst a somewhat darker time and landscape.  The government is a ridiculous mixture of ochlocracy (mob rule) and oligarchy. The ruling elite keeps the mob happy with spectacles, martial, material and illusory, and the mob dutifully empowers the elite – Cozy if schizophrenic.

Our economy (what remains of it, anyway) is more akin to something from the dreams of Mussolini than those of Adam Smith.  Regardless, beer is cheap and the television is loaded with “entertainment.”  Everyone wins, right?

Our institutions of political and economic leadership form a home, of sorts, for the criminally insane. Lacking any useful skills, without their positions of power, these people would be otherwise confined to normal mental institutions – whiling away the hours weaving baskets and so forth.  As is, they subsist by playing Menckenish tricks on the people. They perpetually create one problem after another.  Each problem is designed to have a ready solution which, in turn, leads to yet another problem.  Keep your eyes on the Kardashians, please.

Back in February of this year I penned a short series on the potential dangers posed by the modern computerization of automobiles.  See: Tracking and Hacking; Drivin’ N Spyin’.  U.S. Senator Ed Markey released a report spotlighting the complete failure of auto makers to protect the public from malicious hacking of their computers on wheels, formerly known as cars.  At last, the industry has answered the call!

All companies, from Ford to Honda to Caterpillar, have announced the need for a change in the law.  Specifically, they want to amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998) to protect their proprietary software from your incessant meddling.  Yes, you, the shade-tree mechanics of America, are the real problem here.

In a way, this is only fair.  New cars, all of them, are totally controlled by sophisticated computer programs.  Those programs were developed by the car makers at considerable cost.  When you endeavor to work on “your” own car you will inevitably run into programming issues.  Most shy away from this spectacle of technology.  However, some intrepidly dive in and use their own skill to navigate the oil stained field of ones and zeroes which make the new cars work.  In doing so they may, intentionally or unwittingly, alter the original programming.  This equates to software piracy, you see.

Never mind that you paid for the car, computers and all.  It’s not really your property – not all of it.  Back in the 90’s the lobbyist for the industries of America wrote and paid for the DMCA.  It’s their law, designed to protect their money, and they can change it as needed.  You get back to that baseball game – nothing to see here.

“Your” representatives will be bribe … er … convinced to alter the law.  In the future only dealership mechanics and licensed big chain techs will be authorized to work on cars.  This will save you the trouble of reading code and allow the manufacturers to reap additional profits.  Go under the hood yourself and you will likely lose the car and land yourself in prison.  As it should be.

32376_1

(“Protect the CPU at all cost!”  Google.)

The terrorist with a laptop, of whom Markey and I warned you, will no more obey the new DMCA than he will the old laws against kidnapping, murder, and extortion.  No mind; eventually this too will be cured.  A new dawn of self-driving, un-hackable, super “safe” but un-Godly expensive cars is just over the horizon.

This dawning will surely usher in new problems.  Rest assured our wise and benevolent betters will have solutions for these too.  In the meanwhile get ready for the coming Avengers movie!

 

 

Politics

27 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

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

“Politics” comes from ancient Greek roots.  “Poly,” of course, means “many” and “Ticks” are little blood-sucking parasites.  Thus, “politics” means: many little blood-sucking parasites.  I really wish I could attribute that definition to my own genius but I feel overly honest today.

palpatine

(Emperor Palpatine, the ultimate politician. Source: Google Images.)

Wikipedia says “politics” is  “the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level…”  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics. 

I have studied politics (formally and informally) since around 1980.  In those days, everyone in the South tended to be Democrats, party-wise.  My parents were proud Democrats at the time and were horrified when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency.  I watched on.  As the years progressed, I decided I was a “conservative” and, therefore, a Republican, much like Reagan. 

I watched Family Ties back then and might have been influenced by the antics of Alex P. Keating.  Then came the Rush Limbaugh era; I listened everyday after high school while working as a runner for a local law firm.  I knew Rush was right.  Well, something in my subconscious had doubts.  In college I drifted into libertarian thought and have remained there ever since.  As the years pass I become closer and closer to a full-blown anarchist. 

During this time, while I descended from a believer in minimal government to a dreamer about no government, reality took a turn for the worse.  The whole of my dear country seems to have gone the other way!  Whereas we had a big government when I was a child, now we have a GIGANTIC monstrosity of a government that seems to grow geometrically ever second.

Hence my disconnect from the world of practical politics.  It is patently obvious that there is no discernible difference between the two major parties in America – they both lead to bigger and more controlling governance.  Over the years I supported several politicians in various ways – both Republicans and Libertarians (I have Democrat friends too).  My support usually faded away with my short, rambling attention span.  I have never been a member of any party. I am proud of that; I hate political parties.

Deer Ticks (file/credit: Getty Images)

(Politicians soliciting contributions.  Google Images.)

In his Farewell Address to the nation, President George Washington devoted nearly two pages to warning the people about party politics.  He began: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.”  Thereupon he listed the many dangers of “faction” at the expense of Public Liberty.  He closed with a thought on excessive party politics: “A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”  See: The Founder’s Almanac, pp. 309 – 310, The Heritage Foundation, Washington 2002.  Given Washington’s fame and standing you would think more people would have listened; they did not and American “democracy” became an all-consuming conflagration.

H.L. Mencken wrote in the Minority Report (1956): “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – both commonly succeed, and are right.”  Mencken defined “democracy” as “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”  Every election since has proved him right on both counts.

The most excited I ever got about any election(s) was in 2008 and 2012 supporting Ron Paul.  I knew then Dr. Paul was an anomaly in American politics.  My fellow citizens chose a different path and now Dr. Paul is retired.  With him, at the end of 2012, went Rep. Dennis Kucinich.  Washington is now devoid of any statesmen whatsoever and the only small impediments to Total Government are gone.  I would like to believe Dr. Paul’s son, the other Dr. Paul, will follow in his father’s hallowed footsteps; I don’t think it will happen.

I have decided to waste no more time following the stupidity (which worsens daily) of field level politics.  My personal academic concentration is now centered on political theory or philosophy and the history thereof.  A good friend of mine says that America is finished, like a $500 car in need of $5000 worth of repairs.  For our generation I fear he may be on to something.  Still, I hold some hope for the future.

My fledgling professional academic career is and will be focused on educating younger persons about the mistakes of faith in politics and government, the evils resulting from such faith, and alternatives to the status quo.

Perhaps the most honest book ever written about American politics is Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke (1991).  The title says it all.  Inside the reader will discover, among many other witty things, a whole section of chapters entitled, The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television and Bullshit.  Perfect.

Government and politics in general, particularly in America, really do center on O’Rourke’s three “branches.”

Money in politics is not necessarily the root of all evil, but it certainly is the tool of all evil in politics.  It takes a lot of money to get elected to national or state office in the first place.  Savy politicians set up campaign funds legally designed to break or sidestep any campaign finance laws in the way.  Then the ticks turn around and suck blood from any source to fill their funds.  Sometimes they contribute a little of their own money but most of it comes from “donors.”  People all over give a little here and there to help some bozo get elected; once elected the bozo ignores the little people.  The big bucks come from the special interest groups, they get the politician’s attention post-election.

Money flows into Washington, D.C. and the several State capitals by the dump truck load.  Giant corporations and the super rich constantly brib ..er.. give to elected officials in all kinds of ways.  Sometimes they support a pet project of the tick’s (charity, etc.), sometimes they provide booze and hookers, they give kickbacks and favors, and sometimes they just give plain old cash in brown- paper grocery bags.  The amount of money flowing into the Capital is astounding, but it pales in comparison to the money flowing out.

This year, like last year, the federal government will spend something like 3.5 Trillion dollars per its official “budget.”  I just put “budget” between quotation marks because Congress hasn’t put forth an actual budget, as required by the Constitution, in years.  Alarmingly, the vast majority of federal spending is on UnConstitutional programs.  The government spends a huge percentage of that money out of debt.  Fully a third of the budget is borrowed these days.  Check out the U.S. Debt Clock for a good fright: http://www.usdebtclock.org/.  In fact, I believe the borrowed sum exceeds the amount paid by individual taxpayers.  Corporations also pay for a larger portion of the budget than do the individual taxpayers.  However, as with any business expense, corporations pass their taxes along to customers via higher prices for their goods and services.  So the People ultimately pay those taxes as well.  Aaaaand, guess who guarantees the huge debts run up by the ticks?  Yes, taxpayers again.  So, Ma and Pa America have to pay for all the illegal, unnecessary spending of the government, even when they receive no representation for their money.

Like I said, most government programs are not grounded in the Constitution and are therefore illegal.  Of the $3.5 trillion spent, Medicare and Medicaid get about $800 billion.  They are not in the Constitution.  Social Security, the third rail of tick-dom, gets a similar amount.  Not in the Constitution.  Our never-ending, foreign, undeclared wars of aggression get a slightly smaller amount.  Being undeclared and indefensible, they to are also illegal.  The total of interest on the national debt, federal pension costs, and various welfare programs get a similar amount of funding.  Like undeclared warfare, specific welfare is also illegal.  As none of the programs are needed there is no need for all the federal employees vested in those pensions.  If the government didn’t spend so damn much money there would be no debt and, thus, no interest.  The “legitimate” functions of the federal government are mostly unnecessary anymore, and those that are should really only cost us a few hundred billion dollars per year at most.  That could easily be covered by tariffs and import fees – as the government was supposed to be funded and was funded for years without trouble.

I could go on and on with the money stuff but we still have television and bullshit….

Television is really representative of all major media, both news and entertainment, in this nation.  Whether you get your news on TV, from the radio, or from a print medium, it’s all the same.  The government puts out a line of crap and the media runs with it.  Very seldom in America are we treated to any critical reporting anymore.  Remember those special interests?  They own the media nearly completely.  Towing the line is part of the overall scheme.

This scheme extends into non-news entertainment.  Reality shows, pro sports, pop music and other trivial pursuits are the modern bread and circuses of Amerika.  While you drunkenly watch 300-pound men decked out in pink play with a ball, the government is stealing you blind and destroying your country.  The ticks laugh at you too.

Bullshit.  It’s a crude term but it accurately describes everything I’ve been writing about.  It’s also all you ever get from the government.  Mostly everything you hear, see, or read from the government or its pet media are outright lies.  Very little the ticks do is honest or important so they have to concoct wild stories to get you to go along – provided you even pay attention, most people do not.  For instance, when Washington goes to war the ticks always say it’s over something noble like “keeping the world safe for democracy” or “fighting the ‘terrorists’.”  Saying they want to keep profits high for the military-industrial complex (a special interest) doesn’t sound as good.  When President Obama announced ObamaCare, he didn’t say he wanted windfall profits for the insurance and finance companies of America (special interests).  He said it was all to help the children, or the less fortunate, or you and me.  Bullshit!

And when the government and the ticks tell the truth, it’s truly frightening.  The Whitehouse says it will use drones to kill Americans without Due Process.  You better believe they will!  When Congress authorizes an illegal ponzi scheme like Social Security or an illegal monopoly like the Federal Reserve (the biggest special interest of all), they do so openly and with impunity. 

My point is … well, I’ve already made it – I do not like modern, practical politics and for good reason. 

The next time you come into contact with a tick, instead of giving it money and voting it into office, get out the tweezers and the alcohol.  I’m Perrin Lovett and I approve this message.

How to Interact with the Police

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

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

Don’t talk.  Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances whatsoever, ever.  Ever.  This is the general libertarian legal advice given by good lawyers who wish to spare their clients and anyone else listening the possibility of unwittingly implicating themselves in criminal activity, whether they were actually involved or not.

I like this advice and tend to give it to clients myself.  However, as with most legal issues, this matter is not quite that simple.  Well, maybe it is, but there are reasons why you might need to address the cops.  I’ll get to those a little later.

On March 10, 2013 I will address the Libertarian Party of the greater Augusta, Georgia area.  I was asked to speak on the subject of citizen interaction with the police in general and, more specifically, interactions involving a citizen carrying a firearm.  I will do so happily.  This column is a preview of what I will likely discuss.

There are two federally recognized (sometimes) natural rights which are affected by such situations – actually, they are different tangents of the same right – the right to self-preservation.  The first involves not implicating oneself in wrongdoing, the second involves the right of self-defense.  The Constitution lists these rights under Amendments V and II, respectively.  All State Constitutions recognize the same rights to a degree somewhere within their texts.  I’ll stick with federal language as a universal representation:

The Fifth Amendment reads: “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 offense 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.”

The above subject primarily deals with the “witness against himself” clause, though due process is implicated as well.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  This relates, obviously, to carrying a weapon while interacting with the police.

Both of these rights, despite laws and court rulings in their favor, have experienced considerable erosion since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (most rights have).  I will not necessarily discuss the origin of the rights, their history, or their decline herein.  As is, I will just accept them as plainly written.

Back to not talking to the police.  Many attorneys, including yours truly, generally advise against talking to government employees of any stripe, not simply the police.  This extends to telephone conversations (including 911 calls) as such calls are frequently recorded.  I recently posted a link to this video (Don’t Talk to the Police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc.  The video is a 50 minute discussion of our subject by Regent Law School (Virginia) law professor James Duane.  The advice is excellent.  You’ll notice though that immediately after saying he will never talk to the police, professor Duane talks to a police officer.  There are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

I’ll cover a few of those now.  If you are a law professor who gives such a talk and you invite a police officer to participate, you will need to talk to the police.  If you’re a nice person who walks by a cop on a sunny morning, you might say, “Good Morning!” – that’s talking to the police.  If your child is kidnapped late one night you will probably call the police before anyone else.  If you are the victim of another type of violent crime you might talk.  If you are drunk, high, suffering from low blood sugar, or under a mental delusion, you might talk to the police, not remembering any of this advice at the time.  If your friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor is a cop …  you get the picture.

Other government employees sometimes require your verbal attention too.  These examples are almost too numerous to list.  They range from telling a campaigning CongressCritter to buzz off when he disturbs your breakfast at the local cafe (happened to me once) to asking a clerk where the county vehicle tag office is.

Most of these examples are innocent enough.  However, sometimes the police arrest and persecute people for innocent interactions.  I had a client once who singed an insurance policy while paying for it.  He was later arrested and charged with felony insurance fraud based on his signature.  The crime didn’t even involve his particular policy.  In such cases, no advice is sufficient; one must engage a competent attorney and fight the system.

My subject matter here is really how to interact with the cops when you are approached about a possible criminal action wherein you might be a suspect. 

I recall from law school there are three tiers of citizen-police encounters.  The first is a simple and voluntary meeting (like some of my above examples) wherein the citizen is free to leave.  If you find yourself in a Tier One and you suspect the officer is probing you, ask if you are free to leave.  If you are, do so immediately.  Remember you do not have to say anything to the police no matter what they ask or say.  In these simple situations you can just walk away and terminate the encounter.

The second tier is known in legal circles as a Terry stop (see: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  It is also more commonly called an investigatory stop.  That means the approaching officer is officially investigating some alleged or potential criminal wrongdoing.  The citizen is not necessarily free to leave and is technically under detention, even if temporarily so.  A Tier One becomes a Terry stop if the officer responds that the citizen is not free to leave.  At this point the citizen should shut up.  The exceptions are again to ask if you are free to leave or if you are under arrest and to tell the officer you do not consent to any searches.  Do not ever consent to searches.

The police are not supposed to arbitrarily initiate Terry stops (they do sometimes).  Rather, they are supposed to have “articulable suspicion” that a crime has or may have been committed and that the citizen is a likely suspect or witness.  The standard for such suspicion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by the individual case, though the common maxim is the officer must have something more than a hunch about the possible crime.  Fuzzy, yes.

Terry stops originate from many sources: tips or reports of crime, something the officer witnesses, an emergency, a man-hunt, or something else.  Frequently, the police have nothing at all in the way of evidence.  Thus, they turn to the citizen for incriminating evidence.  Citizens offer the evidence against themselves voluntarily in most cases.  If you ever saw the TV show Cops, then you know a suspect will immediately start babbling on about what he did or didn’t do.  This usually digs the suspect a nice hole – with bars.  This is why you shouldn’t say anything.  Do not help the police do their job.  At this point you will either be arrested, further temporarily detained, or released regardless of what you say.  Talking won’t help, so don’t do it.

The third tier is a formal arrest.  If you are arrested you must absolutely cease talking period.  At some point the police will advise you of your Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) – you know these from TV.  They will tell you you have the right to remain silent and that anything you say can and will be used against you.  Did you get that?  Anything you say will be used against you.  Give them nothing.  Under arrest you only make one statement, repeatedly in necessary: “I want an attorney.”  The police usually stop questioning at that point, sometimes they don’t.  Just do not answer or make any other statements – at all.  Be silent as you have the right.

Silence is the better rule in most of these encounters.  By talking you will either implicate yourself or possibly give the officer(s) something else to consider in your prosecution.  Sometimes officers hear things wrong or falsely report what a citizen says.  They can make you out to be a liar.  You’re not lying if you’re not talking.

I have been retained by several clients just over the issue of voluntary interrogations.  I stopped the practice entirely after so many such incidents.  The client would get a call from the police, asking the client to “come downtown” to answer a few questions or make a statement.  Once a client demanded to visit the Sheriff to make a statement all on his own – over a non-issue.  My constant advice to all of these folks was to not go and to say nothing.  Most did not listen and I had to accompany them to the Q&A sessions.  At those meetings I objected to each and every question the police asked and every statement the client uttered.  That did not stop most of these people.  I have literally watched as people talked themselves into felony prosecutions.  Seeing the process as pointless and potentially liability-inducing on my part, I stopped participating.  Don’t put your attorney through such torture.  Don’t talk.

I’ve also been hired by clients after they talked to the police.  I have read many statements and listened to many recording wherein a client essentially convicted himself.  Often, without their own damning, idiotic testimony through such statements, the government would never have had a case to try.  Don’t talk to the police.

Firearms add an extra dimension to the issue.  America is the most heavily, privately armed country in the world.  We should rejoice!  The primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the People would always be able to fend off a tyrannical government, all other purposes are ancillary.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1791.  Today, many Americans are afraid of firearms (and much else) and defer unwisely to the government for protection.  Their fears are fueled by a few isolated stories from the lamestream media.  Many of these cases, I suspect, are false-flag operations of the government, ginned up to alarm the frightened people.  Remember always – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

In the old days, no-one looked twice at a person carrying a gun in public.  It was what Americans did.  You can still find the practice accepted in many rural communities.  The practice is open and notorious in Switzerland (God bless the Swiss). 

Swiss Militia man

(A Swiss Militia member openly carrying a battlefield rifle in a grocery store.  The blonde woman is not concerned – free people are not.  Source: Google Images.)

The local LP sent me a video of a law student telling off a police officer who “detained” the student over a firearm.  I seem to have misplaced the video link.  You can surely find it or something similar on Youtube.  Here’s my take on the matter.  First, Americans have every right to go armed just about anywhere they want to, even though many jurisdictions illegally attempt to block this right.  Second, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – more on that in a second.  Third, in the Georgia and much of the South, we are lucky to have pro-gun law enforcement.  Many officers welcome armed citizens. 

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, you encounter an officer with a dimmer view of freedom.  Georgia and most other States allow concealed carry of weapons – usually with a permit.  I think those permits are UnConstitutional.  A few States like Vermont do not regulate of require such licenses.  This issue is slowing making its way through the courts.  We will see what becomes of it.  For now, if you carry concealed, play the government’s game.

To avoid an unwanted and unnecessary confrontation over your gun, carry concealed.  If they (the police or the easily alarmed) can’t see the weapon, they can’t inquire about it.  Some State’s licenses come with the requirement that a citizen inform any approaching or present law officer that they have a license and are carrying.  North and South Carolina come to mind.  This is also UnConstitutional.  Georgia is not such a State.  Say nothing in Georgia.  In fact, if you have the gun well concealed, say nothing wherever you are.  If they don’t know, they don’t know – and they don’t need to.

If you carry openly, which is your right, you may expect someone to alert the police to “a man with a gun.”  As a result, you may be approached by an officer.  This would be a quasi-tier one/two encounter.  Carrying a gun itself is not justification for any suspicion of wrongdoing.  The police will inquire anyway.  They may go as far as to handcuff you while they check your license and the gun.  This a violation of your civil rights.  I had a friend who was stopped by a traffic officer in Ludowici, Georgia one night.  The officer inquired about my friend’s pistol and took the gun to “check it.”  The officer then announced he would have to keep the gun until the next day in order to verify it really belonged to my friend and was carried properly.  This was in keeping with Ludowici’s long-standing policy of public harassment.

Before I became really upset about the story my friend told me it had ended well.  The Ludowici police chief, realised his officer had broken the law, immediately dispatched a courier to hand deliver the gun back to my friend.  As my friend was happy, the issue died.  A bloodless victory is the best kind as we say in court.

However, if you find yourself in a similar situation, the best thing to do is keep quiet.  Do not tell off the officer as the afore-noted law student did, even though you are completely right.  The police sometimes get nervous and arrest or murder “uppity” civilians and make up a good excuse for their actions in their report.  The street is not the place to fight for your rights – unless the officer endangers your life.  You can use force against the police if necessary, just as you would against any other armed thug.  But, these situations are messy at best. 

It is usually after such an encounter you should act – by contacting an attorney.  You may very well have a civil rights action against the police (State or local) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or a Bivens action against federal officers [Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)]).  An attorney can advise you in a particular case.

Two more specific situations, very briefly.  First, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you will likely have contact with the police.  In such cases always identify yourself as the victim of the underlying crime.  In order to legally use deadly force against another, one must reasonable belive that one’s life is in imminent danger from a criminal actor who simultaneously posses the ability and the proximity to in fact endanger innocent life.  This is the general public standard, in most jurisdictions you have more leeway on your own property (stand your ground and castle statutes).

If you have to shoot someone (I hope you never do), report only the fact of the crime and that you ended it per the standard I just stated.  The police may want additional statements.  Do not make them.  Tell the officer you take the matter very seriously and that you need to, accordingly, speak with your attorney before making any additional statements or answering any other questions.  Again, if you are arrested (not always a given, here), say absolutely nothing.  I am referral attorney for the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Fund, based in Washington State, http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/.  The Fund has produced an excellent series of videos on this subject.  Legal and tactical shooting experts discuss in-depth how to handle these situations with your gun and with the law.  I recommend you purchase and review these videos. 

Second, if you are at home and the police knock on the door, do not open it.  Do not let the police in volutarily for any reason.  This by itself constitutes a consentual search (at least cursory).  If the police have authority (a warrant) to enter your home, they will do it rather than asking you for permission.  If they ask, they have no authority.  Don’t help them gain it.  I have former clients in prison because they opened a door for the police.  Don’t do it and don’t talk to them. 

Remember, in a specific case you may have, consult with a specific attorney for legal advice.

As for advice, nothing herein constitutes legal advice.  Consider this, rather, a general legal education.  When you see the police use common sense and do not talk if you can help it.  Doing the first and refraining from the second may save you many headaches.