Tag Archives: United States

Gary Barnett on the Official Religion

20 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Gary Barnett on the Official Religion

Tags

, , , , ,

Of the state. That is, of course, the state itself. Barnett writes a brief tour de force:

The weak-minded cattle called the general population accept government as their god, observe all of its bogus laws, support its worldwide murders, use it to steal from their neighbors, worship its hired killers even while in so-called religious houses on Sunday, vote in fraudulent elections meant to give power to those who rule over them, and call these elected criminals representatives while ignoring their nefarious deeds; never taking responsibility for the evil they commit in the name of that same population. This is today’s America, and this is the result of a national religion that worships the State.

There is no such thing as “representative government,” and there never has been such a system. That is a myth, and that myth was planted into the psyche of the common man long ago. The fantasy of representative government has been accepted and embraced by the sheep since the beginning, and voting has been the shameful tool used to fool the people into believing they have a say. Those that still cling to these ridiculous notions are seemingly lost in a vacuum of ignorance, and no longer attempt to break the chains of the slavery that binds them. Who among you has broken those chains, denounced the state, and has rebelled against the misplaced authority and tyranny that is now so obvious? Sadly, this is reserved for only the few that seek, accept, and embrace truth in this hostile environment.

Those of us that attempt to tell the truth, and to expose the lies of the state, strive to help free the masses from the servitude they accept without question. These mostly unaccepted and unappreciated attempts to help those who continually refuse to help themselves are frustrating, but are necessary in order to change this false worship.

I am one of the few, and friends, the results are sometimes less than thrilling. Worse than the general disdain for the truth and freedom is the insouciant attitude of the masses. It brings to mind the reminder of a certain Carpenter about the hatred of the world. Lonely work maybe, but with excellent company.

Perspective on the Cornsternation and War

13 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Perspective on the Cornsternation and War

Tags

, , ,

It’s been said before, but Gary Barnett says it again very well:

Any conversation about American liberty should begin and end with the false notion that the United States Constitution was written for the purpose of protecting that liberty. The opposite of course is true. This was a document in the form of a contract written by powerful men in secret, in the dark of night, and behind closed and locked doors. It was never signed by any others than those drafting this tyrannical set of rules, and was never agreed to by anyone. It was politically motivated, and used to set up a federal system with extreme centralized power, which had little restriction by any state or individual. This is a worthless document that is revered by many due to what seems to be a brainwashing technique that causes a limitation of intellect.

He even gets the war angle right: “In fact, no war in the history of the U.S. has been warranted, with the possible exception of the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and the South’s defense of its independence.”

Crap! Should I have entitled this one with “Holy” Cornsternation?? Don’t drone me, bro.

 

 

 

“US” Pride? Or American Pride?

02 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on “US” Pride? Or American Pride?

Tags

, , ,

July may be the “pride” month that really counts. Then again, too many people don’t even know what they’re proud of or not proud of.

As Americans prepare to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday, their pride in the U.S. has hit its lowest point since Gallup’s first measurement in 2001. While 70% of U.S. adults overall say they are proud to be Americans, this includes fewer than half (45%) who are “extremely” proud, marking the second consecutive year that this reading is below the majority level. Democrats continue to lag far behind Republicans in expressing extreme pride in the U.S.

These findings are explored further with new measurements of the public’s pride in eight aspects of U.S. government and society. American scientific achievements, military and culture/arts engender the most pride, while the U.S. political system and health and welfare system garner the least.

Decreasing Percentage in U.S. Are Extremely Proud to Be American

U.S. adults’ extreme pride in being American has been steadily weakening in recent years, and the current reading, from a June 3-16 Gallup poll, marks the lowest point to date. However, the latest two-percentage-point decline from last year’s 47% is not a statistically significant change.

The highest readings on the measure, 69% and 70%, were between 2002 and 2004, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the American public expressed high levels of patriotism and rallied around the U.S. government. Yet, since the start of George W. Bush’s second presidential term in 2005, fewer than 60% of Americans have expressed extreme pride in being American.

Semantics are fine and dandy. There is a difference. America is the home nation of the AMERICANS, a distinct people with a distinct heritage and culture. The US was merely a collection of American States before it turned into a usurping, omnipresent Empire, replete with NOT Americans. The number of literal Americans in America (or the US) is probably less than 45% of the population at this point. It is certainly below the 70% figure.

The idiots and the BBQs of Thursday aside, where is all this headed? We’ll find out in the next, exciting TPC column.

UN Concerned with Racism in the USA

24 Thursday Aug 2017

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on UN Concerned with Racism in the USA

Tags

, ,

Of course, the story only reports the usual one side of the racial divide. And, as with anything from the UN, a grain of salt is in order. Yet, here, they may be on to something.

A UN committee tasked with combatting racism has issued a formal “early warning” over conditions in the United States, a rare move often used to signal the potential of a looming civil conflict.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said it had invoked its “early warning and urgent action procedure” because of the proliferation of racist demonstrations in the US.

It specifically noted the unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a woman was killed after an avowed white supremacist ploughed his car into a group of anti-racism counterprotestors.

The racism committee, part of the UN human rights office, can issue a formal early warning to help prevent “existing problems from escalating into conflict” or to “prevent a resumption of conflict where it has previously occurred”, according to the rights office website.

…

The US warning marks the seventh such alert issued in the past decade.

They mainly concern countries gripped by ethnic and religious strife, including Burundi, Nigeria, Iraq and Ivory Coast.

One wonders if this is escalation or resumption.

At any rate, at least we’re in good company. Burundi, Nigeria, Iraq, and Ivory Coast are all advanced nations with strong economies, nuclear power, outstanding schools, and thriving space programs… USA! USA! USA!

And this seeming a tad late for an early warning. Probably, the time for early action would have been in the 60’s, better addressing civil rights and halting the Immigration Act of 1965. The time for emergency action was probably 30 years ago. What comes now? Who knows? Peace and happiness, surely.

Someplace Like Home

08 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Someplace Like Home

Tags

, ,

U.S. News & World Report just released its list of the 100 Best Places to Live in the U.S.A. If you’re thinking about relocating, retiring, or just window shopping, this might be a good tool. Otherwise, it’s still nifty.

boston

Trip Advisor.

This, mind you, is a list of the 100 largest metropolitan areas – all with populations over 500,000. If you’re looking for a small town, there are other lists. Still, for what this is, it’s a pretty comprehensive assessment. I suppose respect for the ranking order is subjective though USN did stick to a particular methodology.

Their Top Ten:

Austin, TX

Denver, CO

San Jose, CA

Washington, DC

Fayetteville, AR

Seattle, WA

Raleigh & Durham, NC

Boston, MA

Des Moines, IA

Salt Lake City, UT

I might reorder those. That’s just me.

With a handful of exceptions I think I’ve been to most every town on the list. I split my time between two of the 100 – neither of which made the top spots. One is a “medium” sized city – by USN’s measurement – the other is “X-Large”. If I’m honest, both have their charm and draws. Odd, considering I’m really a smaller town kind of guy.

Anyway, check it out and see how your city ranks.

Oh, by the way: No. 8, Boston (Foxborough), Mass., is home to the Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots. No. 50, Atlanta, is home to the Coca-Cola Museum and a traffic jam.

LiesAndStupidity.UN

28 Sunday Aug 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on LiesAndStupidity.UN

Tags

, , , , , ,

Once the U.S. government has control of something it never, ever gives it up. That is, unless it has a really good, self-serving reason. Knowing this I ponder why the Hussein Obama administration is preparing to hand control over of the internet to someone else (likely the United Nations).

If the UN can be summed up in one word, that word is “communist”. A good adjective for “communist”, as it concerns the UN, would be “corrupt”. Fortunately, these may be modified (always) by “grossly incompetent”. Seriously, name one thing the UN has proved good at other than pitiful bumbling.

When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

– L. Gordon Crovitz, The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2016.

No, Mr. Crovitz, it is not shocking that this administration lies and then has no plan. That’s what they do. All they do. That’s their legacy.

How will this play out, if it comes to pass? That’s hard to say. It probably won’t mean much in the immediate future. The UN will likely search the globe for the highest bribes and then turn the internet over to the payor(s) of choice. Places like the U.S., Britain and Russia will probably see few ill effects for a while at least.

It may not matter at all. The internet hit its heyday some 10 years ago. Since then it has been getting slower and less responsive as more and more ads and other garbage float around constantly reducing speed and efficiency.

150203_un

UNinspiring…

The existing internet structure, invented in the U.S. though not by Albert Gore, has just about reached its limits. Plans are afoot for a speedier, bigger and better, market-based replacement. When the time comes I will upgrade if necessary.

There are a few constants in the universe: The UN is a failure. Hussein Obama has no idea what to do (other than prevaricate). And technology steams ahead. Let them RAM that in their ROM.

Venezuela: Statist Paradise

29 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Simon Bolivar, the father of Venezuela, was a fan of Thomas Jefferson and both the American and the French revolutions. His belief was that South American countries would benefit from republican government so long as there was a firm hand in the government. Looking around his lands, he decried what he called the “triple yoke of ignorance, tyranny, and vice”. Over the past two centuries he’s been proven right and wrong about his creations.

Modern Venezuela is a fantastic country plagued with less-than-fantastic governance. The firm hand Bolivar thought necessary has proven a curse of late (from Hugo Chavez to Nicolas Maduro). The country has also slowly slid off the American model (a little more than America itself has) and into the abyss of socialism.

The United States has, thanks to the industriousness of her people, resisted the perils of statism longer and better than most. That is rapidly changing in the 21st century. Still, some think that America was made great because of various socialistic experiments rather than in spite of them. All of the popular contenders for President are pro-government. Two push traditional liberal/socialist policies and one of those two (Bernie) is a hardliner. Anyone thinking of supporting Bernie, specifically, or the government in general should take a close look at what is unfolding in Venezuela.

Electricity, water, phone access, police services and food are in short supply as a result of decades of mismanagement of the economy. (All socialist intervention is mismanagement.) The global financial crisis is helping to accelerate the vulnerable nation’s decline. A seeming side benefit of the crisis – curtailing of government services on a grand scale – is an illusion. Martial law is being formulated, being partly enacted via two recent state of emergency decrees from Maduro. Such places are prone to military coops. Venezuela will survive but not before the people there see a good deal of needless suffering.

American preppers are taking note as the scenario in Venezuela might as well have come from the warnings of a prepping website. Some are pointing and saying, “see, we told you so.” It could all happen to the U.S.

Others would do well to pay attention too. Most will not. The majority of America citizens are not aware of any wolf at the door until he comes through and pounces on the bed. Even then, most would only ask him not to block the TV. Many elites don’t or won’t care as they have helped create these conditions in the first place. Academics share a large responsibility. A huge share of that blame goes to law professors. American law schools, demographically, do not resemble America – at least not traditional (former) America. According to a Rasmussen Media study 82% of law school professors are Democrats and less than half are Christians.

Based on my experience, I’d say 82% is a little light. Substituting “leftist” for “Democrat” would steer the number closer to 99%. As of last year there were six professors in the entire nation who identified as libertarian, anarchist, or adherents of Natural Law – and one died in January. They are statistical outliers.

The 82% or 99% (or virtual 100%) preach never-ending statism. Government, they say, is the end-all, be-all super solution to any and all problems. Given the “triumph” of their adored system in Venezuela, I’d suggest most of them move there. I know they won’t as they also have a fondness for things like electricity, telephones, and food. To think, they shun paradise. Odd.

El Libertador. Google.

**Note: two names in this non-cigar piece are titanic in the cigar world. “Bernie” ain’t one.

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.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

An Unexpected Gift: Christmas at the Supreme Court

22 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Usually my legal and political writings center on the wrongs of government … and rightly so.  My assessment of court rulings, of the Supreme Court in particular, are often negative: The Affordable Care [SIC] Act; the end of the Fourth Amendment; etc.

Yesterday, however, a gleam of sunlight emanated from the High Court.

From coast to coast the police are profiling drivers in an attempt to find any reason to arrest otherwise free citizens in the ongoing War on Freedom.  A simply traffic stop, for something as innocuous as driving on the shoulder of the road, is used to extend the parameters of the stop to facilitate a deeper investigation.  This investigation is aimed at discovering illegal drugs, guns, or cash.  The initial routine stop is a pretext for a subsequent felony search, in the absence of probable cause to suspect any felony has been committed.  In plain words, the stop is a fishing expedition.

In Rodriguez vs. United States, 575 U.S. __, Slip Opinion No. 13–9972 (April 21, 2015), the Court declared these after-the-fact exploratory searches illegal.

Denny Rodriguez was stopped by a Nebraska law enforcement officer for temporarily driving his SUV on the shoulder of a road.  The officer checked Rodriguez’s license and issued a warning regarding his road departure.  Things then got out of hand and out of Constitutional bounds:

Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
dog alerted.
Rodriguez was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress
the evidence seized from the vehicle on the ground, among others,
that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable
suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. The Magistrate Judge
recommended denial of the motion. He found no reasonable suspicion
supporting detention once Struble issued the written warning. Under
Eighth Circuit precedent, however, he concluded that prolonging
the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de
minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was
for that reason permissible. The District Court then denied the motion
to suppress. Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was
sentenced to five years in prison. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting
that the seven or eight minute delay was an acceptable “de minimis
intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty,” the court declined to
reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue
Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning.

Courts have, for eons it seems, held “de minimis” or short deprivations of liberty acceptable in the War on Freedom.  I and a minority of libertarian legal scholars hold that any deprivation without cause (and the War itself) is illegal.  In an amazing turn of events the Court has agreed – in part.

“In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of
unreasonable seizures. This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop.” Rodriguez, Slip Op. at 1.

I do not agree with Caballes but I am more than willing to take what the Court offers with Rodriguez:

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation.”  Id.

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation. ‘[A] relatively brief encounter,’ a routine traffic stop is ‘more analogous to a so-called Terry
stop . . . than to a formal arrest.’”  Id, at 5.  This is true so long as the stop is for a violation of a valid law (few and far between).

However, “[t]he scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.”  Id.  Such justification goes only with the underlying traffic stop.  “A dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at detecting evidence of ordinary [non-traffic related] criminal wrongdoing.”  Id, at 6.

The presence of overt indications of attendant criminal activity – the smell of marijuana, contraband plainly visible to an officer, etc. – may give rise to a further search, investigation or detention.  Concerns for “officer safety,” as nebulous a concept as may be imagined, may also justify a stop beyond what would ordinarily be necessary.  Absent these factors further detention is untenable.  Id, at 9.

Thus, the next time you are stopped for a simply traffic violation and you receive either a warning or a ticket, you are free to go at the conclusion of the incident.  You may deny an officer’s request for additional harassment citing Rodriguez.  Mind you, the police are as likely to comply with this ruling as they currently comply with the Constitution itself.

Police-dog

(Nothing to worry about.  Google.)

Should you be foolish to argue the old “ain’t doing nothing wrong, ain’t got nothing to worry about,” then, please, don’t be troubled when you find yourself surrounded one night by gun-wielding officers with attack dogs.  Even if trouble arises, and you live through it, maybe The Nine will eventually smile on you.  Then I can happily write here about your case.