An Open Letter to Rick Perry

Honorable Governor,

I have written to you before on diverse subjects, though all linked by one theme: Liberty.  Thus it is not particularly surprising that I find myself writing again on the same subject.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I hope that he was mistaken.  I hope that the Tree of Liberty, once firmly rooted in good soil, will thrive without such a watering.

But even if I am correct, and Mr. Jefferson wrong, it requires good soil.

Governor, the soil around the Tree of Liberty is dying.  I, and those like me, have no power to correct this.  You, and those like you, do.  When people like me decide to revive Liberty's tree, we have only one option.  My mind shudders from that idea so violently that I dare not even name it.  Politicians however, especially Governors, have much more power.  With greater power comes greater finesse with which it can be wielded.

You may be wondering at this preamble.  Why would I take such a serious, even desperate tone?  It is to impart upon you the weight of my feeling.  And not just mine.  Uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, numbers of Texans see what is going on in the United States, and we want it stopped. 

You and the other governors have the ability to stand against this rogue regime which calls itself the Barack Obama administration and protect the American people.  Perhaps you even have the power to refresh the Tree of Liberty without blood. 

The offenses of this administration against Liberty are almost innumerable.  They began almost from the day Mr. Obama was sworn in in 2009, starting with the GM Bailout which subverted established law and stole rightful remuneration from secured bond holders, while giving power over a private US company to the union which destroyed it, and to the federal government.

The so-called "stimulus" bill was simply a way to steal money from taxpayers and funnel it to the President's allies and pet causes.  The Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act" threatens our very lives, placing them in the hands of unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats.  The IRS and EPA leak sensitive data on disfavored parties.  The government suppresses speech it does not like- holding up applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status- making it harder for groups to raise funds.  If that is not enough, they then also target the President's enemies for audits and other harassment.  Anecdotal evidence suggests all federal agencies are in on this as well, from the FBI to HHS to OSHA.

Now, we learn that the federal government has retrieved, by warrant, the phone records of every domestic phone call on the big carriers.  It is true that the Patriot Act allows for some domestic spying under very strict circumstances and very specific cases.  That is fine for true national security needs.  However, the NSA spying via PRISM and the Telecom warrants would be massive violations of all Americans' rights, even if the warrants did not make all the data so gleaned admissible in criminal trials.

I am sure I do not need to tell you, but as this is an open letter, I feel the need to inform others who may read this.  A warrant is a legal document which, in essence, proclaims that the government believes a particular person to be guilty of a particular crime.  That is why, as the 4th Amendment to our US Constitution declares, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should make it clear that the warrants for all calls made on the Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint networks are nothing less than the most massive fishing expedition in US jurisprudence history.  Whatever judge signed such warrant should be immediately impeached- though that is an issue for our US Representatives and Senators.

Combined with the above abuses, how can anyone call the current administration legitimate?  It is a tyrannical regime which seeks to silence opposition while raining favors on its cronies.  It is no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Governor, I beseech you- you, and your fellow governors who love liberty, protect us from this tyrant, this despot.

It is within the power of the State of Texas to provide legal safety for her People.  It is within her power to reject those laws and decrees from the federal government which are not in line with the constitution.  It is within her power shelter our Liberty.

There are 30 States with Republican Governors.  There are 33 States which are refusing to implement the Exchanges required by The Affordable Care Act.  I beg you meet with the governors of those states, along with our own Senators and Representatives to the US Congress- Re-assert the powers of the States.  Re-assert the powers of the People.  Destroy this tyrant state which has been built since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Burn it down.  Scatter its stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.

May God bless you, Governor.  May He bless you, the People of this State and this nation, and may God bless Texas.

 

In humble sincerity,

Allen Goodner

Arlington, TX

The Case Against Background Checks

So Democrats keep pursuing "Universal Background Checks" for "common sense gun control."  Their primary "Fact" (which happens to be wrong, color me stunned) is that "40% of gun purchases happen without a background check."

Before I point out why background checks are a bad idea, let's go ahead and dispense with this argument.

First, as I pointed out, it's wrong.  Roughly 60% of guns are purchased directly from stores or dealers and require full background checks.  Roughly 30% of guns are obtained via gift or inheritance.  There's already laws against knowingly giving a gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one, so any additional "background check" rules are not going to do squat about that.

That leaves roughly 10% of gun purchases which do not require a background check.  Heck, let's be generous and remove the gift/inheritance demographic completely.  That means (back of napkin math) that our pool goes down to 70% of it's original.  If we assume 100 guns as the original number(this math should scale up, since we're talking real percentages), now we're down to 70 that were purchased at all.  Of those, 60 have background checks, and 10 do not.  Ten is approximately 14.29% of 70, which is far short of 40%.

But 40% sounds scarier, so that's what they're running with.

Now, lets take a look at what this argument is really saying.  It has two false premises.

False premise number one: A new law can stop people from breaking the law. 
As already mentioned, it's already illegal to give a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from having one.  If I give a gun to a known felon, I've broken the law.  Are you suggesting I'm going to be more concerned about breaking the law after your super-double-serious law about background checks passes?

False premise number two: The American people are not trustworthy.
The only reason background checks make sense for purchases at all is that we don't want "crazy people or felons" to have weapons.  That's fine as far as it goes.  However- as proven with the Newton, CT shooting, crazy people can still get guns (see point one about criminals not obeying the law).  The same is true of felons.  So the only reason that 40% number is scary at all is if you believe that a) the only reason someone would purchase in a way that didn't require a background check was to obtain an illegal weapon and b) that if that purchase now required a background check they wouldn't find some other way to obtain a weapon.

If you don't believe both of those things, then it shouldn't matter if that number is 10%, 14%, 40%, or 90%.

Now that we've shown the Liberals don't really have a case for universal background checks, let's consider the case against them.

It comes down to one thing: background checks are de facto gun registration.  Even if I don't mention the specific model of the handgun being sold, the background check alerts the government that Citizen Y has purchased a handgun.  Now the government knows that Citizen Y has a handgun.

Registration is the necessary first step in confiscation.  Not that confiscation will necessarily result (though we know that's their end-game), but that without registration confiscation is completely impossible.

Now, since we know their end-game is complete confiscation- they've said as much in hundreds of ways- then it stands to reason they also know that 100% registration is the only way to get to confiscation.  Since I don't particularly want my guns confiscated, you'll excuse me if I reject the idea of Universal Background Checks.

I trust the majority of my fellow citizens.  In fact, until a specific individual gives me a reason they cannot be trusted, I trust all of them.  It does not bother me one whit if you get a gun without a background check.  Why should my doing the same bother you?

About Focusing on "Mental Health"

In my Jan 16 post "Tyranny in a Velvet Glove" I said this:

    14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Then, just two days later, I wrote this:

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Now, I'm sure there are some who rolled their eyes and thought, "okay, now you're over reacting."

Maybe y'all should tell that to Doctor Lee Heib, MD.  Here's what she wrote (published last night):

Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?

The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.
So there you have it.  Not from some schlub on the internet, but from someone in medicine who can see how the SCOAMT is manipulating that profession for his own political ends.

Now, I hear you saying, "But she's not a psychiatrist, and that was the USSR.  How would she know?"

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, but when anecdotes confirm (or seem to confirm) a prediction, then it's time to at least take a theory seriously.  So here's just one anecdote from her piece- click over to read the whole thing.

Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”

Mental health is a tricky issue, and no one wants true psychotics to own weapons.  However, there is often no way to find the "true psychotics" until it's too late.  So we have two choices- disarm everyone, or deal with the fact that sometimes crazy people will get their hands on weapons and do crazy things with them.

Disarming everyone is not really on the table.  Even if we wanted to do so, we would not be able to (and you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands).

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

That's Just Crazy Talk

Back in 2009/2010 when conservatives were pointing out the myriad problems with ObamaCare, one of the things we were assured would never happen would be that doctors would stop practicing or would move to fields which were less expensive to practice with similar repayments.  You know, like rational people.  "That's just crazy talk." 

Well, someone should tell the Windber Medical Center in Southwestern Pennsylvania that, because apparently they didn't get the memo.  As of March 31 they will stop delivering babies due to ObamaCare. 

The Windber Medical Center will stop delivering babies after March 31 because its obstetricians are either leaving or refocusing their practices, and because hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms.

I'm surirpised by this.  Not that it is happening, but that this is the first one I've heard about.  I'm sure there will be more, and I would not be surprised to find out this isn't actually the first, just the first one to get national attention of any sort.  The fact is that ObamaCare is cripiling doctors and hospitals.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a lie.  The SCOAMT knew, or should have known, that doctors would leave the feild in droves.  Which will be just another arrow in the Trannie's quiver when they're ready to fully Nationalize healthcare.

And it is coming.  All tyrannical regimes do two things first.  They nationalize healthcare, making you dependent upon the state for your health.  They disarm the populace, making you easier to control and incidentally dependent upon the state for your protection.  We're seeing a push to disarm the populace in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.  ObamaCare is the vehicle by which the Trannies will nationalize health care.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to do anything about that.  So let it burn.

From My Cold, Dead Hands

Today, Barack Obama will outline his plans for further gun control, in addition to announcing Executive Orders he plans to sign to enact some form of gun control without Congress.

I'm not going to discuss the merits of gun control legislation for two reasons.  First, there are none.  Second, the people who now want to deprive me of my 2nd Amendment Rights don't care about the merits, or lack thereof, of the legislation they wish enacted, they only want more power over me.

See, Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't matter to them.  Neither did the Aurora, CO theater shooting.  Neither did any previous mass shooting.  If those events actually mattered, they would have put together this series of events:

1. Bad guy selects location where victims have no ability to resist
2. Bad guy goes on rampage
3. When people with ability to resist show up, Bad guy surrenders or (just as likely) takes his own life.

That's always the way.  In fact, I only know of three instances, and only two in my lifetime, where people being better armed would not have stopped the violence much sooner.  The UT Clock Tower Sniper, the Hollywood Bank Robbers, and the Gabriel Giffords's event (remember, a Federal Judge was killed that day.  I guess he doesn't matter since he was a Republican).

Here's the thing.  In none of those events would more gun control laws made anyone more safe, either.  In the case of the Clock Tower sniper, there was no way to get to him until police stormed the tower.  In the case of the bank robbers, they were heavily armored enough that even the police could not hurt them until they appropriated shotguns and those same "semi-automatic assault rifles" (an oxymoron) from a civilian gun dealer.  Some guy with a Glock in an inside-the-pants concealed holster wasn't going to do much.  In the case of the Gabriel Giffords, there were too many people in the way for a responsible gun owner to fire back at the assailant.

Let's examine that one a little more, because it's important.  See, there were people at that event who were armed.  But they were responsible, law abiding gun owners.  At least one of them openly stated that he did not draw his weapon because he knew there was too great a chance of hitting an innocent. 

When we talk about "gun control" what we really mean is restricting people like that very responsible and law abiding gun owner from being able to protect themselves.  The bad guys aren't going to care about any gun laws; they've already decided to commit mass murder.

Democrats know this.  Maybe some are truly earnest about wanting to "do something," but this kind of gun violence has existed since at least the 1920s.  It isn't like the majority of them have not had time to figure it out.  So their purpose cannot be to keep guns out of bad people's hands, they know they're not going to do that.

So why would they want to enact these laws?  As I said above: Power.  A disarmed populace is a compliant populace.  If the citizenry have no means to resist tyranny, they are less likely to resist tyranny.  The only purpose any politician can ever serve, whatever he has deluded himself into believing, by restricting gun ownership in any form is to empower tyrants.

I will not ever knowingly empower a tyrant.  Not even passively.

What's Next? "Reeducation" Camps?

Now, this is from Joe ("J-O-B-S. Three letters") Biden, so I suppose we should take it with a grain of salt.  Apparently the Administration is seeking to bypass congress in an unconstitutional twofer.  The Malignant Traitor wants to issue an executive order for gun control.  Unconstitutional 1: what part of "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed" doesn't he understand?  Unconstitutional 2: Laws are made by congress, silly.  The Executive has no authority, even via Executive Orders to compel or direct the private citizenry in any way, unless specifically granted by statute.  Which statute provides the President the power to do anything about guns I own or wish to own?

Frankly, though, as laughable as this is, it is also highly disturbing.  It is, without overstating the case or being overly outlandish, fascist.  It is, more or less, exactly what a certain poorly-mustached dictator did in Germany.  Other notables who also socialized medicine and disarmed their populace: Mussolini, Mao, Stalin.  Now what do these four have in common?

Oh, yes: mass murder/genocide and evil orders of magnitude greater than just about any other we can find in history, with the possible exceptions of Pharaoh having all Hebrew boys killed during childbirth, and Herod ordering the deaths of every male child aged 2 and under.

And these are the people (probably including Pharaoh and King Herod) that the Malignant Traitor and his Cabinet officials see as inspirational.

The Growing Police State: Email Edition

When Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy first introduced his internet surveillance bill, he claimed that it "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."  That doesn't seem to be true anymore.  After receiving push-back from law enforcement, Mr. Leahy is suggesting a series of amendments which basically mean that law enforcement and other government agencies do not need to prove probable cause to gain access to your electronic information, they merely need to subpoena the information they want.

According to CNET, the bill does the following:
* Grants warrantless access to Americans' Electronic Data to over 22 Federal Agencies.  Only a subpoena would be required.
* Allows State and Local officials warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence which is "stored on systems no offered 'to the the public,' including university networks."
* Allows any law enforcement agency warrantless access without judicial review if they invoke an "emergency."
* Requires providers to notify the Government if they are going to warn users that their data has been targeted.
* Increases minimum time for the government to notify users from 3 days to 10 days, and allows for postponement for up to 360 days.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the 4th Amendment allows us to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."  Further, that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."

I'm so sorry that it's more difficult to our Feudal Lords to prosecute us when they have to observe the niceties of proving probable cause before a judge, but that's the way the rules work.  This is flagrant disregard of the 4th Amendment, and must be stopped forthwith.

Join me in calling for Republican to Filibuster this legislation.  It is not enough that it be defeated in the House, if it were to be so defeated, our Senators must rise up and protect our Constitutionally preserved rights.

Are you angry yet?

The Growing Police State: Dog Poop Edition

Welcome to Nazi California, where allowing your dog to poop in your own yard can cost you up to $100,000.00.  Per day.

Per the North County Times (a San Diego News Paper), San Diego is about to implement a policy whereby... well, I'll just quote them:
California’s latest experiment in faith-based policymaking is being unleashed today on the San Diego public, as regional water-quality officials begin hearings on new regulations that seem crafted to turn most owners of a car, house or dog into criminals within a decade or so. We wish we were exaggerating.

Under the draft rules, ordinary homeowners may face six years in prison and fines of $100,000 a day if they are deemed serial offenders of such new crimes as allowing sprinklers to hit the pavement, washing a car in the driveway, or, conceivably, failing to pick up dog poop promptly from their own backyards, let alone the sidewalk.

"Allowing sprinklers to hit the pavement?"  "Washing a car in the driveway?"  Seriously, what kind of State are you living in, Californians?  That's just stupid.

Now, the rules claim to be for "water quality," but, in reality, they're for revenue generation.  Think about it: even if you have automatic sprinklers, water is going to hit the pavement.  This is even more true with manual sprinklers.  Criminalizing washing your own car does two things: if you comply with the law, that means you're going to a car wash, who are paying lisence fees and taxes to the city, and if you don't comply, they can fine and even jail you.

And, dog poop?  Seriously?  Now, I hate when people don't pick up after their dogs in public as much as the next person, but one of the reasons I have a yard is so I don't have to pick up after my dogs daily.  I would hardly have time for anything else.

Of course, Californians could do something about this.  They could elect actual conservative leaders and stop sticking their hands out for more government goodies.  But, considering they also just passed a tax increase on themselves (a Liberal's wet dream, that), I guess we can't expect any such sanity any time soon.

Until then, I'll just point out that it isn't generally free societies that encourage people to rat out their neighbors for leaving dog poop in the yard.

The Growing Police State: Newspeak Edition

I wrote about this a few days ago (published only this morning) for The Arlington Voice, where I also write from time to time.

Go to that link for the full story, but I'll sum up: The Dallas ISD has issued a series of phrases Principals are being instructed to use when communicating face-to-face with parents and the public.  These phrases are all geared toward making people think "in the right way," about the new Superintendent and the changes he's making in the District.

I want to make a different point here, one I touch on briefly in the article: So much attention today is placed on "how" we see things that we're becoming brainwashed against certain phrases, and therefore thoughts.

Speech, for most people, is thought.  I have known a few people who think in images; my understanding of the current state of research on Dyslexia and it's associated diagnoses is that these people may think in image rather than in words, for instance.  But, for most of us, we think in words.  So when we censor certain words from the national discourse, we limit the number of thoughts people are "allowed" to think.

If this sounds like 1984, that's because it's the same idea behind Newspeak.  We're living with the partial results of over 20 years of Newspeak in the guise of "political correctness."  One of those consequences is this phrase: President Barack Hussein Obama.

The very cry of "Racism" is an attempt to get people to think "in the right way."  The fact that any criticism of the SCOAMT in 2008 was called "racism," was an attempt, largely successful, to keep people from thinking about any deficiencies in his abilities, let alone his character.

That a public official is pushing this kind of jargon-based thought control should be horrifying to anyone concerned about Liberty.  It is but another incremental step along the path toward a tyranny which cannot be opposed, because people literally cannot think of opposing it.

Update: Thanks to @TorchOWyatt on twitter, the incorrect "Principles" has been corrected to "Principals."

The Growing Police State: Mob Tactics Edition

The police in Costa Mesa, California, have taken an irrevocable step, and I hope that the City Council will address it forthwith.

For those who won't click over (shame on you), the Police Union in Costa Mesa hired a law firm known for its mob-like tactics in handling "negotiations" with City Councils which were considering putting fiscal sanity before Police protection money.  Surprising precisely no one with a brain, this law firm then hired a PI who attempted to set up a City Council member for blackmail and extortion.  That attempt failed, and the Police Union and law firm are quickly back-tracking and attempting to throw the PI under the bus.  Read the whole thing for more details.

Once again I'm drawn to point that these are the logical consequences of a growing police state.  When the Police are seen more as revenue generators than as peace keepers and law enforcement, it only stands to reason that they will begin to see themselves as mercenaries and demand ever increasing payments. 

Gone are the days when police were encouraged to "walk the beat" and be part of the communities they patrolled.  Now they are apart and aloof, overseers and enforcers for the Government.  But, like any hired army, when you try to explain that they're too expensive, they don't consider your needs, only their own situation.  Thus activities like those in Costa Mesa can hardly come as a surprise.

Certainly this specific situation needs to be handled forthwith.  The police chief and all the upper command structure must be fired, and new officers brought in to help combat the obvious corruption of the police in Costa Mesa.  To do any less is to send the signal that these mob-like tactics will be tolerated, if not fully accepted.

But there is a larger problem here.  It is one that we, as a nation, need to address.  That is the problem of the ever growing police state.  From local governments banning smoking in restaurants, to proposed State-wide bans on using cellular phones while driving, to the Federal Government giving the department of Education a SWAT team, the state has gone from a posture of protecting Liberty to one of protecting its privilege.  This must be combated soon.  It is the neo-feudal system, where the government is made up of vassalage and fiefdoms, and those not in a position of power are, at best, second class citizens, and at worst slaves of the state.

Which, it turns out, is how Democrats view us anyway.

Don't Tread On Me

As morning turned into afternoon today, I enjoyed some practical freedom.  I got in my car and drove to lunch.  Because it was my own car, and not a bus or a train, I had the freedom not even to know exactly where I was going to go to lunch when I left.  There was no "right line" to take, because I could go wherever I wanted.  Indeed, had I turned one way and decided to go to some restaurant in the other direction, I would just have had to turn around.

When I got to the restaurant, I had a plethora of choices for my meal, including four different sizes of drink.  The restaurant, on this exceedingly nice North Central Texas day, was actually nearly too cold for me.  Ultimately, I decided the inconvenience of my napkin blowing away was worse than the very minimal discomfort of being a degree or two to the chilly side, so I dined at an indoor table.

Had I so desired (I don't) I could have gone outside and smoked a cigarette either with or after my meal.  I could have gone to a restaurant that served alcohol and had a nice adult beverage.  Indeed, I could have chosen to go to a 7-11 or QT or other convenience store or service station, grab some You-Nuke-It burrito, and spent my lunch at some store, instead of eating in a restaurant.

The Democrats want to take all of that freedom away from me.  From bans on salt, trans-fat, and large sodas (the "small" I got today would have been too big for Nanny Bloomberg), to unrealistic 54 - 55 MPG CAFE standards, to the crippling of the energy industry, everything I did today just going to lunch is under assault by the Democrat party.

If the Democrats have their way, I won't be able to drive wherever I want on lunch- my vehicle will be some all electric thing with barely enough juice to get me home, after having charged all day at way-too-expensive charging stations my employer will be forced to provide.  Instead, I'll have to take a bus or train.  In Texas in the Summer, that means I'll have little practical choice but to bring my own lunch or eat at the invariably-over-priced cafe in my office building; no one wants to work next to someone who had to go for even a short walk in the Texas summer.  That also means my choices in when and where to go to lunch are limited, as I can only go where the bus or train goes, plus a short walking distance, and I can only go when the bus or train goes there.

If the Democrats have their way, I won't be able to choose whatever I want to eat.  Trans-fats and sodium will be banned, meaning any food I do choose will be largely tasteless.  I will not be able to choose whatever size drink I want, I'll be stuck with whatever happens to meet the government regulation.

For the reasons above, the very idea of choosing not to spend my whole lunch hour obtaining and eating lunch goes right out the window; or requires much more advance planning.  Indeed, the service station probably would not be allowed to sell the You-Nuke-It burrito.

As for the restaurant, should I be able to get to one, being too cold?  Only if it's Winter.  When electricity prices "necessarily sky-rocket," as our illustrious SCOAMT once said, restaurants will pass on the additional cost of cooling and heating their establishment to me, the consumer, as well as settling for less warm in the Winter, and less cool in the Summer.

We often don't think of the little things that we do every day being examples of freedom, but they are.  The Democrats need for absolute control doesn't change just because it's your lunch hour, they want to control you then, too.

The Growing Police State: No You Can't Support Your Team Edition

Have I mentioned that we treat our school children as if they're not even human?  Now it's Oklahoma City's turn.

Actually, that's a little mean.  I don't actually have a problem with school dress codes, or even school uniforms.  There are some restrictions on "freedom of speech" which must be imposed while a child is at school, or the primary function of schools couldn't be performed.  So I'm normally willing to let those go.  In this case, though, I think someone didn't think things through.

For those who won't click through the link, an Oklahoma City kindergarten required that student turn his shirt inside out because it violated a rule against clothing which supports any sports team that is not an Oklahoma college team.  In this case, the Michigan Wolverines.

The reasoning behind the rule isn't even all that bad- though it goes back to the problem of restricting something associated with bad behavior, instead of fixing the bad behavior.  In this case, the reasoning is that gangs in OKC were identifying by using sports teams (mostly professional, like the Oakland Raiders), and the schools wanted to tamp down on that.  As far as it goes, that's really not that bad- Oklahoma college teams were exempted because "home pride," and otherwise it's a blanket ban.

My problem is two fold.  First, and probably most important, is that it's exactly the kind of "no tollerance" policy which means that a kid getting beat up who defends himself will get kicked out of school.  It leaves no room for "well that's just dumb" discretion.  The second problem is that, as I mentioned, it doesn't address the problem, it just hides it.

The problem was never the shirts, or baseball caps, or whatever.  The problem was gangs.  Now, I'm not suggesting that you could simply say "Poof! No more gangs!"  What I am suggesting, however, is that we start treating gang violence as what it is- violence in the name of organized crime.  I don't care that these are "children."  They're violent criminals who, for the rest of society, must be sequestered.  It is not right to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and it is even less right to allow the thugs to continue to prey on the other kids in school.

The Growing Police State: That's Not Your Land Edition

As the inestimable Mark Davis is wont to say, "Liberty means sometimes people do thing you don't like."

Case in point.  James Davis, of Stevenson, AL, buried his wife in his front yard.  He says it was her request just prior to her 2009 death.  I submit that doesn't matter.

The city immediately decided they needed to tamp down on this obscene use of private property and avoid setting a precedent.  Why, without action everybody might decide they don't have to buy a burial plot or pay for a cremation, and just do it themselves!  On their own land!  We couldn't possibly have that.  So they sued to have the body moved, a suit which they won, but which is being held up during an appeal.

Now, whatever your feelings about the propriety or "weirdness" of burying your wife in your front yard, there are only two sides to the argument of whether or not he should be able to.  Either it's his land and he should be able to do what he wants on it, or it's the government's land and he is merely being allowed to use it.

I think you guess which side I take.  I think it's creepy to bury your wife in your front yard.  I think you should have every right to do it.  I think it's creepy to put a whole through your earlobe that is larger than your fist.  I think you should have every right to do that, too.  There are a lot of things I think are weird, or creepy, or uncouth.  That doesn't mean I believe the government should have the right to stop you.

And, in case you think I'm exaggerating about the two positions being about who actually owns the land, take a look at this quote from the article, and see if you can spot the unspoken premise (emphasis mine, to assist):

City Attorney Parke Edmiston reminded critics that Davis lives in downtown Stevenson, not out in the country.

"We're not in the 1800s any longer," he told the AP.  "We're not talking about a homestead, we're not talking about someone who is out in the country on 40 acres of land."

Yes.  Because when it is, or whether you live on a farm should have any bearing on your private property rights.

The Growing Police State: Anti-Charity Edition

Every so often, when discussing dismantling the 'social safety-net,' someone will claim there is no way that private charity could take care of everyone who would need it.  Beyond the fact this is an assertion without evidence, especially in light of how well private charity did prior to the advent of the modern welfare state, this is an argument made from a stacked deck.  That is: of course private charity can't do what government does.  It's not allowed to.

In Phoenix, AZ, Dana Crow-Smith was with a group handing out free water in the 112 degree heat.  According to her, and reaffirmed in a letter sent by the civil liberties organization representing her, she was approached by a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector and instructed to stop or face a citation.

First off, what the heck is a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector, and why are they telling people what they can do with bottled water they purchased?

Second, I have no doubt that, according to the letter of the law, the city official was correct.  I'm certain the group (probably from a Church, based on the linked report) hadn't even considered they'd need a permit to engage in charity.  Alas, they obviously don't read this blog, or they'd know the Police State will brook no competition.  If you offer a service that the All Beneficent Government sees as lessening its control on the populace, you will be permitted, fined, and inspected out of existence, if the State has anything to do with it.

The people of Phoenix need to stand with their fellow citizen and demand an apology and a clarification in whatever permitting ordinance would cover giving away bottled water.  Simple acts of charity like this should be encouraged by society, not punished.  If the Inspector did overstep his or her bounds, they should be disciplined, and made to apologize individually as well.

The Growth of the Police State is most easily addressed at home.  If we don't do it in our own cities, how can we expect the States or the Federal Government to stop it there?

The Growing Police State: Logical Ends Edition

It's been mentioned here before that we, as a society, have decided that school children are not US Citizens; that, indeed, they are not even human beings.  We deprive them of rights that we extend to terrorists, let alone suspected criminals and ordinary citizens.  This idea, even if never expressly stated, or even if rejected when voiced, is prevalent in our society, and how we deal with children.  And it has consequences.

Federal Authorities are charging two judges on the Lauderdale County, Mississippi, Youth Court, as well as unnamed (in the linked report) "state, county, and local officials in Meridian."  Their crime?  Depriving children of their constitutional rights.

The specific charge is that the Youth Court was operating a "school-to-prison pipeline," throwing them in jail for school-related disciplinary issues.  Mentioned only at the end of the CNN report is the fact that incarceration is part of the student's parole.  Apparently, students in violation of the law are given parole, one of the conditions of that parole is that they will serve any suspension from school in jail. 

Now, we can debate the merits of that parole policy.  We can say, "hey, that really doesn't sound that unreasonable," or, "they what?!"  And that's probably a good discussion, especially for those in Lauderdale County, to have.  But I have a different point.

As demonstrated here previously, the basic assumption regarding children in school is that they have no constitutional rights.  Unannounced, random (that: no probable cause) searches of children's lockers and cars, for those who happen to drive to school, are routinely accepted.  Apparently simply wanting to be in the band ranks as probable cause for having the sanctity of your person violated in the form of random drug testing.  In-school discipline does not presume innocence until guilt is proved, and refusal to self-incriminate can get the same, or sometimes worse, punishment than the presumed offense.  It shapes every day of life for children in public schools.

To make matters worse, schools are now punishing children with in-school penalties for behavior conducted on their own time and off of school property.  Children are being suspended and they are being removed from extra curricular activities for a variety of offenses.  And this unrelated punishment is being supported by parents (often well-meaning) and the legal system.

So it is hardly surprising that a legal system which allows such treatment and low regard would then use the same underlying philosophical foundations to justify removing children's constitutional rights outside of school.  By the logic above, there is no magic line between a child's school life and their out-of-school life, which allows behavior in one (out-of-school) to accrue penalties in the other (in-school).  Well, if that is true, then it stands to reason that it is a two-way street.  If behavior out of school can get a child an in-school punishment, then it is only reasonable that behavior in school can get a child an out-of-school punishment. 

It does no good simply to be outraged about it.  The logical foundation is solid, if not unassailable.  You cannot simply assert that children are not human while they're inside the school walls, but they are outside them.  Which means the answer is not one of punishment, but one of philosophy. 

We must fundamentally change our understanding of children in school.  They are human.  They should be extended the same rights as any other human in the United States.  The 14th Amendment applies to them as much as it does to anyone else, which means they do have free speech rights.  They do have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.  They do have the presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination.

If we are not willing to extend them those basic human rights, then we cannot complain when other deprive them still further.

The Growing Police State: When Will They Learn Edition

So, California has a ban on weapons with a "detachable magazine" which also have a pistol grip or some other things.  Basically, they wanted to outlaw AR-15s and AK variants.  Besides the fact they obviously don't understand the language "...the Right to bear arms shall not be infringed..." that's pretty standard liberal "blame the implement" stuff.

In response, the weapons manufacturers designed something called a "Bullet Button."  This is a button, normally depressed by an extra bullet, which allows a magazine to detach.  By the definition of the law, that makes the magazine "fixed" (as opposed to "detachable") and therefore legal.  In addition, various gun accessory manufacturers have created after-market add-ons which make the bullet button slightly less inconvenient.

This, of course, is completely unacceptable to liberals, who now want to ban bullet button weapons over and above their "assault weapons" ban.  Now, let's set aside the obvious Second Amendment issues.  Let's even set aside the fact that no law ever prevented a criminal act.  Let's take a look at some purely practical reasons why legislating how easy or hard it has to be to reload a weapon are silly.

Obviously A Mass Murder In Waiting

1) Multiple Weapons- How many times in the various horrific mass-shootings do we hear that the shooter had multiple weapons?  Most of them.  This is because, without a lot of training and practice, it's actually pretty hard to reload a weapon quickly (in the relative time of a shoot-out).  Releasing the old magazine, retrieving a new one, slapping it into the grip (or wherever the magazine receiver happens to be) and then chambering the first round- you're talking maybe 6 - 10 seconds (maybe more) for someone who hasn't practiced those movements a lot.  As someone who has engaged in various legal and moderated forms of fighting, let me tell you that 6 seconds is forever. 

Another Obvious Mass Murderer

This means most shooters know they're unlikely to get to reload their primary weapon, so they're already planning for that contingency.  All this law does is means they're slightly less likely to carry extra magazines even for a "just in case" scenario.  It doesn't inconvenience them at all.  However, that guy at the range who just wants to exercise his God-Given and Constitutionally Protected right to keep and bear arms?  Him it inconveniences a lot.

2) Extended Clips (really 'Magazines' but reporters always get it wrong)- Again a favorite of mass shooters everywhere, extended magazines reduce the need for reloading in the first place.  While even your gun carrying victims are limited to 17 shots (or so) you're not.  Your magazine carries 30 - 50 rounds (for reliable ones), or more (for the more jam-prone varieties).  When you're talking about the amount of damage an AR-15 can do, 50 rounds is a lot of ammunition.

This, again, means that most mass shooters aren't going to worry about reloading.  Extended magazines are (and should remain) legal.  Why worry about reloading when all your targets (or you) are likely to be dead before you run out of ammunition in your first magazine?  However, your honest citizen is more inconvenienced by not having an extended magazine.  In the shooting range it means more time reloading instead of putting hot lead down range.  In self defense, it means you run out of bullets in your gun before the bad guy does.  Very inconvenient.

The point of this is that bad people, committed to doing bad things, will not be stopped by bans on "detachable magazines," or limits on magazine capacity.  This is why making nouns illegal is useless.  Verbs- that is: behavior- are what should be legislated.  Guess what, we already have laws against murder.  Someone planning shoot up a crowd outside a theater or temple, or inside a school, or on a university campus doesn't care about that law.  Why would you think they would care about what weapons are legal?

The Growing Police State: Not-So-Unintended Consequences Edition

A Dangerous Illegal Immigrant

One of the downsides of not have a strict rule of "if you're here illegally, you'll be deported," is that it takes a lot more time for ICE agents to handle illegal immigration cases.  This is especially true in light of the fact that ICE and CBP are not allowed to require any proof of an illegal's claim to be covered by the DREAM act.

By extension, then, it stands to reason that legitimate immigrants will suffer the consequences.  Case in point: Lauren Gray.  With the exception that she's here legally, instead of illegally, she's exactly what the DREAM act claims its supposed to support.  Brought over as a minor (4 years old) from England, she's never known any country but the United States.  She graduated high school, went on to college and got a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Dance.  This is exactly the kind of behavior DREAM is supposed to be encouraging- except DREAM gives preference to people here illegally, and requires no proof that they're actually eligible for its benefits.

However, for her parent's crime of immigrating legally, and her crime of finishing high school and college, Ms. Gray will not be allowed to immigrate legally to the united states.  Her parents are here on work visas, trying to make their residency permanent.  She turned 21 today and "aged out" of eligibility under her parent's visas.  She was supposed to get her own green card before her senior year in college, but her priority date got pushed back.  By two years.  Odd that such a push back just happened to put her outside her eligibility under her parents' work visas.

So, for playing by the rules, and trying to respect our laws, Ms. Gray will be punished by not having a green card and legal residency status.  Showing, once again, the class and respect for our laws which we should be rewarding and holding up as an example, Ms. Gray says she will self deport and return "home" to a country she doesn't know.

Contrariwise, if she were of Hispanic origin, her parents hadn't come here legally, and she merely claimed (remember, ICE and CBP aren't allowed to require proof) that she met the eligibility requirements in the DREAM act- which was never passed by congress but unconstitutionally enacted by executive fiat, she would be immediately granted a temporary visa and allowed to "work toward citizenship."

I'll leave you with this quote from Ms. Gray: "Immigration is a broken system and I don't know why someone isn't fixing it." And my response: "Ms. Gray, they are.  In the favor of groups more likely to vote Democrat that yours."

Photo via original article at FoxNews.Com

The Growing Police State: Politicians' Wives Edition

Count Maryland on my list of places I'm glad I don't live.

Speaking to the Daily Caller, Maryland First Lady Katie O'Malley had this to say about the shooting at the Sikh temple:

“I don’t know why anybody needs an AK-47. I certainly do appreciate hunters and their sporting reasons for having weapons, and I appreciate people who want to have weapons for their safety. … I don’t understand why somebody needs an AK-47 or why somebody needs to have an arsenal. I don’t understand why we can’t get a better control of that as a country,” (emphasis added)

Yes, that's right, people should only be able to buy weapons if they "need" them, and we should have "control of that as a country."  Second Amendment, madam, do you speak it?

Now, even beyond the Second Amendment concerns, this shows a chilling view of her world-view.  In her world, people should only be able to buy things which they "need."  You don't need that SUV, buy a cheap sedan.  You don't need that beef, buy the tofu.  You don't need that smart-phone, buy the older generation feature phone.  Heck, for that matter, you don't need a car at all- that's why we have trains and buses, right?  And you don't need that cellular phone at all- maybe we could set up public stations where you could pay, oh I don't know, 25 cents to a half-dollar, and make a phone call from a public booth.  We could call these public conveniences "phone booths."

I'm only being half-facetious.  You see, this kind of "what the government allows" thinking is central to the modern Neo-Marxist's view of the world.  This is for two complimentary reasons.  First is the fact that they believe (or would have you believe that they believe) that the Government is the best arbiter of what is good for you, and that if you'd just trust the government and comply with their wishes everything would be fine.  The second is that all of those conveniences you don't need make it that much harder to control you.

They hate cars; they want everyone on buses or trains.  If you have to be in a car, they want you in a range limited electric vehicle.  They hate "American" food like hamburgers and french fries; they want everyone to eat "all organic, sustainably produced" food.  They hate smart phones and mobile devices.  They hate all these things because they provide more freedom, and make it that much harder to impose the tyranny they so desperately desire.

When you hear gun control activists talking about whether or not you "need" a given weapon- whether that's an "assault rifle," or a "semi-automatic weapon," or what have you, remember that what they're talking about isn't whether or not you should have the right to defend yourself, it's whether or not you're submitting properly to what your supposed betters in government want.

The Growing Police State: DC Cronyism Edition

Living in Texas, and not directly in an urban center, I have my own car.  I love having my own car.  I don't have to wait for a train or a bus; I don't have to call a cab.  I can go wherever I want (within reason) whenever I want (within reason).  That said, I love the concept of the Uber limousine/sedan service.

For those not familiar, Uber works essentially as a dispatcher clearinghouse.  Someone who wishes to use the service makes a request (through a smart-phone app, I believe), and Uber farms out that request to the on-call car service which can most expeditiously pick up the rider.  The service is more expensive than traditional cab service, but the convenience is greater.  It's also less costly than many on-call services.  So it tends to be a win-win for the rider and the driver.

That is, unless the driver is a taxi driver.  In the areas where Uber is most likely to operate, they represent competition to the taxi services.  Taxi companies understandably dislike the added competition.  In most cases there is little, if anything, they can do except knuckle-down and compete.  Most places are not Washington, D.C.

After a price-floor initiative was scuttled, largely because of some citizen involvement and activism to prevent the highly-corrupt DC City Council from enacting it, the Feudal Lords on the Council have not given up on protecting their Vassals in the taxi services.  Now, they have passed an ordinance that explicitly places Uber under the authority of the DC Taxicab Commission.  Included in the ordinance is an amendment to stay the order until January 1, but DC has officially placed one company at the mercy of its competitors.

That is not "regulation," it's extortion.  It's not "for the people" it's for politicians' pocketbooks.  And it is another example of what is wrong with the rampant Police State.

In a free society, where each person was responsible for him- or herself, such ordinances would never pass.  Everyone would understand that more competition is virtually always a good thing, and that government intervention should be rare and as limited as possible.  Instead, the people of DC, who must rely on Nanny Government for their very safety, since they are de facto not allowed to own guns, simply trust that Marion Barry has their best interests at heart.

I hold out little hope for DC.  Corruption clings to it like a barnacle, and no one seems to be willing to scrape the hull.  However, it is a stark reminder that we must keep our own city governments in check, and must prevent them from enacting similar commerce killing initiatives.