Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Sunday, July 28, 2013

GOP Governor Chris Christie is no Friend of Liberty

Republican presidential candidate hopefuls are one after the other stupidly sabotaging their otherwise excellent chances of helping the Party win back the executive office by steadfastly keeping to their statist ways, and attempting to stifle the rising voices of reason within the ranks.

New Jersey GOP governor, Chris Christie, for example, is proving to be no exception. He’s now showing off his true statist politician U.S. government authoritarian colors -- another candidate who is no friend of liberty -- by taking a peremptory shot at Sen. Rand Paul and the libertarian wing of his Party.   

Christie, and many others of his ilk, are falling all over themselves lately trying to support and justify the National Security Agency's (NSA) massive unconstitutional surveillance programs directed against innocent American citizens. They’re the ones who’ve been screaming for the blood of Edward Snowden for having the courage and integrity to expose his own government’s wrongdoing. 

During a panel discussion in Colorado recently, hosted by the Republican Governors Association, he excoriated what he calls the "strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties," suggesting that people like Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky explain their positions to families of September 11 victims.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie declared. “You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this … I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”

In other words, Christie is unabashedly saying that the September 11, 2001 terror attack and the subsequent War on Terrorism justifies the federal government in trashing the entire Bill of Rights for all Americans; that those proponents of liberty, such as Sen. Paul and many others, have no right to complain.

Like all the other statist politicians in America, Christie deems libertarian concerns over our loss of freedoms and privacy as "esoteric." “President Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terrorism. And I mean practically nothing,” says Christie. “And you know why? Cause they work.”

“If Governor Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric,’ he either needs a new dictionary or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” a senior adviser to Sen. Paul retorted. Fighting terrorism "can and must be done in keeping with our Constitution"

“Chris Christie thinks freedom is dangerous. What's dangerous is a foreign policy that borrows from China to pay people who burn our flag in Egypt,” Sen. Paul remarked in a Facebook post, in which he called Christie: “Obama’s favorite Republican,” and wondered if he also approves of sending weapons to “al Qaeda allies” in Syria.

“Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom,” read a post on Paul’s official Twitter account. “Spying without warrants is unconstitutional."

Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and another veteran statist foreign policy hawk, said he “isn’t saying no” to a potential presidential run in part because “when I see people like Rand Paul talking about drones killing people out to get a cup of coffee, I don't want that to be the face of the national Republican Party."

On the bright side, the House took up an amendment to the bill funding the Department of Defense from Rep. Justin Amash (R) of Michigan, a House libertarian. His amendment would have defunded a National Security Agency program started in the Bush administration that collects Americans’ phone records. Though it failed, a total of 94 Republicans, joined by a majority of Democrats, deemed the “wing nut coalition” by House statist war hawks, voted against them and for the bill.

Libertarians might be dismissively called the “wing nut coalition” by statist war mongers and lovers of authoritarian government like Peter King and Chris Christie, but make no mistake about it; the voices of dissent against the tide of unconstitutional government conduct in America are growing and the politicians are starting to show their true colors.

GOP Gov. Chris Christie, for one, is clearly no friend of liberty. 

Friday, July 26, 2013

In Fantasy We Trust

Surely a subject such as the national motto must seem like an insignificantly small thing to most people. After all, a national motto is not only totally unnecessary, it is also perhaps the least important component of our national identity.   

We should take care to remember, however, that too often large consequences result from accumulations of small things.

That’s why I think it was a particularly sad day for the Untied States of America and the First Amendment in the year 1956 when Congress unconstitutionally in my opinion officially injected religion into the republic by changing the national motto from the inclusive phrase: “E Pluribus Unum,” (Out of Many One) to the divisive: “In God We Trust.”

That same Congress had two years earlier in 1954 changed the wording of the already unconstitutional government loyalty oath, known as the Pledge of Allegiance, used by the authorities to coerce state worship in school children, to add the words “under God,” thus forcing them to worship both the state and a religious deity at the same time.

Now, if you still tend to think that those are small things, just consider for a moment the reaction from the majority of believers had Congress changed the national motto to “In Atheism We Trust,” and the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance to: “One nation without God.”

I can safely assure you that those events would have brought about a second American Civil War. Few would have thought of it as small things.

No, the majority of Christian believers in America believe that religion and God are not small things. They want a government God because they are insecure about their own personal faith and need the government to support it for them. And the government God they demand must be the God of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.

Of course their demands for a government God are patently unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, but the U.S. Supreme Court predictably found ways to overcome that impediment.

In the case of the national motto the Court, in total disregard of the Constitution, and in the sole interest of pacifying the religious majority, concluded that the “God” that we supposedly trust is not a religious reference at all but instead a rather dubious formulation of what it termed: “ceremonial deism.”  In other words they concluded disingenuously that God is not God.

In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance the Court dodged the question of constitutionality altogether by holding that the petitioner lacked legal standing to bring the case because he was not the custodial parent of the child involved.

So today we still have a government God imposed upon all Americans, believers and non-believers alike, and everyone knows, including the disingenuous justices of the Supreme Court, that that government God is none other than the God of Genesis, the God of the Hebrew and Christian Holy Bible.

The small matter of the national religious motto has become a large consequence for the minority of non-believers who now have to contend with the majority of religious fanatics who are not satisfied with their government God confined to just the motto and the pledge – they’re now insisting that their God be enshrined in all matters having to do with government.

After all, they reckon, if “In God We Trust” is the national motto, why not plaster that religious motto above the front door of every government building, in every government public school classroom, and upon every government document.

Majority rules! That’s what they say now.

A Tennessee courthouse this week, for example, unveiled the first of four “In God We Trust” signs in gold leaf lettering on 170 pound granite plaques. One local pastor isn’t worried about what atheists think because Christians “have a right to the democratic process and majority rule." The national motto is now the Anderson County Tennessee motto after the matter was put to a vote.

Calvary Baptist Church Pastor Steve McDonald suggested that separation of church and state could be ignored because of “majority rule… This is people standing up for what they believe in,” said McDonald. “We have a right to the democratic process and majority rule.”

But that’s unconstitutional opined ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg. “People of all faiths, as well as non-believers, should feel welcome in their government buildings … government must remain neutral when it comes to matters of faith.”

“We don’t need to deal with that ACLU crap here,” croaked the County Mayor’s husband.

“Whether you agree with this or disagree with this, the democratic process took place,” the Clinton Baptist Association Director of Missions declared. “The majority of the U.S. citizens will continue to believe, and will not be ashamed to say, ‘In God We Trust.’”

“We need God in it,” another resident exclaimed. “We need a God thing. If we don’t have a God thing we’re going backwards. Amen.”

So a simple majority of believers in Anderson County Tennessee trumps the First Amendment, and it’s all because of a disingenuous United States Supreme Court that approved the religious phrase “In God We Trust” as the national motto.

The United States of America, which was conceived as a nation under laws – not of God or men – will now have “In God We Trust” plastered prominently in every courthouse, schoolhouse and government building in the land.

Courthouses, of all places, which are supposed to be bastions of reason under the rule of law; places intended to engender among the populace trust in the law, will now be sending the explicit message that the judges within are actually placing their trust, and the people’s business before the court, in God first and perhaps the law second.

The bitter irony of all of this is that religion and God are the very antitheses of reason as anyone who has actually studied the Holy Bible knows.

The lesson of the Ten Commandments, for example, is that law is not the product of man’s reason, or logic, but commandments from God. One must obey because of God’s commandments – not necessarily because to do so is reasonable, or right and just.

“God destroys the perfect and the wicked, the earth is given to the wicked, and where is He?” wondered Job… Let Him not terrify me and I would speak to Him, but He is not so with me… Why does God despise His own works and shine upon the wicked?Have you eyes of flesh? …  are you like a man … You know I’m not wicked, yet you destroy me … If I sin, woe be to me, and if I’m righteous, I can’t be proud … I’m so confused …” Job: 3-9.

That is God’s way. His unreasonable conduct is not to be questioned, only feared. God cannot be known. Ultimate Authority is always invisible, unaccountable, capricious and unpredictable. The God of the Bible works total nonsense.

“A scorner seeks wisdom, and finds it not, but knowledge is easy to him that understands; Ways which seem right to man are the ways of death… All of man’s ways are clean in his own eyes, but God weighs the spirits.” Proverbs: 1-21.

“Why reason these things in your hearts?” Jesus preached. Mark: 3. He demanded blind faith as against reason, logic, or any –questioning of authority.

“Woe unto you also, ye lawyers!” declared Jesus, “for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers… Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

Jesus preached that the law’s approach to disputes contradicts God’s plan. Reason, logic, and debate as the means of resolving problems are not condoned by God. His Authority demands that we live by faith alone. Jesus wants people to allow others to do them evil, just as he did while he was alive.

“Ye have heard that it has been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” said Jesus. “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.” Luke: 11.

This is the reality of “In God We Trust.” It is explained in detail in the Holy Bible. But it is certainly not the reality most people would expect at a courthouse and in a court of law of America in the 21st century.

When “In God We Trust” is our national motto, engraved upon currency and government buildings; when it is written in gold leaf on the courthouse door; it is the same as acknowledging:

“In Fantasy We Trust.”

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Murder by Joystick

Former President, George W. Bush set in motion, and President, Barack Obama has aggressively followed suit upon a grisly War on Terror campaign of murder and mayhem in which clandestine CIA operatives sitting comfortably behind computer screens in the U.S. indiscriminately assassinate human beings by joystick in foreign countries using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV drones) as though they were simply playing action video games in their basements at home.

Independent sources estimate that around 2,500 and perhaps more than 3,500 people have been killed in UAV strikes in Pakistan alone since 2004, and President Obama has ramped up the program significantly since coming into office.

A leaked 12-page report, entitled ‘Details of Attacks by NATO Forces/Predators in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas)’ describes 75 CIA drone attacks between 2006 and 2009, with death tolls compiled by officials for internal use by the government.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a UK news website, says it obtained three identical copies of the classified document from various sources in Pakistan.

The report reveals a death toll of 746 people, 147 of whom were confirmed as civilians. Of those civilian victims, 94 are children. Statistically, it means at least one in five victims of US drone strikes was a civilian, and more than 12 per cent were minors. So at least one in five of these murder victims were innocent non-militants; most of them kids.

“There was no benefit in officials ‘cooking the books’ here, since this document was clearly never intended to be seen outside the civilian administration, “said Rauf Khan Khattak, who recently served as Pakistan’s interim finance minister.

“What you end up with in these reports is reasonably accurate, because it comes from on-the-ground sources cultivated over many years. And the political agent is only interested in properly understanding what actually happened,” he told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

This report belies US claims to the contrary. CIA Director John Brennan, considered to be the architect of the drone program, has said that “we only authorize a strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rarest of circumstances,” and that collateral deaths themselves are “exceedingly rare.”

The CIA has claimed that only one out of every 482 people it killed was a civilian and President Obama has even asserted recently that that the CIA has a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured" before each drone attack.

But at the same time, the U.S. admits that it picks the majority of its targets based on a pattern of behavior – suspicious movements, contact with established targets, attendance of training centers, and other indirect indicators. Often, follow-up events that occur as a result of its previous strikes are targeted, such as funerals of the murder victims of past drone targets.

So the U.S. government readily admits that it targets with bombs the funerals of its earlier assassination victims. That is the commission of an act of terror by any rational definition. The murderers have to know that innocent civilians, including wives, children and other relative would be attending those funerals.

No wonder one in five of the victims of U.S. drone strikes are totally innocent of any crimes against Americans. In these instances it is the Americans who are the terrorists.

It’s murder by joystick.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Edward Snowden: International Political Football

Acute U.S. government embarrassment over NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden’s timely revelations of rampant institutionalized global spying operations on American citizens as well as foreigners and the governments of foreign countries has turned him into a political football -- a potential catalyst for a serious international incident with Russia, which can only harm the interests of Americans at the expense of our government’s vanity.

Perennial senatorial blowhard and war monger, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is advocating a U.S. boycott of the upcoming Winter Olympic Games in Russia if President Vladimir Putin grants Snowden the temporary asylum he has requested.

"I love the Olympics, but I hate what the Russian government is doing throughout the world," croaked Graham. "If they give asylum to a person who I believe has committed treason against the United States, that's taking it to a new level."

Then Graham compared the situation and Putin to Adolph Hitler and the Berlin Olympic Games in Nazi Germany in 1936 before WWII. "If you could go back in time, would you have allowed Adolf Hitler to host the Olympics in Germany; to have the propaganda coup of inviting the world into Nazi Germany and putting on a false front?… I'm not saying that Russia is Nazi Germany but I am saying that the Russian government is empowering some of the most evil, hateful people in the world."

Graham said that an Olympic boycott is just one possible measure that the U.S. should consider if Russia decides to grant Snowden asylum. He’s mad about allowing the Russians a propaganda platform to promote itself at a time when the Russians are responsible for enabling Iran's nuclear program, threatening Israel and supporting in Syria.

So he wants to provoke further tensions between the governments of Russia and the U.S. and deprive Americans and American athletes their opportunity to enjoy and participate in the Olympic Games.

Of course, the Olympic Games have been a political tool in the hands of governments for several decades now. It’s not so much about sportsmanship and international good will any longer as it is about political opportunities of parasitical politicians to draw attention to themselves. They don’t care if their subjects are harmed in the process.

"What I'm trying to do is let the Russians know enough is enough. How much more are we going to let them get away with before we make it real to them?" Graham bellowed.
Well then, maybe Senator Graham would like to start a war with the Russians, perhaps another cold war in which both sides would wonder once again whether the other was about to drop the nuclear bomb. That would certainly get Putin’s attention.

Or why doesn’t Graham simply advocate pulling our embassy out of Russia and cutting off diplomatic relations altogether? Maybe that would induce Mr. Putin to put Snowden on a plane to Washington.  

The U.S. government was responsible for enabling Israel’s nuclear program; and is currently supporting Syria’s rebel forces in their efforts to depose Syrian president Assad. Putin isn’t threatening our government with boycotts and diplomatic sanctions over the fact that the U.S. chooses to back different sides in international conflicts. Russia isn’t acting any differently than the U.S.

The last time Russia hosted the Moscow Olympic Games in 1980, the U.S. led a 65-nation boycott over the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. President Jimmy Carter announced it and both the House and the Senate passed resolutions supporting it. I don’t recall Russia making a big fuss when the United States invaded Afghanistan. And I don’t recall it doing any good for the American people either.

If a Russian intelligence agent revealed secrets against his own government and then came to the U.S. requesting asylum alleging the probability of persecution and torture by the Russian authorities if deported, there is no way that our government would comply with requests and diplomatic demands that he be returned.  

Recently, for example, President Obama said he was "deeply disappointed and concerned" by the conviction of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who challenged the Kremlin with exposures of high-level corruption and mocked the leadership with biting satire. Navalny was sentenced to five years in prison in a verdict that fueled street protests near Red Square and drew condemnation from the West.

If that man escaped and fled to the U.S., he would never be returned to Russia no matter how much President Putin cried and screamed about it.

Clearly the U.S. is guilty of advancing a political double standard in its handling of the Edward Snowden affair.

They’ve turned the poor man into an international political football.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

ACLU: Shame on You

I’ve been an admirer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for 50 years; was once a card carrying member; and still believe that it’s a fine organization dedicated to the critically important cause of preserving the Bill of Rights and personal constitutional liberty for all Americans.

The ACLU by my reckoning during the last half century has been mostly correct in its assessment and actions on controversial issues of the day concerning civil and constitutional rights, even though the organization of late seems dominated by far too many left wing ideologues.

Sometimes when it comes to civil liberties, these far left ideologues predictably get it horribly wrong. That’s what I learned once again today when I received this “urgent” ACLU Action email entitled:

“We can't let what happened to Trayvon Martin happen again
Dear Timothy,
When I learned that George Zimmerman was found ‘not guilty’ for the murder of Trayvon Martin, my heart immediately went out to his mother.
Trayvon's mother is living my worst fear—of what can happen to my own 23-year-old black son because of the color of his skin.
I've had to teach my son how his racial identity can be an invitation to scorn and mistreatment. I even announced his return from boarding school to neighbors once, to be safe: "Don't be alarmed if you see a black kid walking around; he's my son and he lives here."
From being stopped in the streets without cause to the way police handle cases—for the accused and for victims like Trayvon—countless Americans are racially profiled every day.
Racial profiling violates our Constitution and American values—and sends dangerous signals to people like George Zimmerman. If we're to prevent more tragedies like Trayvon, we must tackle the racial bias that undermines our justice system.
The End Racial Profiling Act, currently in Congress, would help make clear that people should be judged by what they do, not the color of their skin.
Please sign the petition now urging Congress to pass the End Racial Profiling Act and put a stop to racial bias in law enforcement.
Here's just some of what the End Racial Profiling Act would do to clean up our justice system:
·        Prohibit racial profiling in law enforcement, backed by a private right of action.
·        Mandate law enforcement training on racial profiling, as well as data collection.
·        Make law enforcement funding contingent on effective policies that prohibit profiling.
The Zimmerman verdict has sparked a national conversation—now we need to turn that into action. Because unless Americans work together to end the practice of racial profiling, the precautions I and many other parents of color take will never be enough.
Please sign the petition now urging Congress to pass the End Racial Profiling Act.
As Americans try to make sense of the Zimmerman verdict and people ask what “justice” really means for people of color in our system, I feel that we must use this opportunity to acknowledge the real ways that racial bias plays out in society.
Passing a law to eradicate racial profiling from law enforcement would be a step towards creating a more just justice system.
If we're to prevent more tragedies like Trayvon, we must tackle the racial bias that undermines our justice system. Urge Congress to pass the End Racial Profiling Act.
          ACT NOW  
Thank you,
Laura Murphy for the ACLU Action team”
Oh, please!

This is the largest wagonload of bullshit I’ve heard about in months!

Did this misguided woman not pay the slightest bit of attention to the actual evidence produced at George Zimmerman’s trial?

Clearly she did not.

From what I know in a nutshell about that evidence it is apparent that Zimmerman, a self appointed neighborhood watchman, was following Martin that night because there had been a series of burglaries in the vicinity and he was suspicious that Martin might be a burglar.

When Martin discovered that he was being followed he called his girlfriend complaining that a “white assed cracker” was following him. Then Martin angrily confronted Zimmerman, jumped him, and while on top of him punched his face repeatedly, breaking his nose, and pounded his head against the pavement causing bloody injuries.

Zimmerman, fearing for his life, while flat on his back with Martin on top of him pinning him down and beating on him, screamed for help and finally pulled out his gun to shoot Martin. Unfortunately for Martin, he died.

This was not a murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This was not manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence just didn’t come close to supporting those charges. This was a classic case of self defense. Racial profiling had absolutely nothing to do with what happened to Martin, except for the fact that it was he who was racially profiling Zimmerman as a “white assed cracker.” The only evidence of racial bias was in Martin’s mind.

In short, Trayvon Martin wasn’t murdered. He was shot by Zimmerman in self defense. So the jury verdict of not guilty was wholly proper and in accordance with the evidence.

This incident did not involve law enforcement engaging in racial profiling, far from it, but even if it did, if race is part of the profile of a criminal who has been committing crimes, there is certainly nothing wrong with making an assessment as to whether a particular individual under suspicion fits that profile.

There is nothing wrong with profiling suspects as long as the motive is not based solely  upon the suspect’s race. If a suspect fits the profile of what witnesses have described as the person who committed a crime it is perfectly proper to employ that profile to search for the criminal.  

So I cannot help but say: ACLU: Shame on you!

Monday, July 15, 2013

Edward Snowden is not a Traitor

Last month I discussed the sorry fate of NSA whistle blower and American hero Edward Snowden in the wake of United States government statists, politicians and talking head pundits left and right calling him a traitor to his country and howling for his blood, by posing this simple question: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up?

Snowden, as of this date, with his U.S. passport revoked, is still a man without a country, holed up at Moscow airport seeking asylum from a furious foaming at the mouth American government out to get him and to thwart his opportunities for safe passage and a new life elsewhere.

The U.S. government Authority wants to punish this man as a traitor.

But Edward Snowden is not a traitor.

By definition, a traitor is a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust. An enemy collaborator, saboteur, spy, turncoat, subversive, double-crosser, Judas, or back-stabber, for example, is commonly referred to a traitor.

An American citizen like Edward Snowden, on the other hand, who faithfully attempts fidelity in regard to his solemn oath to preserve, protect and uphold the United States Constitution is not a traitor, but in fact a true patriot to his country. He is doing his sworn duty to his fellow countrymen.

The real American traitors are those agents of the United States government and their collaborators who violate or condone violations of the very Constitution they took an oath to preserve, protect and uphold.

When politicians vote for legislation which violates the Constitution they are traitors. When government agents seek to enforce such laws they are traitors. When ordinary citizens condone violations of the Constitution they are traitors.

The NSA clandestine spying and surveillance activities together with any “laws” which purport to authorize such conduct are not permitted by the United States Constitution. Likewise, secret laws, courts and judges as well as classified secrets of government wrongdoing are unconstitutional.

It is treachery to the American people and those government agents involved in it are all traitors. Snowden simply did his sworn duty to the American people by exposing those traitors for who they are.

Let’s suppose, for another example, that Congress passed a series of secret laws in furtherance of its so-called war on terror, which laws authorized the Department of Justice, including the FBI, to initiate a completely classified global operation to round up, kidnap, assassinate or imprison American citizens or foreigners all in secret without affording any due process of law and at the whim of the government authorities.

That is not such a farfetched scenario in light of what we now know the government has been doing. Such a scheme would be patently unconstitutional and treachery against the American people.

Suppose further that everyone involved in the scheme were sworn to absolute secrecy and that all of the documentation regarding it was classified as top secret.  

Now suppose that one honest government agent with a conscience and a sense of obligation to honor his oath to the United States Constitution decided to blow the whistle on the unconstitutional scheme and publish all his information about it with the news media and on the Internet.

We know that’s all Edward Snowden did.

Would you consider that whistle blower a traitor or a patriot?

The answer is obvious: Edward Snowden is not a traitor.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Cops to Homeowner: What’s Yours is Ours

The American police state has taken an ominous new direction recently. Now the cops think that they have a perfect right to arbitrarily commandeer your private home by force and without your consent; boot you and your family out the door; and then use the premises as they please in order to carry out their nefarious government police state activities.
That’s right. “What’s yours is ours,” say the cops nowadays in the land of the free.
Police thugs in the city of Henderson Nevada actually arrested an innocent family for the “crime” of refusing to let them use their home as a lookout command post during a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors.
But where on Earth did they find the legal authority to do such a thing? It doesn’t exist. They had to know that. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution flatly prohibit government agents from taking any private property or depriving any person of liberty without due process of law.
These cops apparently believe that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just don’t apply to them. So they assault, batter, seize the property and run roughshod over the lives of innocent citizens. They think they can violate innocent people’s rights as a matter of course. To hell with their legal and constitutional rights is the police officer’s attitude today.
Today’s cops are worse than any other kind of criminals. They’re criminals with badges. They’re criminals with Authority!
Henderson Nevada homeowner, Anthony Mitchell got a phone call from a cop one morning who told him that the police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of his neighbor’s house, a suspect in a domestic dispute. Mitchell refused saying he didn’t want to be involved or allow cops to enter and occupy his home.
So the dirty dicks decided on a plan to confront Mitchell at his front door. If he answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If he refused to answer the door, a forced entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.
The government thugs banged on his front door and yelled at Mitchell to open it. He declined to do so.  Seconds later, they smashed open the door with a battering ram and aimed their weapons at the frightened victim, shouted obscenities at him, called him “asshole,” ordered him to lie down on the floor and crawl toward them. Fearing for his life, he prostrated himself, covering his face and hands
Then the goons fired multiple pepper ball rounds at their confused and terrified victim as he lay defenseless and motionless on the floor of his own living room, striking him at least three times from close range, causing injuries and severe pain. He was arrested for obstructing a police officer; his house was searched; furniture was moved around and the home set up as a lookout post for their investigation.
When the criminal home invaders with badges smashed their way through the door, the family dog was cowering in the corner posing no threat whatsoever to anyone. Never-the-less, the brazen thugs shot it with pepper ball rounds causing it to howl in fear and pain. Then they left the poor animal trapped outside in soaring 100 degree plus temperatures without access to water or shelter from the blazing desert sun for the rest of the day.
Making matters worse, the police also commandeered the nearby home of Mitchell’s parents and treated them exactly the same. His father was tricked out of his house, arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car.
When his mother refused to allow the officers entry into her home without a warrant, she was seized roughly her by the arm, forcibly pulled out of her house and dragged through the back yard while officers entered without permission. The goons the proceeded to rummage through her purse and searched the house, ransacking it and leaving the contents in shambles without a warrant and without permission.
Both father and son were booked for obstructing an officer. Then they were jailed for at least nine hours until they made bail.
Later, all criminal charges against them were dismissed with prejudice as totally baseless, yet none of the thuggish goons were subjected to any official discipline or even inquiry. The Mitchell families have since filed a lawsuit against the thugs and their police department seeking punitive damages for multiple constitutional violations, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, and abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
So this is just another in a long line of cases involving government agent premeditated, deliberate, viscous, willful, wonton, criminal and civil wrongdoing in which the criminal wrongdoers will go scot free while the local municipal taxpayers will be forced pay just compensation to the innocent victims.
I’m normally against the death penalty for lots of good reasons, but in this case I believe that a quick painless death would be the most lenient justified punishment I can think of for every one of the rotten cops who participated in this outrageous premeditated incident.
They don’t deserve quick and painless retribution for the attitude: “What’s yours is ours.”

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Government Dishonesty: Standard Procedure

Did you know that lying to government agents including cops is a crime in most jurisdictions? But if government agents and cops lie to you, well that’s just part of their jobs nowadays. Government lying and dishonesty has become standard operating procedure in America.
Police in the Cleveland Ohio suburb of Mayfield Heights, for example, have posted large yellow signs along Interstate 271 warning motorists of drug checkpoints ahead; to be prepared to stop and allow drug-sniffing police dogs to search vehicles.
The road signs are deliberate bald faced lies. The drug checkpoints are fakes. The cops know full well that such checkpoints have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. So there are just a bunch of dishonest government police officers watching to see if any drivers react suspiciously after seeing the signs so they can pull them over and violate their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures.
These dishonest cops are out there simply manufacturing “probable cause” to stop and search anyone they want. They lie to all the motorists and then conduct unlawful searches and seizures grounded upon their dishonest assessment of “suspicion” among the drivers they happen to target for their stings.
"I don't think it accomplishes any public safety goals," said Terry Gilbert, a prominent Cleveland civil rights attorney. "I don't think it's good to mislead the population for any reason if you're a government agency."
But Dominic Vitantonio, a Mayfield Heights assistant prosecutor, said the fake checkpoints are legal and a legitimate effort in the war on drugs. "We should be applauded for doing this," he insisted. "It's a good thing."
Dishonesty and lying is legal if the government is doing it. The government should be applauded for doing it. It’s a good thing. That’s how these government thugs see their jobs now. Lying and dishonesty is just a means to an end and that end justifies the means.
If you lie to the FBI, the IRS or a cop, you go to jail, but if they lie to you its just standard procedure.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Double Standard Diplomacy

Tensions are flaring; U.S. government officials are loudly huffing, puffing, and direly warning the tiny South American nation of Ecuador and all other countries on the planet, that there will be certainly be "grave consequences" if any of them dare to grant NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden political asylum.
The U.S. State Department is especially miffed at Hong Kong officials for allowing Snowden to leave China on a flight to Moscow knowing that he was a wanted fugitive. "They knew he was a wanted fugitive, and they intentionally let him go," whined a State Department spokesman. "They've tried to sort of say, oops, he just left. And we're saying, no, that this was an intentional decision."
Now China has been warned that its decision will hurt U.S.-China relations, and Russia is also a target in an escalation of diplomatic warnings and diplomatic pressure to turn Snowden over or face the so-called dreaded “consequences.”
Much to my own personal amusement and delight, each of those nations has so far given our American government buffoons the equivalent of the middle finger response. They aren’t afraid of the big bad imperial super power of the United States and they are going to deal with Edward Snowden, the political asylum seeker as they damn well please.
Why shouldn’t they?
If Edward Snowden was a Chinese citizen and employee of the Chinese government who blew the whistle on their computer hacking activities against other nations, not to mention abuses against his fellow Chinese citizens, and he escaped to the United States, there is no way that our government would just meekly extradite him, turn him over, or accede to Chinese government demands.
If Edward Snowden were a Russian who fled to the U.S. requesting political asylum after exposing Russian secrets, our government would welcome him with open arms, just like it has done many times in the past in similar situations.  The U.S. has granted assistance and asylum to many people from many countries just like China, Russia and Equator have done with Snowden.
Clearly, the United States government in this case is guilty of double standard diplomacy.
Ecuador officials recognize that and are quite ready to tell the U.S. to piss off; they don’t need us even if it means a few bad “consequences” for their people. They’ve already given notice that they neither need nor want U.S. aid and assistance. And they are "unilaterally and irrevocably" willing to waive favorable trade rights under a trade agreement with the U.S.
Favored political status, which provides more jobs for Ecuadoreans and cheaper goods for Americans, was considered a potentially powerful negotiating chip. Many U.S. politicians believe that the U.S. could use both its direct aid and the trade benefits as leverage against Ecuador. They have no problem with penalizing the little people of both nations just to satisfy their desire to deliver “consequences.”
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden personally intervened in the case, calling Ecuador's president Rafael Correa to urge him to reject Snowden’s asylum request. "The moment that he arrives, if he arrives, the first thing is we'll ask the opinion of the United States, as we did in the Assange case with England," Correa said. "But the decision is ours to make."
Correa praised Biden for being more courteous than U.S. senators who have threatened economic penalties if Ecuador doesn't cooperate. He also rebuked the Obama administration for hypocrisy in regard to the case of two banker brothers Roberto and William Isaias, whom Ecuador is seeking to extradite from the U.S. "Let's be consistent," he said. "Have rules for everyone, because that is a clear double-standard here."
He’s not the first head of state in history, nor will he likely be the last in my opinion, to rightly accuse the government of the United States of double standard diplomacy.