Why, when it's committed by a police officer. Here, take a look at this video of a Denver police officer grabbing, punching and body-dropping a man talking on his cell phone: Video Link
Now, stuff happens, and every profession has those that fall short. And among real professionals, there are times even the best fail to live up to the standards set for them. So seeing a police officer lose his temper isn't really earth-shaking.
What you might find just a little bit....well, terrifying, is that this officer was given three days off without pay for 'submitting an inaccurate report.' No, he's not in jail for his unlawful assault. He's not even on indefinite leave, while the department waits for the indignation to die down. He's back out on the streets of Denver, presumably ready to do that to someone else's kid at this very minute.
And despite the outrage of Denver's citizenry, despite the publicity that's been given to this, despite the actual police camera video that shows the officer committing an assault on a citizen, the decision, as of this date, stands.
The failing of an individual trusted to police us is sad. But the failing of the system designed to oversee and check that individual is another symptom of having crossed the line between government and oppression.
No logical person would argue that this is right. The citizenry's being unable to change it is proof that we're no longer a government 'of the people', as the people don't approve.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Anarchy?
Titling a blog "Government, Anarchy and Chaos" sounds fairly radical, doesn't it? And perhaps today it is.
But anarchy, or at least a social organization that leans much more heavily toward some of anarchy's basic principles, doesn't sound quite so different, quite so scary, when you look at what the word really means, rather than the shorthand assumptions often made about it.
One definition of anarchy is, "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute libery (without the implication of disorder)." (Wikipedia.)
A perfect example of this use of the word anarchy is, ironically, Wikipedia itself. Essentially unregulated 'from the top', but kept orderly and informative from the collective actions of an empowered user base, Wikipedia exemplifies what happens when you let people do something without getting in their way; to wit, it works.
And works pretty well, too. Various surveys of technical topics within Wikipedia continue to demonstrate that it generally offers information as, or more, accurate than dedicated journals and publications. In fact:
Essentially, Wikipedia is a microcosm of an anarchist society; few rules, great freedom, mutual self-interest at the heart of chosen collective endeavors. It almost smells a bit like communism, until you realize that there is no 'uber-comrade' behind the curtain somewhere, and then you realize it's just about the exact opposite; a society without a powerful overseer.
We live today with a tacit acceptance of the fact that government and society are the foundation of what we've achieved, but think: does the 'government' actually make anything? Does it innovate, does it press forward into the future with vision and foresight? No, people do that. And people, when crushed into a society designed by bureaucrats and politicians, generally do it less well than when left to their own devices.
But anarchy, or at least a social organization that leans much more heavily toward some of anarchy's basic principles, doesn't sound quite so different, quite so scary, when you look at what the word really means, rather than the shorthand assumptions often made about it.
One definition of anarchy is, "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute libery (without the implication of disorder)." (Wikipedia.)
A perfect example of this use of the word anarchy is, ironically, Wikipedia itself. Essentially unregulated 'from the top', but kept orderly and informative from the collective actions of an empowered user base, Wikipedia exemplifies what happens when you let people do something without getting in their way; to wit, it works.
And works pretty well, too. Various surveys of technical topics within Wikipedia continue to demonstrate that it generally offers information as, or more, accurate than dedicated journals and publications. In fact:
Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly — so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[1] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[2]
A notable early study in the journal Nature suggested that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[3] This study was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[4]
By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets. Wikipedia articles were cited as references in journals (614 cites in 2009) and as evidence in trademark and higher court rulings. However, omissions and readability sometimes remained an issue – the former at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information and a considerable concern for fields such as medicine.
Essentially, Wikipedia is a microcosm of an anarchist society; few rules, great freedom, mutual self-interest at the heart of chosen collective endeavors. It almost smells a bit like communism, until you realize that there is no 'uber-comrade' behind the curtain somewhere, and then you realize it's just about the exact opposite; a society without a powerful overseer.
We live today with a tacit acceptance of the fact that government and society are the foundation of what we've achieved, but think: does the 'government' actually make anything? Does it innovate, does it press forward into the future with vision and foresight? No, people do that. And people, when crushed into a society designed by bureaucrats and politicians, generally do it less well than when left to their own devices.
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Truth Is What We Say It Is
Josh Sugarman, at it again. If you don't know who Josh is, he's the man who kicked off using the term 'Assault Rifle' incorrectly when referring to semi-automatic, civilian firearms.Recently the NSSF launched a new campaign to try and rebrand assault rifles "modern sporting rifles." As in past rebranding efforts--let us not forget "black rifles," "tactical rifles," and longstanding industry efforts to conflate assault weapons with standard semiautomatic firearms--the real-world use of assault weapons, from mass shootings to attacks on law enforcement, has a way of undermining the NSSF's efforts.
Now anyone with an internet connection, or even a relatively up-to-date firearms reference library, could tell you that an 'assault weapon' is defined as a weapon capable of full-auto or selective fire, and firing a round heavier than a pistol cartridge but lighter than a main battle rifle cartridge. Anyone, that is, except Josh Sugarman, the Executive Director of the mis-named 'Violence Prevention Center.'
Josh is, perhaps, the world's most mis-informed man about guns, the way guns work, how guns are used and what they can, and cannot, do. Or perhaps he's not. After all, Josh says things that are so bizarrely inaccurate, one has to wonder if he's really that unwilling to check a few simple facts, or whether his misstatements are less innocent. After all, it's Josh we've got to thank for the media describing every rifle as either a 'high-powered rifle' or an 'assault weapon.' So maybe he's not quite so naively uninformed, but rather a modern day master of the simple proposition that if you repeat something untruthful often and long enough, it becomes fact.
We can use the quote above to illustrate this. We all know what an 'assault weapon' is, right? It's...well, it's got a grip on the stock. And maybe a flash hider, or a bayonet mounting lug. And it holds big magazines-and usually, it's black. So the NSSF is trying to 're-brand' what Josh likes to call assault weapons-in direct contradiction to what the world has called assault weapons for fifty years-as something else.
Which they are. Something else, that is. And for proof, look at the weapons sold during the 'Assault Weapons Ban.' Functionally identical to those sold before and after that ill-fated gun-grab attempt, they demonstrate that, stripped of its rhetoric and inflammatory value, 'assault weapon' really means 'fully auto light rifle', and all the convoluted attempts to define them otherwise are exposed as undefinable. Even with folks genuinely dedicated to taking your AR-15 away from you working hard at it, they never could quite tell anyone how an AR differed from any other semi-automatic rifle.
Of course, words have power, even when they don't really have meaning. Maybe that's why Josh's 'Violence Prevention Council' doesn't really want to prevent violence, but rather is focused solely on banning guns. Calling it 'The Gun Banning Council', while decidedly more accurate and truthful, wouldn't be so visceral. And Josh would rather you didn't think too much about that, because when you pay attention to ALL the words, as well as what they actually mean, Josh's arguments start to fall apart.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Governed or Oppressed? Part IV-Oppressing Ourselves
If there's one thing the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us, it's that an entrenched, determined foe is extraordinarily difficult to dislodge from their homeland. Inspired by one of the most basic of human desires, the desire to preserve one's home, people can become ultimate warriors, and masters of espionage and deception.
Of course, that's if the people preserve the spirit of independence, the strength of will, required to resist those who would overcome them. But what happens when a population becomes complacent, too lazy to suffer the risks and sacrifices needed to maintain their freedom?
A perfect example was provided recently by Marc Thiessen, writing for the Washington Post. If you'd rather not click through, I'll summarize; Thiessen wants the US government to commit an act of terrorism against the website Wikileaks, who's been embarrassing it for months now with the release of classified war documents.
Perhaps you consider 'an act of terrorism' too strong? Perhaps...so maybe I should just say that Thiessen proposes using military capabilities (in this case, cyber-capabilities) to accomplish what the government cannot accomplish through the courts. Essentially acting unilaterally against an enemy that can't legally be brought to bear, using the 'might' of the military to destroy them.
Wow, when you put it like that it sure SOUNDS like terrorism, doesn't it?
But it represents the views of a number of Americans, apparently. Those who feel that, lacking legal 'right', might should be used. Who feel that the government should crush something it disagrees with. Who feel the US military should work outside the legal framework of what is still, in theory, a nation of laws.
So we see that people are difficult to genuinely oppress in their homeland-until, perhaps, they start calling for their oppression themselves, and inviting the government to do it.
Of course, that's if the people preserve the spirit of independence, the strength of will, required to resist those who would overcome them. But what happens when a population becomes complacent, too lazy to suffer the risks and sacrifices needed to maintain their freedom?
A perfect example was provided recently by Marc Thiessen, writing for the Washington Post. If you'd rather not click through, I'll summarize; Thiessen wants the US government to commit an act of terrorism against the website Wikileaks, who's been embarrassing it for months now with the release of classified war documents.
Perhaps you consider 'an act of terrorism' too strong? Perhaps...so maybe I should just say that Thiessen proposes using military capabilities (in this case, cyber-capabilities) to accomplish what the government cannot accomplish through the courts. Essentially acting unilaterally against an enemy that can't legally be brought to bear, using the 'might' of the military to destroy them.
Wow, when you put it like that it sure SOUNDS like terrorism, doesn't it?
But it represents the views of a number of Americans, apparently. Those who feel that, lacking legal 'right', might should be used. Who feel that the government should crush something it disagrees with. Who feel the US military should work outside the legal framework of what is still, in theory, a nation of laws.
So we see that people are difficult to genuinely oppress in their homeland-until, perhaps, they start calling for their oppression themselves, and inviting the government to do it.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Welcome to Our Future
As we prepare to swear in an extraordinarily young (in supreme court terms) justice to the court, there is one thing we know for certain about Elena Kagan: she's a lawyer, through and through.
How do we know that? Because she was asked one of the simplest, most straightforward questions it's possible to ask a human being, much less a supreme court justice, and her answer was utterly and completely meaningless. She has enough legal education swimming around in her head, apparently, that she can over-complicate and obfuscate anything.
Asked if the right to own a firearm for self defense existed before the constitution was written:
This is what we're putting in charge of our country-this woman will have an impact on our lives for the next 30 years, in all likelihood, and she doesn't want to admit that the right to own a firearm existed before it was written down on a paper. Presumably, she believes that about all the other 'rights' that the constitution apparently conferred, rather than acknowledged.
How do we know that? Because she was asked one of the simplest, most straightforward questions it's possible to ask a human being, much less a supreme court justice, and her answer was utterly and completely meaningless. She has enough legal education swimming around in her head, apparently, that she can over-complicate and obfuscate anything.
Asked if the right to own a firearm for self defense existed before the constitution was written:
Grassley: The court said in Heller, quote, “It has always been” — and I guess I would put emphasis upon the word “always” — “It’s always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth, codified a pre-existing right.” Do you believe that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right? Or was it a right created by the Constitution
Kagan: Senator Grassley, I’ve — I’ve never really considered that question, as to whether the Second Amendment right…(Really-never gave it a thought? If not in all the constitutional law classes you've taken, all the classes you've taught, even all the prepping for these hearings, at least, you'd have think this came up ONCE, maybe. Right... )
Grassley: Well, it’s basic to our Declaration of Independence that says we’re endowed by our creator with certain — certain individual rights, among them, you know, what it says, and we aren’t endowed by our government. So the question here is, are we endowed by our Constitution with this right or did it exist before the Constitution existed?
Kagan: Well, Senator Grassley, I do think that my responsibility would be to apply the Constitution as understood and previously applied by the court, and that means as understood and — and interpreted by the court in Heller, and that’s what I would do. So I think that the — the fundamental legal question would be whether — that a case would present would be whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms, and Heller held that it did, and that’s good precedent going forward.And there we have it folks; a question too simple to answer, apparently, when you have the education and background of a Harvard law school dean. A stupid non-lawyer like me would have just said, "Of course", or maybe, "Yes" and been done with it.
This is what we're putting in charge of our country-this woman will have an impact on our lives for the next 30 years, in all likelihood, and she doesn't want to admit that the right to own a firearm existed before it was written down on a paper. Presumably, she believes that about all the other 'rights' that the constitution apparently conferred, rather than acknowledged.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Law-Abiding Citizen? Maybe Not.
The expression 'law-abiding' or 'law-abiding citizen' has been in common use since 1859, at the least. It's often used as shorthand for a productive, non-criminal, tax paying member of the public.
But being a 'law-abiding citizen' is harder than you think. Current laws, regulatory agency rules and other restrictions with the force of law upon a citizen are profoundly, almost overwhelmingly, lengthy and complex. Let's look at some examples:
The federal tax code, formally known as 'Title 26' of the United States Code, is actually a complex of law, regulatory interpretation and addendums, all of which makes the task of estimating the total size of the tax code in itself a difficult proposition. That's right, it's hard to even find out how big it is. One U.S. Representative is on record as stating, "
While this might not seem particularly earth-shaking news, I'll point out one simple fact that may disturb the average 'law-abiding citizen'; you don't really have any idea if you're law-abiding or not. How can you, if you can't possibly know the law?
Another shining example of a law that can't really be understood by the average citizen is regulation 922(r) of the U.S. Code, which regulates the importation and ownership of certain types of firearms.
922(r), as we will refer to it, runs to just over 8,700 words, or about 15 pages in 12 point font. It defines, among other things, what firearms can and cannot be legally possessed, and violation of it is not a trivial matter; most sanctions contained within it are federal felonies, carrying prison terms of a year or more. It's not jaywalking, by any means.
So can we assume that this voluminous, very serious law about a serious subject is clear and forthright? No.
As an example, one provision makes it legal to own a gun which is completely identical to another, except for the country of origin of some of its small internal parts, parts which would only be visible when the weapon has been completely and thoroughly assembled far beyond what the average owner would ever attempt. Further, it does not require that you be the person who configured the gun that way; simply owning a gun with parts from the wrong country in it makes you a felon.
Now keep in mind, we're talking about identical guns here-identical down to the last pin. The only difference is where that part was made. Imagine it this way; you go to buy a reconditioned vacuum cleaner at a shop, or perhaps on Craigslist. You look it over, it works fine and the price is right, so you decide to buy it. When you do, the seller grabs you and arrests you; it turns out he was a federal agent trying to find someone looking to own an illegal vacuum.
At trial, the government presents a small internal part of the vacuum cleaner, and shows through some means that the part was made in England, not the U.S. And based on that, you're sentenced to several years in prison. As astonishingly bizarre as this sounds, it's absolutely the case with 922(r) and the guns it regulates. And yes, people are going to prison because one small part or other was made in the wrong country. And those who aren't going to prison are working very, very hard just to remain 'law-abiding citizens.'
Another law that makes criminals of thousands of people each day is Chicago's knife ordinance, which makes it illegal to carry a knife with a blade more than two inches in length anywhere in the city. That's right, something as innocuous as this in your pocket will make you a criminal in this city of two million. So are you still so sure that you're really a law-abiding citizen? And what does it mean to be 'law-abiding' when it's impossible for us to know even a fraction of the laws we're subject to?
America was founded on the premise that the people formed the government, that whole, "of the people, by the people, for the people" thing you may dimly recall. But the simple fact is that today, even a lawyer can't possibly know the laws thoroughly.
The larger question is this; do we really want a country with laws so voluminous, so complex, that we can't understand them? And are you willing to go to prison because of it? Because people are....
But being a 'law-abiding citizen' is harder than you think. Current laws, regulatory agency rules and other restrictions with the force of law upon a citizen are profoundly, almost overwhelmingly, lengthy and complex. Let's look at some examples:
The federal tax code, formally known as 'Title 26' of the United States Code, is actually a complex of law, regulatory interpretation and addendums, all of which makes the task of estimating the total size of the tax code in itself a difficult proposition. That's right, it's hard to even find out how big it is. One U.S. Representative is on record as stating, "
- "The income tax code and its associated regulations contain almost 5.6 million words -- seven times as many words as the Bible. Taxpayers now spend about 5.4 billion hours a year trying to comply with 2,500 pages of tax laws...."
While this might not seem particularly earth-shaking news, I'll point out one simple fact that may disturb the average 'law-abiding citizen'; you don't really have any idea if you're law-abiding or not. How can you, if you can't possibly know the law?
Another shining example of a law that can't really be understood by the average citizen is regulation 922(r) of the U.S. Code, which regulates the importation and ownership of certain types of firearms.
922(r), as we will refer to it, runs to just over 8,700 words, or about 15 pages in 12 point font. It defines, among other things, what firearms can and cannot be legally possessed, and violation of it is not a trivial matter; most sanctions contained within it are federal felonies, carrying prison terms of a year or more. It's not jaywalking, by any means.
So can we assume that this voluminous, very serious law about a serious subject is clear and forthright? No.
As an example, one provision makes it legal to own a gun which is completely identical to another, except for the country of origin of some of its small internal parts, parts which would only be visible when the weapon has been completely and thoroughly assembled far beyond what the average owner would ever attempt. Further, it does not require that you be the person who configured the gun that way; simply owning a gun with parts from the wrong country in it makes you a felon.
Now keep in mind, we're talking about identical guns here-identical down to the last pin. The only difference is where that part was made. Imagine it this way; you go to buy a reconditioned vacuum cleaner at a shop, or perhaps on Craigslist. You look it over, it works fine and the price is right, so you decide to buy it. When you do, the seller grabs you and arrests you; it turns out he was a federal agent trying to find someone looking to own an illegal vacuum.
At trial, the government presents a small internal part of the vacuum cleaner, and shows through some means that the part was made in England, not the U.S. And based on that, you're sentenced to several years in prison. As astonishingly bizarre as this sounds, it's absolutely the case with 922(r) and the guns it regulates. And yes, people are going to prison because one small part or other was made in the wrong country. And those who aren't going to prison are working very, very hard just to remain 'law-abiding citizens.'
America was founded on the premise that the people formed the government, that whole, "of the people, by the people, for the people" thing you may dimly recall. But the simple fact is that today, even a lawyer can't possibly know the laws thoroughly.
The larger question is this; do we really want a country with laws so voluminous, so complex, that we can't understand them? And are you willing to go to prison because of it? Because people are....
Monday, July 5, 2010
Governed or Oppressed? Part III-The Price We Pay
While the actual trigger for the Revolutionary War was a move to confiscate the weapons the colonists had cached, there's no denying that a strong component of the decision to rebel was unreasonable taxation. And while 'reasonable' is an integral component of our law, and the British common law it descended from, it's always a difficult term to define. But perhaps some simple facts will help us judge whether we're taxed at a 'reasonable' rate:
Secondly, I want you to consider the way in which taxes 'stack'. If we're in downtown Chicago and decide, rather unwisely, to buy that can of soda, the 14.75% tax you pay comes from an income already reduced by a third due to income taxes. You're paying sales, property and other taxes out of what remains of your earnings after income taxes are paid, taxing the remnants of your pay again each time you purchase something with your own money.
Third, and a sticking point for many, is the concept of a 'sin tax', as exemplified by the rate of cigarette taxes in Chicago and New York we noted above. Smoking is unhealthy-I personally abhor it-and obnoxious. But it's legal. And while legislators could never survive banning smoking, they can make it a whipping boy and revenue source without much political backlash. While completely legal, smokers can be punished for their choice to smoke, all the while adding revenue to the seemingly insatiable appetite of the government for more cash.
As I mentioned, I'm not a smoker. But I also realize that taking something unpopular and singling it out for incredibly high tax rates is not a scheme limited to cigarettes. Liquor is also taxed at what can only be a punitive rate, and even we non-drinkers pay it when hosting a party. But more chilling is that the concept of selective, punitive taxation, will likely not stop with tobacco and alcohol.
As the government becomes our health insurance provider, we'll probably see unhealthy things begin to suffer punitive tax rates, if only 'for the good of society.' Butter, bacon, eggs; all of these contribute to heart disease, and increase medical costs. Will we be asked to pay extra for the privilege of eating these things? From what we've seen with other unpopular activities, there can be no doubt.
Retaining the product of our labors, the fruit of our effort and time, is one of the most fundamental aspects of liberty. There are few more effective ways to reduce a person's ability to act, to enjoy life and to impact their society than by taking their money, the lifeblood of our current society. And when we're taxed enough that we can no longer live the life we're earning, can no longer turn our effort into personal gain, have we crossed from citizen to subject, from voter to cash cow? And if we're reduced to being fuel for the engine of government, are we being governed, or oppressed?
- In 2010, the average taxpayer will work until April 9th, the 99th day of the year, simply to pay his taxes. In other words, you'll spend more than a quarter of the year working without anything to show for it; your labor gains you nothing, except the ability to pay your taxes.
- In downtown Chicago, a can of soda is taxed at 14.75%; you are taxed at roughly 1/7th the cost of the product.
- Cigarettes, a particularly unpopular and difficult to defend product, are taxed at a rate of $3.66 per pack of 20 in Chicago and $4.25 in New York City . Average pack prices in New York are about $11, giving a tax rate of over one third the cost of the product.
- In 2010, Americans in the highest income tax brackets will pay 39.5% in income tax, up from 35% previously.
Secondly, I want you to consider the way in which taxes 'stack'. If we're in downtown Chicago and decide, rather unwisely, to buy that can of soda, the 14.75% tax you pay comes from an income already reduced by a third due to income taxes. You're paying sales, property and other taxes out of what remains of your earnings after income taxes are paid, taxing the remnants of your pay again each time you purchase something with your own money.
Third, and a sticking point for many, is the concept of a 'sin tax', as exemplified by the rate of cigarette taxes in Chicago and New York we noted above. Smoking is unhealthy-I personally abhor it-and obnoxious. But it's legal. And while legislators could never survive banning smoking, they can make it a whipping boy and revenue source without much political backlash. While completely legal, smokers can be punished for their choice to smoke, all the while adding revenue to the seemingly insatiable appetite of the government for more cash.
As I mentioned, I'm not a smoker. But I also realize that taking something unpopular and singling it out for incredibly high tax rates is not a scheme limited to cigarettes. Liquor is also taxed at what can only be a punitive rate, and even we non-drinkers pay it when hosting a party. But more chilling is that the concept of selective, punitive taxation, will likely not stop with tobacco and alcohol.
As the government becomes our health insurance provider, we'll probably see unhealthy things begin to suffer punitive tax rates, if only 'for the good of society.' Butter, bacon, eggs; all of these contribute to heart disease, and increase medical costs. Will we be asked to pay extra for the privilege of eating these things? From what we've seen with other unpopular activities, there can be no doubt.
Retaining the product of our labors, the fruit of our effort and time, is one of the most fundamental aspects of liberty. There are few more effective ways to reduce a person's ability to act, to enjoy life and to impact their society than by taking their money, the lifeblood of our current society. And when we're taxed enough that we can no longer live the life we're earning, can no longer turn our effort into personal gain, have we crossed from citizen to subject, from voter to cash cow? And if we're reduced to being fuel for the engine of government, are we being governed, or oppressed?
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Governed or Oppressed? Part II-Lies Without Consequences
Most lies have consequences, whether they're personal, professional or legal. But some lies apparently don't-lies told to the American people, in public and on record.
Let's watch a Supreme Court nominee lie to us when she's being questioned about the Second Amendment:
The committee's chairman, Patrick Leahy, first told Sotomayor that he enjoys target shooting on a regular basis back home in Vermont and then asked, referring to Heller, "Is it safe to say you accept the Second Amendment is an individual right?" Sotomayor answered plainly, "Yes sir," and added, "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA."
To the SenateJudiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law." The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, "said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases."
How do we know she was lying? Easy-just look at one of her first major decisions after being seated as a Justice, joining the dissent against the McDonald decision that affirmed that the second amendment was an individual right:
The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."
(Of course, it's terrifying that a Supreme Court Justice doesn't believe you have a constitutional right to armed self defense, but that's a different story. We're just focusing on the lies here.)
So what are the consequences for this lie-nothing. Unlike what would happen if you or I lied under oath to Congress, Justice Sotomayor went home and probably ate dinner, maybe watched a little TV. She wasn't arrested and charged with perjury.
And when the laws that apply to you and me don't apply to 'them', are we governed-or oppressed?
Let's watch a Supreme Court nominee lie to us when she's being questioned about the Second Amendment:
The committee's chairman, Patrick Leahy, first told Sotomayor that he enjoys target shooting on a regular basis back home in Vermont and then asked, referring to Heller, "Is it safe to say you accept the Second Amendment is an individual right?" Sotomayor answered plainly, "Yes sir," and added, "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA."
To the SenateJudiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law." The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, "said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases."
How do we know she was lying? Easy-just look at one of her first major decisions after being seated as a Justice, joining the dissent against the McDonald decision that affirmed that the second amendment was an individual right:
The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."
(Of course, it's terrifying that a Supreme Court Justice doesn't believe you have a constitutional right to armed self defense, but that's a different story. We're just focusing on the lies here.)
So what are the consequences for this lie-nothing. Unlike what would happen if you or I lied under oath to Congress, Justice Sotomayor went home and probably ate dinner, maybe watched a little TV. She wasn't arrested and charged with perjury.
And when the laws that apply to you and me don't apply to 'them', are we governed-or oppressed?
Governed or Oppressed? Part I-A White House Above the Law
The line between being governed and being oppressed is a fine one, indeed, and everyone draws it in a different-sometimes wildly different-place.
One thing to consider is whether the administration continues to play by the rules of government that have been put into law; essentially, the rules we, the governed, have agreed to.
The division of powers says the judicial, executive and legislative branches serve as checks and balances on each other. But only if each plays by the rules:
Interior Secretary Ignores a Judge's Order- Salazar said he would renew the moratorium despite the judge’s decision:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday called the six-month halt on deepwater drilling “needed, appropriate and within our authorities” in announcing he will issue a new order on a moratorium just hours after a federal judge blocked such a mandate.
Of course, this is after Salazar falsified a document to make it look like a panel of experts, all of whom opposed a drilling moratorium, supported it:
Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose.
Salazar's May 27 report to President Barack Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. That prohibition took effect a few days later, but the angry panel members and some others who contributed to the Salazar report said they had reviewed only an earlier version of the secretary's report that suggested a six-month moratorium only on new drilling, and then only in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.
"We broadly agree with the detailed recommendations in the report and compliment the Department of Interior for its efforts," a joint letter from the panelists to various politicians says. "However, we do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors."
So when the government can't get what it wants by lying to us, it ignores the judiciary and does what it wants anyway. And the line gets crossed?
One thing to consider is whether the administration continues to play by the rules of government that have been put into law; essentially, the rules we, the governed, have agreed to.
The division of powers says the judicial, executive and legislative branches serve as checks and balances on each other. But only if each plays by the rules:
Interior Secretary Ignores a Judge's Order- Salazar said he would renew the moratorium despite the judge’s decision:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday called the six-month halt on deepwater drilling “needed, appropriate and within our authorities” in announcing he will issue a new order on a moratorium just hours after a federal judge blocked such a mandate.
Of course, this is after Salazar falsified a document to make it look like a panel of experts, all of whom opposed a drilling moratorium, supported it:
Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose.
Salazar's May 27 report to President Barack Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. That prohibition took effect a few days later, but the angry panel members and some others who contributed to the Salazar report said they had reviewed only an earlier version of the secretary's report that suggested a six-month moratorium only on new drilling, and then only in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.
"We broadly agree with the detailed recommendations in the report and compliment the Department of Interior for its efforts," a joint letter from the panelists to various politicians says. "However, we do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors."
So when the government can't get what it wants by lying to us, it ignores the judiciary and does what it wants anyway. And the line gets crossed?
The History of America-The Parts We Weren't Taught
At some point, you realize that your education was not orchestrated by people without an agenda, not managed and directed by truly impartial or altruistic people. You start to realize that the history you were taught has been, at best, carefully selected; at worst, edited.
As an example, here's something that no class, no movie about the American Revolution ever taught me; it was about gun confiscation. I'd been taught it was about taxes. I'd heard about the Tea Party and the stamp tax and other taxes. I knew it was about a lack of representation. I'd never heard anything about guns or gun control precipitating the revolution itself, never saw it referenced anywhere.
We learned about the Battle of Lexington, of course. And learned that it was that 'Shot Heard 'Round the World' that signaled the start of the war, and the birth of America. We may have even learned that one precipitating factor was an order to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, now founding fathers, but then instigators and criminals.
What we didn't learn was that the actual trigger (sorry, I couldn't resist) of the battle was an order from Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, to seize the weapons being stockpiled by the rebels. They fought to preserve the means of resistance, their weapons. While they were willing to negotiate and debate, they realized that any debate had to be backed by the ability to resist, meaningfully resist, the British orders that might be issued. And so when the British ordered their weapons seized, they realized that they could no longer talk, no longer negotiate, and had to stand and prepare to fight.
This was an enormous omission in my education. Speaking to others, I wasn't alone; this isn't taught in schools, at least among those I've met. And one wonders why...
Could it be because it puts perspective on the Second Amendment? Because it makes plain that the colonists would not be disarmed, not by the British and not by the government they went on to create? Could it be because it would, quite rightly, put the 'bearing of arms' in context as one of the primary rights-perhaps THE primary right-the colonists wished to defend? Could it be because it shows, clearly and succinctly, that resistance without the means to resist can be no resistance that matters?
Surely, the message has been lost. Look at this quote from Chicago Aldermen Lorraine Dixon regarding the Supreme Court's affirmation that the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms:
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did,” said Ald. Lorraine Dixon (24th).
This lack of understanding of what the constitution represents, coming from an elected leader, is appalling. Appalling, but not surprising. And sadly, not uncommon:
“I have to say it: I think the Supreme Court is wrong, just like they’ve been wrong before,” said Ald. Leslie Hairston, 5th. “
We're losing our history, and dooming ourselves to repeat it. The last revolution was about gun confiscation; only time will tell if the next one will, too.
As an example, here's something that no class, no movie about the American Revolution ever taught me; it was about gun confiscation. I'd been taught it was about taxes. I'd heard about the Tea Party and the stamp tax and other taxes. I knew it was about a lack of representation. I'd never heard anything about guns or gun control precipitating the revolution itself, never saw it referenced anywhere.
We learned about the Battle of Lexington, of course. And learned that it was that 'Shot Heard 'Round the World' that signaled the start of the war, and the birth of America. We may have even learned that one precipitating factor was an order to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, now founding fathers, but then instigators and criminals.
What we didn't learn was that the actual trigger (sorry, I couldn't resist) of the battle was an order from Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, to seize the weapons being stockpiled by the rebels. They fought to preserve the means of resistance, their weapons. While they were willing to negotiate and debate, they realized that any debate had to be backed by the ability to resist, meaningfully resist, the British orders that might be issued. And so when the British ordered their weapons seized, they realized that they could no longer talk, no longer negotiate, and had to stand and prepare to fight.
This was an enormous omission in my education. Speaking to others, I wasn't alone; this isn't taught in schools, at least among those I've met. And one wonders why...
Could it be because it puts perspective on the Second Amendment? Because it makes plain that the colonists would not be disarmed, not by the British and not by the government they went on to create? Could it be because it would, quite rightly, put the 'bearing of arms' in context as one of the primary rights-perhaps THE primary right-the colonists wished to defend? Could it be because it shows, clearly and succinctly, that resistance without the means to resist can be no resistance that matters?
Surely, the message has been lost. Look at this quote from Chicago Aldermen Lorraine Dixon regarding the Supreme Court's affirmation that the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms:
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did,” said Ald. Lorraine Dixon (24th).
This lack of understanding of what the constitution represents, coming from an elected leader, is appalling. Appalling, but not surprising. And sadly, not uncommon:
“I have to say it: I think the Supreme Court is wrong, just like they’ve been wrong before,” said Ald. Leslie Hairston, 5th. “
We're losing our history, and dooming ourselves to repeat it. The last revolution was about gun confiscation; only time will tell if the next one will, too.
Govenment, Freedom and All That Stuff
Founded on the fundamental concept that we should be largely free of, and certainly protected from, government interference in our lives, America has changed course.
From the insidious danger-yes, real danger- of politically correct speech, to red light cameras and tollways, this space will be dedicated to one simple concept: There is a line between being governed and being oppressed, and we've crossed it.
From the insidious danger-yes, real danger- of politically correct speech, to red light cameras and tollways, this space will be dedicated to one simple concept: There is a line between being governed and being oppressed, and we've crossed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)