Are our courts even legitimate?

If today I were to be charged with a crime, my defense would be simple: “The courts have no authority to charge me with any crime, as they are no longer legitimate instruments of the people.”

Sounds dramatic?

Sounds like an anarchist, or ‘sovereign citizen’?

Except for this, the courts last year held that the state can take your assets, before convicting you of a crime. (Kaley v. United States, 2013) Civil forfeiture has become a cash cow for certain cities and states. In many places, they seize your assets, and never even charge you with a crime.

The Executive Branch, decides which laws it is going to enforce, and when and  how. And the supreme court has stated that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to you at all.

Text for those of you unfamiliar with it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

 

How, exactly, is it reasonable to rob citizens of assets, citizens that have committed no crime, nor are even being charged with one?

How can any reasonable person say that courts that allow this to happen have any legitimacy at all?

The answer is you, can’t. If the courts lack legitimacy on this scale, the idea that anyone is living without contempt for those sitting on the bench becomes a joke. You have, in certain parts of the country, a better chance of getting a fair deal from the criminals in your neighborhood, than from your own ‘justice’ system.

You should be angry about this, and frankly if you are not angry,  you’re an idiot. The government is flat out telling you that they do not have to obey their end of the social contract, and that they may change the rules as they go.

Chemical weapons, wait, what?!

I won’t get into how over 5 years ago I knew people had been exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq. I didn’t post it here, so there is no proof.

What I want to discuss is why I think Bush might have taken the heat for lying about chemical weapons not being there, when he knew damn well they were.

Let’s go back to 2003 and the invasion of Iraq the US Military hired 3rd party logistics services and mercenary security services throughout the area. This is the critical point. The US invaded Iraq under intelligence suggesting that there were modern and new chemical and biological warheads and an advanced nuclear project underway. During the invasion the military encountered not [just?] new chemical weapons, but old and decaying warheads.

Older unstable warheads are harder to move, they are much more dangerous than something made last week. This is particularly true if they have been neglected, as appears to be the case in Iraq.

So you send in the military, without military logistics, under the guise of finding new chemical weapons. You instead encounter stockpiles of older, and possibly some newer weapons. The older ones are highly unstable as you determine by attempting to transport them. What do you do?

Well, there are insurgent threats in the area, and publicly admitting that you found WMDs becomes a problem. You don’t have the trained manpower to move them, you would have to trust local security or logistics, or worse yet the mercenaries you hired. Admitting that WMDs were found creates a target of opportunity for Insurgent forces, who may not know of their existence. Attempting to move a significant faction of trained, and trusted, logistics into the nation becomes both a PR nightmare, as the war has been trashed by the MSM, and a security threat, keep in mind all the bad guys have to do is watch the news, and when they see previously unused military assets being deployed, they will understand something is up.

Why not destroy them? I don’t know, but my guess is that doing so would have presented a clear threat to the civilians in the area.

What it comes down to is this: There was no way for the government to admit to finding chemical weapons without risking insurgent action on them. Given the age, and likely instability, of the warheads an attack on the locations where the weapons were stored likely would have been devastating, not just to our military whose MOPP equipment, or whatever the modern equivalent is, would have protected most of them, but to the civilians without access to even rudimentary protective gear. This is also the likely reason they were not destroyed on site. In the US we have, or had, one specialty facility for handling the destruction of chemical weapons. Without the ability to safely move what we found, we could really only let them sit there. If we admitted they were there, insurgents who likely didn’t know about them, or at least about their locations, would have started to search for them.

What does it mean that ISIS has some of them now? Nothing, if the reports that they are older warheads is true it is unlikely that even ISIS can move them safely enough to use them. This still leaves a large number around Baghdad, which is likely bad for the civilian population if ISIS gets close enough to damage them.

 

Am I an expert on this? No. My estimations are based on my hobby studies of military history, and some long term critical thinking. I took a look at the situation in nation during the Bush years, and came to the only rational explanation I could. Is it right? Only GWB and BHO know. Perhaps there is another reason that Bush took the heat for lying, when the weapons he claimed were there in the first place, actually were there. But I can’t figure it out if there is, this particular meeting of facts: Limited soldiers, no logistics, mercenary and local security, insurgent threats, meet up to give the answer I just posited.

Let’s be like Europe! … Wait they do that?

Just a quickie today, because it seems strange to me:

This is a bit of a touchy topic for me to bring up on my profile and seeing as this is a rather large community of generally cool people thought I could ask you guys for a cheer-up…

Today for the first time in my 21 years of life and 7 years of wearing a scarf, I experienced discrimination for it, now don’t get me wrong, I can understand it at airport security, they once suspected I had something hidden under it so they checked a few years back, I’m not an unreasonable person, some things I understand there are ways to be decent about it. But today I found myself walking home with tears in my eyes. Today I experienced hate from one of my teachers and I’ve heard about such things in France and I always thought it would be sad to live in a place where the government controls what you wear. And I must say its not a nice feeling, even though she wasnt completely 100% rude I guess, she could’ve been less loud and didn’t have to make comments in front of my classmates and compare how its possible to not wear one…

Yes this person is Muslim. But I want to point out what a great socialist utopia France is. So next time someone compares us to Europe, and tells us we need to do it like they do, point this out.

Wait one second.

So I am not, by any means, anti-cop. But policeone.com presented this article. After point 1 I felt the need to address it.

1: Cops make a pittance. They don’t do this for the money.

 

The median wage for police officers is $52,104 Source.

The median wage for the nation is $50,054 Source.

The median wage for an E-6 in the military is $31,342.

You don’t get to cry pittance when your job is less stressful than a soldier, and you make 25% more, or when you make more than the median wage of the entire nation. No you aren’t being payed a pittance, you’re being paid quite well on average.

That said, I do agree, mostly they aren’t in it for the money.

2:  The standard to make criminal charges stick is incredibly high. Knowing someone is guilty and proving it are very different things.

 

And yet, we have a huge population of people in prison for simply wanting to enjoy themselves. Blind loyalty to what the politicians say is ‘The Law’ is why millions died in Germany between 1933 and 1946.

3: Bad cops do exist. The “power” aspect is attractive to a certain group of people. The good cops try their hardest to weed them out, but they don’t always succeed.

 

Every single bad cop destroys your entire department. Failing to rid the system of the bad apples removes the credibility of the entire system. Saying you ‘try’ to weed them out is insufficient.

4. Cops actually hate giving traffic tickets. In larger jurisdictions, traffic is something that you send rookies or the guys in the doghouse to do. In others, it is a duty imposed from above. It is like scrubbing your toilet. You don’t do it because you want to do it. You do it because it has to be done.

 

So profiling blacks and kids because they have cars you think are too nice, has to be done? No, traffic stops are not something  that ‘has to be done’ it’s extortion pure and simple. Many departments, if not all, get to keep a portion of the funds raised. This is criminal banditry. If I, or anyone who is not a cop, stopped random people for speeding and made them pay us, we’d go to jail.

5. It isn’t fair that everyone likes firefighters more. Cops actually risk their lives more often (and probably save more kittens).

 

Flat out wrong. This idea that a cop ‘risks his life with every traffic stop’ is patently demonstrably false. There are approximately 780,000 police in the US, source. There were 126 deaths in the line of duty in 2012, source. List of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US here, notice that police isn’t on this list. Number 16 is police, and yes it’s higher than firefighter, of course if you include falls, heart attacks, and vehicle accidents (not pursuit related) your that high on the list, remove those and you drop a bit.

6. Most convictions stem from confessions. They will do everything in their power to convince you that you should confess. Cops will (and are allowed/encouraged by prosecutors to) lie. That is one of the rules of the game.

And this is the problem. Not only is this ‘one of the rules of the game’ as you say, it is the big problem with police-non police interactions.

This is followed by a series of potentially good points, ones that I am unwilling to debate, until we get to:

19. We don’t do this job for the power or prestige you might think it brings. We do it because we are tired of seeing good people suffer, and we want to help and protect them from the wolves.

You can’t, if that is your reason, your in the wrong field. You’re essentially public janitors, you show up after the wolf has eaten the sheep to clean up the mess, and maybe look for the wolf.

20. You might be tougher than me, but I will win in the long run. Believe it.

You’re loosing it all right now, mostly due to the number of bad cop incidents. Combine this with a lack of prosecution of police, the perceived ‘protected elite status’ they enjoy, and you’re loosing. You have no idea what you’re talking about. After things like Beavercreek, OH, you’re losing.

Being a cop right now, is probably the worst time in history to be one. With the rising anti-police sentiment, justified or not, your jobs are only going to get harder, and more dangerous. Keep pushing and you will take the number 1 spot on the list of deadliest jobs, but that’s not a goal I would aim for.

Mike Malloy and Charles Manson

It finally happened. Someone followed Mike Malloy’s, the lunatic left wing media host, suggestion that when you see an open carrier, you should call 911, and scream active shooter.

A man, in Wal-Mart, in the toy aisle with his kids, holding a toy gun, was killed by police.

The DA in Beavercreek should immediately begin seeking evidence that the person who dialed 911, Ronald Ritchie, was an anti-gun person. If this evidence provides enough to seek conviction for the death of John Crawford III, Mike Malloy should also be charged. Charles Manson was put in prison for arranging the murder, by his followers, of several people. Mike Malloy, likewise, has arranged the murder of innocent people by way of his followers.

The anti-gun people in this nation should be treated as pariahs. They have shown they are willing to use the police to commit murder, simply over a difference of opinion. If you have anti-gun friends, shun them. Refuse to shop at any place that doesn’t allow you to carry your weapons. You can get everything you need from Amazon anyway. If someone on social media speaks ill of guns, call them out as murderers and rapists. These are the tactics the left uses against us all the time, it is more than time for us to be loud and start doing it back.

I understand that in general, we simply aren’t rabble-rousers, it is in our nature to be more guarded in general. But if you keep this up, we will loose by attrition. You need to call the DA for Beavercreek, Ohio and the police… Put pressure on this case the same way our anti-gun associates did after Sandy Hook.

Beavercreek Police Dept:

1388 Research Park Drive
Beavercreek, OH 45432
Non-Emergencies
Ph: 937-426-1225

US District Attorney :

U.S. Attorney’s Office
303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43215

Main number: 614-469-5715

 

We’re Back, and Yes More Gun Control.

Our new posts will be coming out on Sundays. Sorry for the 1 Year off, but as a new father with a 21 month old daughter, life has been hectic to say the least. As such I am starting off this new, with gun control.

 

FOPA, do you know what it is?

“Firearm Owners Protection Act” Passed in 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan. This is the law that contained an amendment that banned the private ownership of “machine guns”.

So what did it protect?

From FOPA :

“Any person not prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport an unloaded, not readily accessible firearm in interstate commerce notwithstanding any provision of any legislation enacted, or any rule or regulation promulgated by an State or political subdivision thereof.”

 

It ‘protects’ you if you’re travelling through states with a firearm, as long as you have the firearm unloaded, and in a separate compartment of the vehicle.

That’s it.

There are a great many gun nuts out there, who praised the bill. The bill which has not stopped a man moving to Maine from being sentenced to 5 years in New Jersey, or a Woman who crossed state lines from facing 3 Years.

Your driver’s license is recognized in all 50 states as being legal. Your right to arms, not so much. In exchange for banning machine guns in 1986, we got this wreckage of a law.

Here are the two best parts. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that one of the reasons for private ownership of guns is that it is necessary for a ‘well regulated’ militia, well regulated in this context would mean well trained. The modern weapons of the militia were the only weapons banned under this law. Literally the only weapons that the congress actually can’t ban, were the ones that were banned.

And now for the kicker, this law was NEVER challenged in SCOTUS. In my research I have been unable to find even a single incidence of the law being challenged. Gun owners simply accepted the law, without so much as a single fight. Think about that for a while and then if you’re active enough, or pro-2A enough please follow this link.

Here is a link, http://www.change.org/suggested?petition_id=318872 I would like you all to review. It is time the Huges Amendment is either removed, or challenged in SCOTUS.

Dark for months.

The site has been dark for months, and I apologize, I intend to get back to weekly posts in April. However I have been particularly busy with RL, and this makes me no money… so …

 

With that said, Starting in april I will be coming back online.

Some gun facts to sleep on.

While the new guard of gun control advocates are trying to re-brand their poison, calling it ‘gun safety’ a topic they know nothing about, another kid went and killed someone. Once again making news, unlike all those people killing themselves in the ghetto. I decided I would try to pitch this from a new direction.

FBI stats suggest that annually 2-4% of all crime is committed with a firearm someone legally owned. This is determined using the FBI UCR and the state numbers for revoked licenses.

In this nation somewhere between 75,000,000 and 115,000,000 people own firearms.

There are approximately 12,200,000 arrests made in 2012. Assuming every single one of them was a crime. This would mean that a maximum of 488,000 were committed by legal gun owners. This 488,000 number is not true, this number exceeds the total number of licenses revoked throughout the nation, which is at approximately 20,000 annually for the. [SOURCE] In addition it is likely some of these arrests were multiple arrests of a single individual.

But let us still look at and use this number, if this was correct it would mean that .65% of gun owners would commit crimes annually. The remaining crimes being committed by 5% of the rest of the population. You are at least 8 times more likely to be the victim of a criminal from the non gun owning population than from among those that do, but keep in mind this is maximum victimization rate. If we use the latest numbers on gun ownership [SOURCE] it looks even more lopsided, with you being more than 15 times more likely to be the victim of a non-gun owning member of society. If you used the number of revoked licenses and even assumed that this number was 1/5 the total number of criminal legal owners, you would get a number that is 5 times higher, you would be 75 times more likely to be victimized by normal society than by any gun owner.

I see people out there refer to our ‘gun culture’ as being a toxic one. Sheer numbers suggests that it is the non-gun culture of our nation that is toxic. One should expect gun owners to commit 25% of all crimes as they account for no less than 25% of the population. Yet this is not the case, gun owners typically are more responsible people than non-gun owners are.

In the darkness of yet another tragedy, everyone wants to do something but you never hear about gun control when it is criminals shooting each-other or innocent people. You only hear about it when the bullied kid, or the sick mind decides to go on a rampage, despite these accounting for less than 1% of all gun crimes. It says something about the morality of people that push for this type of legislation.

TED Talks response : Violence against women – it’s a men’s issue: Jackson Katz at TEDxFiDiWomen

I don’t usually do two posts in one day, but I had this in one of my feeds on Facebook today and when I responded, to the OP with a minor point, they asked for more and I thought about it and decided this does earn more of a response than the one I gave simply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvSfeCRxe8

So here is a better response to Jackson Katz, one that will address his speech on a point by point basis.

With respect to your education, you must be one arrogant man to decide the idea that you are pitching right now is somehow paradigm shifting. That is something for the future to decide, not you in your current place. Unless the paradigm actually shifts, you’re giving too much importance to the ideology you are currently espousing.

That first part being said, I agree with the beginning of your concept (@~2:28) that calling the issue women’s issues is rather limiting to the conversation. That in fact the issue, for those who have not yet watched the video is violence, is not a “women’s issue”. However calling it a men’s issue isn’t correct either. It is a human issue, pure and simple. Violence is part of the normal attitude of most predator species on the planet, and humans are no exception to this rule. The idea that violence is primarily associated with men, a fact, however is blame placing. Testosterone, is a major factor in the existence of violence. Blaming inherent biology for violence is misleading, women do engage in acts of violence as well. In women it can be caused by either testosterone, or an imbalance of Estrogen/Progesterone.

In addition while men’s violence is usually out right aggression, in women it tends to be more subtle, emotional violence if you will. The stereotype of the hen-pecked husband didn’t come into existence on its own. The concept of men having been emotionally beaten by their wives has been around forever. I think we would both agree this is abuse, and that it isn’t uncommon.

“Which is to say the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about it’s dominance… the ability to go unexamined” (@~3:29)

Ah, yes, the new old trap of privilege. In western society we have so challenged the idea of a group in power that we have legislated equality. We have made it a civil offense to treat the one group as being privileged, how dare you and your ilk insist that any group even has a privilege! I see similar arguments all the time, regardless of the topic at hand, and they all lack one important thing, factual data supporting it. I wouldn’t be so crass as to argue that this method of thinking was never true, it certainly was, but it no longer is. Almost half a century, and two standard generations, have passed since this argument held any water. Today this is a ‘feel good’ statement used by people who won’t succeed, to explain why they haven’t. Notice i didn’t say “can’t” succeed, I said won’t, success comes from hard work, and effort, something that too many in today’s western society refuse to accept, feeling instead that they are entitled to luxury simply by the nature of being born. The entire point of you phrasing things this way is to elicit an emotional charge, and while that may be fun and profitable for you, it isn’t a good way of getting rational people to side with you.

(@~4:14) As far as your take on the language is perceived, you have read it completely incorrectly. What happened isn’t the removal of men from the discussion, but rather a deliberate and successful attempt to create greater empathy for the victim who was abused. I am not going to morally judge that, because in the effort to increase empathy for the victim, we have managed to loose the anger for the perpetrator.  We now feel bad for this Mary in your story, but less anger for John, since he isn’t part of it.

(@~6:00) First off, ‘victim blaming’ happens to every single person who was the victim of a crime. Any crime, every crime. “What were you doing there when your car was stolen” or “Why were you walking down the street at 2 AM when you were mugged?” are common questions. It is this simple, ultimately only you are responsible for your own safety, not me, not the police, not the army, not the government.

As far as asking about Mary not getting us anywhere, you are dead wrong. Let me put a good example for you, Mary is a battered woman, because she tried to stab her husband after a fight over the bad lasagna he made, and he defended himself.

Woah, wait a minute, context does matter sir. Her context as well as his. So yes questioning the victim as to why they did what they did is valid. Is this a rare case? We don’t know, but famously there was a case that made national headlines recently. You read that right, she beat him.

The fact is that most people who are the victims of crime are partially responsible, they put themselves in a place or situation that they knew was dangerous beforehand.

As to your question why are so many people raped? For starters we have redefined rape, see here , what used to be an act without consent, has been redefined. Now we determine that people can not consent under certain circumstances, rightly or wrongly, and this has become rape. So yes the number of rape victims has gone up. But much like the idea that we aren’t teaching men not to rape, the idea that we don’t need to teach women to be cautious about their environment is just wrong.

(@~7:40) Good hypothesis, however you are pitching your idea as if it is fact. For those who haven’t watched the video, he is claiming that something is wrong with society that produces men who are violent in particular rapists. We can’t do a baseline comparison of rates of male violence around the world, because of limited data, and differential reporting methods. However you have a good thesis, but unless you can provide data to support it, you are simply not helping the problem. Should this avenue be researched? Certainly. Should we assume that it is a problem with civilization and not biology? No. The fact that you are willing to address these questions is great, but ignoring the other half, the victim half of the equation, does us no good either. Going to a party with a bunch of men alone, and willingly taking mind altering substances is part of the problem, yes the men shouldn’t have done it, but you shouldn’t have made it possible for them to do it either.

I have both a son, and a daughter. I am teaching my son not to rape, and when my daughter is older, I will be teaching her not to get raped. Because making bad decisions does hurt you.

(@~9:00) As far as you finding the term “Feminazi” or “Man-Hater” offensive, two important things. Firstly they are not used as you indicated, though yes they do often come up in discussions of this type, because contrary to your ideal view of your side, there are in-fact women that hate men out there. If you use the term “mansplaining” you’re probably one of them. I could go on and on listing the types of people that fit these categories, but won’t. Secondly, this isn’t about ‘killing the messenger’ as much as that is how you wish it were, if it were you would be completely correct in your assertion. While I agree these terms are used in ad-hominem attacks, which are generally weak, they are most often used when the person’s ideas are clearly not in line with reality. For those women who want ‘equal but superior’ rights, after all we know some people are more equal than others, if you will pardon the paraphrase.

(@~9:40) Give me one example of something men can say that women can’t? One example, where a woman will be called sexist, but a man wouldn’t? No it isn’t true, not in any way shape or form.

(@~12:00) I agree, in theory at least with what he calls “the bystander” approach. In fact recently I convinced my wife to join in an activity at work, where she learned a lesson and decided to, as a result, no longer tolerates third party homophobic speech. My wife managed to gain a large amount of empathy by going to an anti-gay-bulling rally at her job, where she was one of the few straight people who attended. The idea of standing up for people who aren’t there is a truly good one, and the fact is there is more of this going on than he might think.

@(~14:45) Jackson Katz, how you know nothing of male culture at your age is a major question. The entire male culture is built around the idea that we do challenge each other, constantly seeking a pecking order if you will. Men do stupid things for a variety of reasons, but almost always it is to challenge their peers.

In recap, we have a man here who fails to understand the basic premise of ‘male society’ as he puts it. Contrary to what he wants to believe, and what I have seen commented on Facebook, the truth is much more complex. Humans are biological machines, very much at the whim of the neurotransmitters they get, which are in turn controlled by hormone releases. While you do have some limited capacity to override these commands, the prevalence of addictions shows that it is not always possible for people to overcome them. In fact any person can become addicted to something. The very hormones that make us humans also put into us a sometimes uncontrollable urge to violence. The fools that think every human can control this urge are just that, fools. Can the majority of us? To some degree yes, but not completely. You get angry, you think nasty thoughts, great that is your limit on this particular event, however there are some people who don’t have that limit. And while it is sad that there are people who can not function in a normal society, it is a fact. There will always be people who turn to violence, and simply educating it away is not a realistic approach. You think I am wrong, tell the next heroine addict you talk to “simply don’t inject it.” and see how well that works.

Edited to add sources to this discussion that I thought were irrelevant, and unneeded, however someone called me out on them, and as such sources provided.

I’m a liberal therefore I am not brainwashed.

Since the middle of the Vietnam Conflict, the media in the U.S. has had a definitive leftist bend to it. The owners of the major networks have been major contributors to the Democratic Party since this period. Remember the Tet Offensive? How disastrous it was for the US? History teaches it as though the NVA won a major victory, the reality however was quite different, had the US pushed the war after the Tet Offensive was over, the war would have been a victory. But the media told us we lost, and the people believed it, the military knew better.

Internationally many nations of the world have been moving more and more left, closer to socialism over the past three decades. Labor and socialist parties dominate most of European politics. What about here in the United States? The Democratic Party is essentially pitched as a labor party and given that it is owned partially by labor unions, it is one. For the last few decades most cities have been controlled by the Democratic Party, and Unions donate to it, almost exclusively.

The college campuses across the nation, and around the world, include a large number of liberal groups, and liberal propaganda. The nations schools teach half-truths when it comes to history. How many adults remember hearing about Vietnam, and how we should have learned our lesson in Korea?  The thing is, we beat the North Korean Army, we were driven back by a full scale Chinese invasion of the peninsula, and we managed to push them back as well, until certain politicians were convinced to end the conflict, wisely I might add.

Literally everywhere you look, the media, the colleges, and the inner cities, a pro-liberal/progressive message is the one that is broadcast to you. The idea that you are more tolerant or open minded as a liberal has been pitched to you since birth by every major media outlet. Yet despite this truth Liberals not only think they aren’t brainwashed, they think that conservatives are the ones who are.

Brainwashed by what? All the movies made are written by, filmed by, and acted by liberals, there are so few conservatives in Hollywood it actually makes news when one comes out as such. Libertarian views are often laughed at in the public circles around Hollywood.

How is it that the Koch Brothers have brainwashed the Libertarians and Conservatives, but the entire media establishment hasn’t brainwashed a single Liberal thinker? The idea that we are brainwashed by our side, which has no way of spreading its message, but that the progressive/socialist/liberal hasn’t been brainwashed by over 40 years of media coverage movies and television, and popular media is insane. No rational thought process can bring you to this conclusion.

Indeed if we analyze the speech of our opponents we can find as this video clearly shows, that they do in fact speak as though they have been indoctrinated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psrybt5jynM

This raises a good question, how do we deal with reeducating people who have been so heavily brainwashed by decades of toxic media, in particular when the media itself has been progressing so slowly to the left, and is still in the hands of the very leftists that are now undermining society, for their own profit?