Archive for August, 2007

Insert obligatory Kool-Aid reference here

Posted in The Most Fundamental Right on August 26, 2007 by Darkman

You can’t have it both ways.

From the Amendment II Democrats – Who We Are:

We are Democrats, and as such we will support our party’s nominees for local, state, and federal office. During the primaries, however, if any Democratic candidate supports gun control measures that Amendment II Democrats oppose (such as reauthorizing the national ban on semi-automatics) [what reauthorization? –Darkman], that primary candidate is fair game, and we will encourage voters to support Democratic candidates who are in greater harmony with our outlook on Second Amendment rights. But once the primaries are over and the candidates for the general election have been chosen, it is important that all Democrats pull together and support our party’s candidates as best as we are able. Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

And in comments at The War On Guns:

The member of my party who disagrees with me is better than the member of the opposing party that agrees with me.

The utter insanity of this statement is unequivocal.

Pick your causes, and stand by them even if I don’t agree with them. That’s fine with me. But don’t pretend to stand for something only as long as it conveniently doesn’t contravene your arbitrary allegiance to your chosen oppressor.

There are other things about this group that make me tend to believe they are only a front for “reasonable gun laws.” The slip-up about “reauthorizing the national ban on semi-automatics” is one, because there never was any such thing. Another one is: “No rational society founded upon democratic principles, however, can function without some measure of gun control. To remove all gun legislation from the books is to invite anarchy.” There is no evidence that it invited anarchy during the century and a half that this country existed before 1934. There is a great deal of evidence that such laws affect only the already law-abiding, reducing their ability to defend themselves against criminals and criminal authorities.



When law becomes a weapon…

Posted in Amerika on August 25, 2007 by Darkman

For whom was the Padilla verdict a victory?

For the government. Not for the people. Not for liberty. Not for “the war on terrorism.” Only for those who are bent on ultimate control and eliminating anyone who gets in their way.

Padilla was only a trial run. Now that they know how to do it, and convince the herd that it is Right, expect it to happen more frequently.

Padilla Jury Opens Pandora’s Box by Paul Craig Roberts

…the protective features of law had been seriously eroded prior to the Bush regime’s assault on civil liberty in the name of “the war on terror.” The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest on Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny – habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self-incrimination.

Jeremy Bentham claimed that these protective principles were outmoded in a democracy in which the people controlled the government and no longer had reasons to fear it. The problem with Blackstone’s “Rights of Englishmen,” Bentham said, is that these civil liberties needlessly limit the government’s power and, thus, its ability to protect citizens from crime. Bentham wanted to preempt criminal acts by arresting those likely to commit crimes in advance, before the budding criminals entered into a life of crime. Bentham, like the Bush regime, the “Padilla Jury,” and the Republican Federalist Society, did not understand that when law becomes a weapon, liberty dies regardless of the form of government. If they do understand, they prefer unaccountable government power to individual liberty.

Aye, but there’s the rub. There may have been a time when the people controlled the government–a brief time–but that time has long since passed.

Simple test: Is “rule of law” used to protect individuals from oppression by a ruling authority, or is “rule of law” used by the ruling authority to perform that oppression?

Follow the money

Posted in Amerika on August 17, 2007 by Darkman

Yahoo News reports Feds pay $80,000 over anti-Bush T-shirts:

A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston.

“This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment,” said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia. “As a result of the Ranks’ courageous stand, public officials will think twice before they eject peaceful protesters from public events for exercising their right to dissent.”

White House spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.

“The parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct,” Jones said.

The front of the Ranks’ homemade T-shirts bore the international symbol for “no” superimposed over the word “Bush.” The back of Nicole Rank’s T-shirt said “Love America, Hate Bush.” On the back of Jeffery Rank’s T-shirt was the message “Regime Change Starts at Home.”

The ACLU said in a statement that a presidential advance manual makes it clear that the government tries to exclude dissenters from the president’s appearances. “As a last resort,” the manual says, “security should remove the demonstrators from the event.”

This was a victory for no one. Except the lawyers, of course. If the Ranks did it again, they’d be “removed” again. The “security” will continue to “remove” people because they wear t-shirts disapproving of King George. Nothing has changed.

But the Feds had to pony up $80,000, you say. Surely, that’s a victory of some sort.

No, it isn’t. Because “the Feds” didn’t pay anything. You and I did. And the fractional amount that came out of all the money they steal from us by threat of force our cumulative taxes to pay for this atrocity is nothing compared to the atrocious loss of liberty we have already experienced, and which allowed such a thing to happen.

“The Feds” will continue such infringements because they are not held responsible for it. They just pull a few thousand out of the coffers and keep right on going.

Via Nobody’s Business.