Monthly Archives: May 2008

Hillary Clinton: Second Amendment Defender?

Constitution, Doublespeak, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Election '08, History, Individual Rights, Keep and Bear Arms, Politics, The Bill Of Rights

The Hillary Clinton campaign has sent out mailers criticizing Barack Obama for trying to have it both ways on the Second Amendment. The mailer reads as follows:

These are all valid criticisms of Barack Obama; I have made some of these very criticisms myself (here, and here). But the source of these criticisms (Hillary Clinton) seems very strange to me. Barack Obama could very easily ask the same question: What does Hillary Clinton really believe?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill Clinton sign the Brady Bill into law? Maybe this is another example of her disagreeing with the policies of her husband’s administration, such as with NAFTA (if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you).

Apparently, I’m not the only one who is skeptical of Hillary Clinton’s sudden bid to become the NRA’s next president (she might as well, she doesn’t have any realistic chance of winning the Democrat nomination for president). Ben Smith writes:

The piece [the mailer as shown above] is particularly striking coming from Clinton, who has been seen for most of her career as a firm advocate of gun control, but more recently has emerged — without dramatically shifting her stance on specific issues — as a defender of the Second Amendment who fondly recalled being taught to shoot by her grandfather in Scranton.

Hillary Clinton: Second Amendment Defender? How stupid does she really think we are?

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

The Next Phase of the Kathryn Johnston Saga Begins

Constitution, Crime and Punishment, Individual Rights, Legal, Police Watch, Privacy, Property Rights, The War on Drugs

(WSB Radio) Opening arguments begin today in the trial of an Atlanta police officer charged in connection with killing of Kathryn Johnston.

Arthur Tesler is the only cop to go on trial for the shooting of the 92 year old woman in her Atlanta home.

Tesler did not fire a shot during the November 2006 incident. But prosecutors say he assisted in the cover up that followed. Officers have admitted to planting drugs to justify breaking into her home.

He’s charged with making a false statement to an investigator, violating his oath of office and unlawful imprisonment.

Tesler’s lawyer, William McKenney, says his client was in the backyard when the shooting took place and was not involved in the cover-up.

Two former officers, Gregg Junnier and Jason Smith, have pleaded guilty to a state charge of voluntary manslaughter and a federal charge of violating Johnston’s constitutional rights.

The very fact that possession of drugs could be used as justification to break into an elderly woman’s home in itself is very disturbing but such is the state of the war on (some) drugs. What is even more disturbing is that in this case, the police admitted to planting drugs to cover up their mistake of killing an innocent person; how often does this happen where the police get away with such cover ups?

Related: Two Officers Surrender in Johnston Death

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Why Energy Independence Is a Futile Way to End Middle-East Terrorism

Energy Policy, Free Trade, War on Terror

In an earlier post, I discussed the economic damage that “energy independence” would cause to U.S. consumers. In a recent conversation in meatspace, I ran into someone who acknowledged this problem, but argued that the price is “worth it” because when we trade with people who make oil, those people use the wealth to do all sort of bad things, like funding Al Queda. This argument has some merit; I certainly wouldn’t buy bread from a guy who would use the money to fund attacks on his neighbors.

Let’s examine this problem using the infamous Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland California as an example. This bakery is the cash cow for a gang that is involved in all sorts of criminal activity, ranging from auto-theft to destroying the stocks of alcohol stores since the bakers religiously disapprove of drinking.

If we take the proponents of energy independence’s approach to this matter, we would be calling for the city of Oakland, through a web of subsidies and taxes, to encourage the development of industries providing alternatives to bread. We would demand that they subsidize spaghetti shops, encourage people to bake their own bread, and tax bread use. We would seek to make bread more expensive for all so that people will consume less bread and stop buying bread from the bakery.

Instead of focusing on this particular bakery, instead of calling for a boycott of that particular bakery, we would seek to deprive all bakers of their livelihoods, make food more expensive for all including those who are desperately poor and have difficulty affording food. This is taking a sledgehammer to swat a fly and very immoral to boot!

But by trying to use violence to change the behavior of their countrymen, especially in a manner so ineffective to achieving their stated goals, the politicians calling for energy independence are crossing the line. People would rightly laugh if the Mayor of Oakland tried to eliminate bread from the city of Oakland as a means of ending the Your Black Muslim Bakery’s rein of terror. People should do the same to politicians calling for “energy independence” as a means of depriving Al Queda of its operating funds.

tarran
I am an anarcho-capitalist living just west of Boston Massachussetts. I am married, have two children, and am trying to start my own computer consulting company.
https://thelibertypapers.org/author/tarran/

Hey, At Least They’re Honest!

Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Economics, Education, Election '08, Energy Policy, General, Government Regulation, Human Rights, Politics, Property Rights, Socialism, The Nanny State, The Welfare State, Theory and Ideas

I found this little gem on reason.tv. On April 16, 2008 a group called Ad Hoc National Network to Stop Evictions and Foreclosures held a protest in Washington D.C.

What were they protesting? As the name of the organization suggests, Ad Hoc was advocating a freeze on all evictions in the U.S. Many of the Ad Hoc supporters wanted to go well beyond this, however. Some called for cancelling of all student loan debt, others called for “free” electricity, “free” healthcare, and “free” education. Still others ranted and raved about every real and imagined sin of the U.S. government (I half expected to see Rev. Wright in the video somewhere).

But don’t bother labeling these people as Marxists or Socialists; at least a few of the protesters who were interviewed readily embraced these philosophies and described themselves as such.

Why is this important? Isn’t this just a small group of extremists?

I wish that were the case. While most people we run into in our daily lives don’t call themselves Marxists or Socialists (they are probably clueless about these philosophies), many of them are calling for some of these very things. Supporters of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader (who’s policy proposals are unsafe at any speed), and Mike Gravel (the faux libertarian) each support the Ad Hoc agenda, at least to some extent because their candidates support this agenda to some extent.

John McCain isn’t exactly someone who comes to my mind as a staunch defender of Capitalism either. McCain embraces this so-called “national greatness” philosophy where the individual should be willing to sacrifice himself for the “common good” of the country. McCain also criticized the Bush tax cuts as a tax cut for the rich* and pointed out that Mitt Romney’s background in business “chasing profits” was not as honorable as his lifetime service to his country.

One thing I can say about the Ad Hoc people, as insanely naïve as they are; at least they are honest about who they are. The same cannot be said about the top three candidates running for president.

» Read more

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/
1 … 8 9 10