Author Archives: Adam Selene

Why Is It?

Why is it that most dogmatic conservative and libertarian blogs don’t provide trackbacks or comments? If they did then Anthony Gregory, Thomas Woods (of Lew Rockwell Blog) and Kevin might be able to have a constructive dialog. Instead, we have this. Such posts make people feel better, superior even. They probably get appreciative head nods from various readers and followers. But they don’t advance discussion at all.

Oh, just in case Anthony or Thomas drop by, The Liberty Papers is not Libertarian (or Republican or Democrat for that matter).

Continuing to Extend the Use of SWAT Teams

Originally, police departments (especially, and most famously, the LAPD) formed SWAT teams to deal with violent, dangerous situations, such as hostage situations. I remember watching SWAT in the ’70s. They never showed the SWAT guys serving drug and gambling warrants, just dealing with really bad situations where innocent people were at risk of losing their life in violent criminal situations. And they certainly never showed the SWAT team showing up when a guy threatened to take his own life and no one else’s life was at risk.

Trevor Bothwell, of Who’s Your Nanny? brings us a story of SWAT intervention in a suicide attempt. Naturally, the suicide attempt ends with the death of the person threatening suicide, CPL James Dean, an Army Reservist. When Dean’s family called the police because he was threatening suicide, the police sent SWAT teams, according to a local news report:

Lawmen said this week that they did what they could to peacefully resolve the overnight confrontation off Brown Road in Hollywood. They said it ended shortly after noon on Tuesday when Dean raised a gun at approaching officers. A police sharpshooter fired once, killing him.

The next day, quiet had returned to Dusty Lane, which leads to the Dean family’s three homes on cleared land surrounded by woods. James Dean, who turned 29 last weekend, and his wife, Muriel, married last August and had their own home in the Hollywood Shores community, but police report he had gone to his parents’ home on Christmas night. He was alone there when family members called authorities from elsewhere shortly before 10 p.m. for them to check on his welfare.

So, apparently, when someone is home alone, and not threatening harm to anyone else’s life, liberty or property, the appropriate response is to send para-military police out, including armored vehicles (see these photos), engage in a half day stand off with the individual, create a violent confrontation, and then kill the individual with sniper fire.

Is there anyone besides me that finds this to be a bit of an over reaction? Anyone else think that maybe Dean didn’t have to die by the gun of a police officer? Anyone find it odd that we now use SWAT teams to serve warrants and intervene in suicide attempts?

The Power of the Minority

I know it is common, in this country, to believe that our government acts based upon the so-called will of the majority. This leads to another idea we refer to as the “tyranny of the majority”. Unfortunately this set of ideas is completely false in a representative government that is based on the idea of 50%+1. Our government is based on just such an idea, both in the way we elect our representatives and in the way that our representatives pass laws.

Let’s ignore, for a moment, the true complexity of Congressional law making, or the fact that Congress has delegated wide swaths of its power to bureaucrats that are not accountable to the voters. Consider this set of facts, instead:

  1. A member of Congress, whether Representative or Senator, is elected by achieving a plurality in their district or state, respectively. We’ll assume, for this argument, that they always receive 50%+1 votes to be elected and that there is 100% voter turn out.
  2. A law is passed in Congress by a vote of 50%+1 of the House and the Senate. Again, we’ll ignore the exceptions since they aren’t particularly important anyhow (impeachment, and such) and we will assume that all members of Congress vote on every law.
  3. Finally, we’ll assume absolutely honest Congressmen who represent as accurately as possible the wishes of the folks that voted for them.

What does that add up to? Well, if you followed along, 50% of Congress, representing only 50% of their districts, pass laws. That means the will of a mere 25% of the voters will decide how much you and I are taxed each and every day, what laws govern us, whether we have a ponzi scheme called Social Security, which judges will become Supreme Court Justices, and so on. In practice it is even worse than that, since legislation has to get through a committee before it can be voted on. That means that less than 10% of the population will indirectly decide whether a piece of legislation becomes law, or not, assuming that we only consider the Senate. In actuality, in the House, a mere 2% of the population is represented in deciding whether a bill leaves committee, or not.

I feel better about pure representative democracy now!

Why Aren’t They Upset About Hollywood’s Obscene Wealth?

As always, I enjoy reading Thomas Sowell. Many times I don’t agree with him, he is much more socially conservative than I am. But, economically, I rarely disagree. And his most recent piece in the National Review is no exception. It’s on income inequality and he makes some good points in it. But the best one comes before the closer. In fact, I tend to think it should have been his closer.

It is also worth noting that the people who are said to be earning “obscene” amounts of money are usually corporate executives. There is no such outrage whipped up when Hollywood movie stars make some multiple of what most corporate executives make.

How come my progressive, left wing friends aren’t outraged by Oprah’s income? Inquiring minds want to know.

We Told You So

We, the people opposed to the War on Drugs, told you that your civil liberties would be lost and nothing would be gained. We warned you that each assault on drugs would just make things worse, not better. You didn’t believe us. In fact, you said we were a bunch of druggies that just wanted to be able to smoke dope. And you went right ahead with your drug war, convinced of your righteousness.

When your drug war turned Marijuana into California’s largest cash crop and our National Parks into playgrounds, you said we needed to fight harder. When your war led the drug blackmarket to create crack, a cheaper and much more addictive form of cocaine, you used it to justify more cops, more swat teams, more invasions of our civil liberties.

And now we have reached the point of inanity. In Georgia, in the fight against drugs, we have made it illegal to sell someone bhutane, cold medicine and matches to the same person at the same time. Silly, you say? Well, it is one of the consequences of your War on Drugs.

In most states you must show ID to purchase pseudo-ephedrine because it is used to make meth. By Federal law you can only purchase a specific, very small, amount of pseudo-ephedrine per week. This leads to extreme silliness. And we told you it wouldn’t help, as Radley Balko discusses in his Fox column this week.

Critics like me complained that the laws wouldn’t solve the meth problem, they would only invite new suppliers into thse communities – all while inconveniencing consumers. These measures might dry up homemade labs – and admittedly, they did – but they would create a market for purer, more potent meth from Mexico, along with the attendant crime that comes with an international, black market drug trade.

Yeah, I remember saying such things and being told I was silly, it was all part of our grand War on Drugs. We had to do it for the children, you said. Well, there was an interesting outcome.

Sure enough, we now see in early-adopting states like Oklahoma that meth is as prevalent and available as ever. In fact, it’s more potent, which means it’s creating more addicts. And as predicted, police are tracing the new stuff back to Mexico. So instead of some loser mixing up a personal supply of meth in his basement, the state’s now flush with a more toxic for of the drug, pushed by international smugglers.

Oh good, we contributed to the trade deficit, another of your bogeymen. More importantly, we know that terrorist groups are using drug sales for financing. So, we took money from basement meth labs and handed it to international cartels and, in turn, to terrorist organizations. Beautiful.

In the words of the A Team’s Hannibal, “I love it when a plan comes together”.

I Thought About It

I thought about responding to the Maha Blog after this post and comment thread. In the course of the thread, Maha decided to censor two Liberty Papers contributors, including myself and Brad. She also removed a comment from “Mycroft Holmes” without comment at all when he had the temerity to point out that she had a strange way of defending liberty (which she claims to do).

I thought about a lot of things, but decided that you folks are bright enough to be able to figure things out on your own. For example, I decided you could see through the so-called liberalism of her blog to the actual populism. Like the idea that we shouldn’t bother with an amendment process because that would just “get in the way” of doing what the people want. Never mind all the examples in history of tyranny and oppression brought about by not obstructing the “will of the people”. Just one example.

Both Maha, and her fan club, oppose W and Co for their increase in oppression, failing to notice that their populist socialism is oppressive as well. Ah well.

Maha decided to call Brad and I trolls when we insisted on publicly debating her. She decided that the conversation went “right over our head” when we disagreed with her. Check it out for yourself, if you are so inclined. If I really wanted to, I could keep commenting on her blog through the simple expedient of using a different name and email address and a web proxy to change my IP address. But, it just isn’t worth my time at this point.

One last thought. If Maha should choose to come to The Liberty Papers and discuss her position, we will provide an uncensored environment for the discussion. No one’s comments are ever removed, except actual spam. No matter how much we dislike what she says, no matter how many comments she posts, she will not have her comments removed. Even when the contributors here have vehemently disagreed with commenters (John Newman, for example), they have never censored. I wonder if she understands the irony of censoring “Mycroft Holmes”?

Responding to Walter

So, we have a reader, Walter, who advocates going toe to toe with the Chinese over Taiwan. In response to a single comment by me, he posts a couple hundred words tackling me and his perception of what I advocate or believe.

Below the fold, I tackle his comments. I’m sure they won’t make much difference, but it’s worth a shot. Maybe Walter will at least learn a bit about how to conduct a debate.
» Read more

Cool Uses of Technology

So, my family used to use Amazon’s (you don’t really need the URL, do you?) wish list feature for Christmas and birthday gift giving. But there were two problems with it. First, you could only list and link things sold on Amazon. That left plenty of possible gifts that I (or anyone else) might want unavailable for listing. And second, it was relatively easy for folks to see what gifts someone else had bought for them.

We changed that last year, using a service called Gift Geek. It solved our two problems. First, you can list anything you want, with or without a URL to the item. For those of us that shop online, it works really well if you embed a URL. Second, you cannot see on your own list what was purchased for you before Christmas day.

This year, we changed to a new service called Family Gift Organizer. It has similar features to Gift Geek. How did Family Gift Organizer come about? From their website:

The Family Gift Organizer started out as a bunch of lists on my bulletin board in my home office. I had lists of what the kids wanted, lists of what they needed and lists of what they already had. I had lists of gifts I planned to purchase, gifts I had already purchased and stashed somewhere and lists of items I needed or wanted, not to mention lists of clothing sizes and favorite colors, lists of web sites with super deals and more.

Awesome. Such capabilities were unheard of not all that long ago. Now they are ubiquitous. Yet another way that technology has empowered the individual.

I know this isn’t politics, but I am very interested in the power that technology gives the individual and thought others reading this site might be too.

YouTube is Great!

These kids are great musicians. It helps, of course, that I love metal too. The Gauchos are a South American sibling garage band that does metal covers.

Like Iron Maiden’s The Trooper:

Or, their tribute to ELP:

But, this cover of Sepultura is probably my favorite:

Google was brilliant for acquiring YouTube. One more way that individuals are empowered by technology. Music labels would have ignored these kids, as good as they are. With the Internet, they have been able to get their videos watched over 2 million times.

H/T to Radley Balko

If You’re Looking …..

For some good, original reporting on Iraq that isn’t the same old, tired, regurgitated AP junk, I’ll recommend Bill Roggio. Yeah, I know everyone knows all about Bill, the embedded blogger, but so what. I’ve never really read him before.

Today I was about fed up with the junk I get from the AP …….. you know, so and so many killed today, Iraqi government dysfunctional, some senator some BS about the war, the ISG report, blah blah. It’s the same tired stories, over and over, with no real insight into how the troops are doing, what being on the ground is like and whether things outside Sadr City are going well, or not.

So, I checked out Bill’s site, turns out he is in Fallujah these days. Here’s a small sample of what he’s doing and writing, from a post about his journey to Fallujah.

Camp Stryker:

While waiting to catch the flight to the Green Zone, I spoke to two Army captains, one who works in Civil Affairs, the other with the Military Transition Teams. Both explained how the situation could look very different based on your job, but that the Iraqi police and Army were making real progress. They said the Iraqis’ skills ranged from poor to excellent, but they always saw improvement.

I also overheard an Army specialist sitting behind me curse the media (and I mean curse), saying they didn’t know what they were talking about when it came to Iraq. I talked to him, and explained I’m considered a reporter, and that I won’t argue with his points. I made him uncomfortable. Had he known I was ‘the press’ I think he would have kept it to himself.

Now, isn’t that more interesting than the junk that the AP, Reuters and the rest are passing off as reporting on Iraq?

footnote: By the way, don’t assume this means that I am “for” or “against” the Iraq War, that I advocate withdrawal or “staying the course” or anything else. It’s just a pitch to you to get a different perspective on Iraq, one well worth checking out. I may, or may not, post my own thoughts on Iraq at some point, we’ll see.

Delicious Irony

From a Wired Blog entry:

On the last day of the recent Reuters Media and Marketing Summit in New York, Warner Music Group CEO [ed: Edgar Bronfman] admitted that he was “fairly certain” that one or more of his seven children had downloaded music without the permission of the copyright owner, which Reuters referred to as stealing.

Now, you may wonder what happened to Mr. Bronfman’s children?

I explained to them what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. […] A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.

Well, that makes it all better then. Good thing they didn’t get sued by a media company. Like, let’s say, Warner Music Group?

Pretty Darn Funny

Long time readers of The Liberty Papers undoubtedly know who Radley Balko, The Agitator, is. Apparently The Dick List has no idea. Check out this opinion piece for a good chuckle.

Article after article praises “alternative” lifestyles and insult masculine traits. Such is the case with the article by Mr. Balko which accuses American police departments of increasingly using “…paramilitary tactics…” against poor innocent criminals.

While Mr. Balko sits safely in his tony Upper West Side of Manhattan digs puffing on some thai and bemoaning the plight of those persecuted by the gestapo Police SWAT teams to the members of his Mulatto studies literature club, the very men he defames are ensuring the continuance of his existence through their thankless work- protecting the good people of this country from the barbarians within our gates.

Heh, well, that’s pretty funny. The one piece of real meat in the whole thing is this:

In the article Mr. Balko uses a grand total of six examples of SWAT raids that resulted in deaths instead of arrests between the years of 2001 and 2006. He also cites the incredible rise of the use of SWAT teams, 1300% since 1980, stating that on average SWAT teams are used 110 times a day. Given the rise in SWAT action, the real story should be the lack of examples Mr. Balko is able to present in this article to prove his claims that “We the people” are under siege by the menace of “paramilitary” police units.

Well, given that Balko only had 600 words, I think fitting in 6 examples is pretty darn good. But, if you want a LOT more examples, check out this.

What anti-cop liberals want from Police Departments is perfection. What the real world offers is a lot messier. Most people will never be members of a law enforcement agency and therefore they will never experience the stress that goes along with it. This disconnect is clearly exemplified by the strum und drang following the recent shooting death of Sean Bell in Queens last week.

Well, I’m not a liberal in the sense this guy means it. And I’m certainly not “anti-cop”. Neither, though, am I pro-cop. I am definitely opposed to the police culture in our country today. I am in favor of police that act as agents of a government that protects my life, liberty and property. I have yet to find out how the War on Drugs does that, though.

Another Dead Citizen

Another citizen is dead in a raid conducted by police to serve a warrant. In this story, an 18 year old man, and his dog, is killed by police. He is suspected of armed robbery, supposedly one of two men that hit Justin Raines over the head and stole a PlayStation 3 from him.

It turns out that, although there were weapons in the house, Peyton Strickland kept them unloaded and none of them were in his hands when he answered a knock on the door. What, apparently, was in his hands was a game controller. Although he was, according to his roommate, going to answer the door, sheriff’s deputies knocked the door down before he could. They entered the house and fired four or five times, killing Strickland and his German Shepherd.

Although the police told Strickland’s roommate that they were there to serve a warrant, they never provided a copy of it to him. The District Attorney and Sheriff’s Department will conduct an investigation:

Investigators were reviewing the conduct of all officers and deputies involved in the incident, said New Hanover County District Attorney Ben David, who confirmed at least one sheriff’s deputy was involved in the shooting.

“I am making this my top priority,” David said Saturday. “No one’s above the law. If there’s any criminal conduct that can be established, I’m not going to hesitate to treat them as any other defendant.”

Neither he nor Sheriff Sid Causey would release any information on who was present at the time of the shooting or details about why or how it happened. The State Bureau of Investigation is assisting in the investigation, they said.

“It puts a cloud over everybody,” Causey said. “Nobody wants things to happen, but they do happen. When they do, we have to investigate … and then do the approriate thing.”

So, I have several questions.

  1. What about negligence, even if it wasn’t criminal? It sounds to me like the sheriff’s deputies chose a high risk approach to serve a warrant when they could have just waited until Strickland was leaving, or coming home, to serve the warrant. Or, simply waited for him to open the door. I have yet to hear anything that indicates the need for a forced entry. There was nothing that indicated immediate danger to anyone. So, even if there wasn’t criminal behavior, it sounds pretty negligent.
  2. What sort of compensation will be offered to the roommates, the friends, the family? Is the Sheriff’s department going to repair the home, clean up the blood, pay for the counseling that the roommate is likely to need?
  3. The Sheriff appears to be of the mindset that such things happen. It seems to me his mindset should be that they should never happen and a significant part of his job is making sure that citizens are protected. Obviously, I only have the quotes the paper chose to provide, hopefully this doesn’t reflect his attitude accurately.

Although not as cut and dried as the Kathryn Johnston case, it still seems pretty clear that Strickland didn’t have to be killed. Nor did his dog. What is interesting is that no details of why the police believed Strickland had committed armed robbery are provided. We have no way to judge if the warrant was appropriate, or not.

What do we know? An 18 year old is dead. A police officer may, potentially, have his career ruined, depending on this investigation. No weapons or lethal force was involved, or threat to the cops, except their own weapons. Another 18 year old is probably emotionally scarred for life. All of this, it would appear, could have been avoided by a change in tactics. As Radley Balko says:

Instead of kicking down doors, wouldn’t have been easier to just wait until this kid was coming or leaving his house?

As far as I can tell, yet another death to lay at the feet of a police culture that now emphasizes the citizen as the enemy.

Continuing to Think About Police and Police Culture

There has been a significant amount of blogging activity and discussion around “no knock raids“, police culture, Police Militarization, giving the police the benefit of the doubt, and much more.

First, some credit. Radley Balko, The Agitator, has been blogging on this topic for quite a while. He has the best collection of posts on the problems that I have seen, including a Raid Map. It provides details of botched paramilitary police raids over time that Radley has collected. For those of you that think things are okay, this might be eye opening for you.

It seems evident that there is a problem. Innocent citizens die and cops get off with, at most, a slap on the wrist. People don’t trust cops and instead view them with suspicion and distrust. Cops conduct no knock raids on flimsy evidence, use armored vehicles, where every podunk town has a SWAT team and uses them. Then we have, just to make sure everyone realizes that it isn’t the party that’s in power that’s the problem, the BATF and Waco, where Koresh could have easily been taken into custody without the massacre that ensued and where the BATF used para-military playbooks even though they were counter-productive and created a worse situation. I could go on for pages with these sorts of examples, but Radley has already provided them for us. Why don’t we just stipulate that there is a problem.

Let’s define the problem, then. I won’t bother with the conservative definition of the problem, aside from saying that the idea that agents of authority should be automatically respected, that the Drug War is somehow moral and that police should have significant para-military capability is a set of ideas I cannot get on board with. I will point out that the men that founded our country were suspicious of the government and designed our Constitution (as well as the state governments they helped to create) to put boundaries on our government and its agents. While many will try to separate the government and the voluntary agents, saying that those agents are doing their job and the policy is really the problem, I point you to the War Crimes Trials in Germany and Japan after WWII. We established there, as a point of law and morality, that “following orders” is not a reasonable defense.
» Read more

Police Culture is the Problem

To all those who say that the problem leading to incidents such as the shooting death of Kathryn Johnston is not a police problem, I point you to some comments I’ve made about what police should be vs. what they are. Specifically, I’ve said that cops have an obligation to protect citizens and that protecting citizens, even ones that may be criminals, takes priority over their own life.

I firmly believe that the “War on Drugs” and the militarization of our police forces has led us to a position where police tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Further, police are now agents of a government executing a policy that this blog has stated, over and over, is immoral and unethical. We can see the outcome of such a situation. The deaths of Sean Bell, Kathryn Johnston and Salvatore Culosi, to name just three of the hundreds killed or wounded in paramilitary police actions are the outcomes.

To reinforce that view, let’s take into account some editorial commentary by Joseph McNamara. He has a strong position to speak from, as a retired NYPD deputy inspector and former police chief of Kansas City, MO and San Jose, CA. In an editorial [subscription required, so I posted most of the article in toto to comment on] in the Wall Street Journal today, Mr. McNamara said:

Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on “officer safety” and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.

Yes, that is the police culture I remember. Certainly the one I see today, officer’s wearing military clothing, carrying military weapons and using para-military tactics is far different from that. Worse, it is the sort of police culture that I saw, and found abhorrent, in Europe when I lived there. It was one of the things I was proud of about America, that our police were there to protect citizens, not to make war on them.

Mr. McNamara goes on to say:

Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.

One of the predicted outcomes of the “War on Drugs”. Now that it has come to pass we have the perverse situation where self-proclaimed libertarians defend cops who take the lives of citizens when the citizen should never have been in lethal danger. These folks trumpet about the cops “right to self defense” and how “all the facts are not in”, completely ignoring that men and women voluntarily executing government policy are responsible for these deaths. They prefer, instead, to blame a policy and put the cops on pedestals. What happened to being skeptical, to questioning authority, to the realization that “following orders” is not an adequate defense, morally or legally?

Mr. McNamara then points out an interesting set of facts:

Yes, police work is dangerous, and the police see a lot of violence. On the other hand, 51 officers were slain in the line of duty last year, out of some 700,000 to 800,000 American cops. That is far fewer than the police fatalities occurring when I patrolled New York’s highest crime precincts, when the total number of cops in the country was half that of today.

You know, there’s one more statistic I’d like to see. What’s the increase in the number of citizens shot by a cop? As part of that, what would be very interesting is the increase in the number of citizens shot when there was no weapon present OR it was a no knock situation involving someone who was not the actual target of the warrant being served. I’d be willing to guess that the statistics would show a dramatic rise in such deaths completely out of proportion to the changes in numbers of cop deaths or changes in violent crime statistics.

A couple of final points from Mr. McNamara

Each of these police deaths and numerous other police injuries is a tragedy and we owe support to those who protect us. On the other hand, this isn’t Iraq. The need to give our officers what they require to protect themselves and us has to be balanced against the fact that the fundamental duty of the police is to protect human life and that law officers are only justified in taking a life as a last resort.

In the three cases I cite above, taking the life of the citizens in question was absolutely not the last resort.

After the Diallo case [ed: a shooting death in 1999 of an unarmed man in NYC], I wrote that I, my father, older brother and countless other relatives had collectively served the NYPD for more than a century and a half and that none of us would have fired at Mr. Diallo. I say the same about the lethal volley that took Mr. Bell’s life, based on initial reports.

So, a very experienced cop says that he, and other cops he knows very well, would not have used deadly force against Mr. Bell. That, to me, is the most damning indictment of the cops in question. But, more importantly, it is the most damning indictment of a law enforcement culture that has shifted from protecting our society to waging war on us.

The sad reality is that we citizens no longer view police as civil servants here to protect us. We view them as adversaries here to enforce laws we don’t respect. We view them as agents of a government waging a war on us. We view them as the enemy.

One more casualty of the immoral War on Drugs.

Update: McQ at QandO has a similar, although perhaps less indicting, entry today. The punchline?

Time to disarm the vast majority of them [AS: para-military police organizations].

Sounds like a plan to me.

A Tribute to Milton Friedman

Over at Catallarchy, they have a tribute to Milton Friedman:

Much of this is due to the work of Milton Friedman, a great economist and a great champion of Liberty at a time when she so desperately needed one. As you know by now, Dr. Friedman died recently. Though it is less than he deserved, we offer the following as a tribute to a man whose legacy we are honored to carry on.

There’s some great writing over there, and you should head on over and check it out.

My personal favorite of the posts so far is David Masten’s article, Friedman the Moderate, in which David has some lessons for other libertarians.

Despite the reputation Friedman has on the left as a radical libertarian, there is an striking dearth among his policy recommendations of anything any reasonable leftist or moderate might find objectionable on normative grounds.

This is a lesson we have preached on this page too. Radical libertarians and anarchists will be seen as part of the fringe and never effect real change.

You Can’t Possibly Be Smart Enough ……

In the “consumers are really dumb, which is why you need us bureaucrats to make decisions for you” category, we have this story. A company that manufactures a sausage known as Welsh Dragon sausage has to change the name of the sausage. Why?

…..trading standards’ officers warned manufacturers that they could face prosecution because it does not contain dragon.

The response of the manufacturer?

Jon Carthew, 45, who makes the sausages, said yesterday that he had not received any complaints about the absence of real dragon meat.

That’s right folks, you are incapable of realizing that the sausage is not made from a mythical creature. Remember to thank your government for spending your tax dollars wisely.

Welsh Dragons are manufactured by Black Mountain Smokery.

Ask Yourself

Ask yourself why you aren’t up in arms with a government that shoots 92 year old women in their home? Why do you still support a government that sentences Cory Maye to die for defending his property (his apparent crime is being black and living at the wrong address). How can you endorse a War on Drugs that results in such things while dramatically increasing violent crime in inner city neighborhoods, creating drugs like crack and ecstasy and continually resulting in greater and greater police powers for our government? Can you not see that we have given our government the power of a tyrant all in the quest to prevent someone else from taking heroin because we think it’s bad for them?

Mrs. Grundy wins, citizens lose.

1 2 3