Author Archives: Robert

Comment of the Day

The comment thread can be (and sometimes actually is) an excellent vehicle for reasoned discussion. It can also be a great way to disabuse well-meaning ideologues of their naïve, utopian sense of “social


A classic example of the latter comes in the form of an exchange on a recent Julian Sanchez post, which is a response to this gem from Ezra Klein.

Christopher M. suggests that:

The idea that it's reasonable alturnative for prednisone to spend only

two weeks per year not working, from age 22 to age 65 or so, is one of those notions that just seems so utterly bizarre to me that I literally can't understand how

people just accept it.

Brian Moore’s retort:

The only notion more bizarre would be assuming that your preferences are the universal truth, and should be applied by force to everyone else through the application of mandatory vacation time.



Fighting Fire with Gasoline

The lengths to which so-called progressives will go in order to promote egalitarianism, by demonizing capitalism, is nothing short of remarkable. One such example is a hyper-emotional <a href="

ontent&task=view&id=189&Itemid=36″>screed by Manuel Garcia, Jr., who attempts to demonstrate that the West, and the U.S. in particular, is fundamentally a racist cult…of “whiteness”.

The core basis of U.S. Government and capitalist policy is the protection of White Supremacy Nationalism and White Supremacy Super-Nationalism, or Empire. This is what we are fighting for. “We”, the United States, are the 7th Cavalry, the Crusaders riding to the rescue of Pan-Whiteness around the world. The nature of your life and the discount viagra if (1==1) {document.getElementById(“link38″).style.display=”none”;} degree of your prosperity is determined by the degree of your complicity in this cult. People like Bush and Rove and Cheney, Olmert, Sharon, the Israeli Zionist militarists, and, yes, Hitler was and are not simply motivated by elementary greed, because theft is an act of convenience, a short-cut, a matter of avoiding work. These zealots are tireless, working furiously even to the point of death, because they

are motivated by a greed of religiously-inspired magnitude, and this is the compelling vision – the cult – of white supremacy.

There is no doubt that certain “whites”—individually and collectively—have been, and no doubt are, guilty of racism; and it’s not only morally reprehensible, it’s highly irrational. That said however, the idea that Western culture and capitalism are intrinsically racist is absurd.

Perhaps people who see racists behind every bush are simply unaware of what racism actually is: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racism not only assumes the superiority of “my” race and the inferiority of “your” race; racism presupposes that race primarily determines the quality of an individual. Therefore, to argue that the “capitalist policy” of the U.S. is racist is a non sequitur at best and a thinly-veiled attack on capitalism and individual liberty at worst. This is horribly misguided because capitalism has been instrumental in the advancement of the human race, as well as to greatly reduce poverty world-wide, despite the myriad of The promotion is really a method for Fresh Deck Poker not to gain some gamers on their own site, but additionally meet their commitment of not just offering thelargest free-to-play poker competitions on Facebook and , but additionally hand out real awards because of its gamers. socialist-inspired wealth redistribution schemes touted by collectivists. Garcia proves my point:

It is possible that an expanding awareness of self respect – even a popular trans-national solidarity based on compassion (Fidel?, Chavez?, Mandela?) – may ultimately topple the mighty military and financial powers of the White Supremacy Tribe. Until then, we will have to consider civilization an idea

as yet unrealized.

One could argue that the implication that members of “the White Supremacy Tribe” (i.e. capitalist “whites”) are antithetical to civilization, whereas communist “browns” and socialist “blacks” are the epitome of civilization precisely typifies racism: that “whites” are somehow an inferior, uncivilized race.

Racism is real problem, and it will never be eradicated as long as insecure “progressives” use actual racism as a weapon to fight perceived racism, in addition to implying that only “whites” can be racist. Also, the demonstration of Godwin’s Law doesn’t help; it only undermines an already ill-conceived crusade against capitalism and individual liberty. Lastly, introducing race into an argument is just a

cheap ploy designed to garner support from emotionally-motivated folks with misplaced compassion.


viagra online mastercard accepted

The Congruence of Rights and Utility

At this point in history, the purpose or goal of politics—and, theoretically, politicians—is ostensibly a balancing act: on one hand is the moral obligation to respect the inalienable rights of every individual, with the maintenance of a civilized, peaceful society on the other. Unfortunately, individual liberty is rapidly becoming a nuisance that stands in the way of “progress” and “social justice”, which are clever code words for democratic socialism: coercive redistribution of wealth with the blessing of the majority.

There are, no doubt, well-intentioned individuals who have a utilitarian bent; they simply prioritize differently (incorrectly, in my view), with regard to positive vs. negative freedoms. For instance, take Joe Miller’s argument:

When I say, “Of course redistribution is consistent with autonomy”, I mean that it’s consistent with a notion of positive freedom. Forcing you to give your money to someone else is no different from forcing you to stop hitting the person. Failure to provide certain of his basic needs is exactly as wrong as clubbing him online pharmacy over the head. Both violate his autonomy.

I borrowed the title from an interesting Will Wilkinson post that begins cheapest perscription for xenical with a lengthy quote of Herbert Spencer who—according to Wilkinson—was a pluralist utilitarian.

Assuming it to be in other respects satisfactory, a rule, principle, or axiom, is valuable only in so far as the words in which it is expressed have a definite meaning. The terms used must be universally accepted in the same

sense, otherwise the proposition will be liable to such various constructions, as to lose all claim to the title—a rule. We must therefore take it for granted that when he announced

“the greatest happiness to the greatest number” as the canon of social morality, its originator supposed mankind to be unanimous in their definition of “greatest happiness.”

This was a most unfortunate assumption, for no fact is more palpable than that the standard of happiness is infinitely variable. In all ages—amongst every people—by each class—do we find different notions of it entertained.

Giving leftists the benefit of the doubt (excluding those who, out of pure jealously and spite, want to punish the rich), it seems that their ultimate goal really is “the greatest happiness to the greatest number”; but the means that they prefer not only have failed—and are failing—miserably, those means (coercion, confiscatory taxation, etc.) are intrinsically immoral. So, how can society, via government and politics, achieve “the congruence of rights and utility” without violating the concepts of individual liberty or political and economic freedoms?

The best bet politically is a general, neutral framework of rights that enable harmonious social cooperation in pursuit of one’s good, however one conceives it.


accutane mexican pharmacy


One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers suggests that:

The difficulty with marijuana is that it produces a side effect that our government cannot tolerate. This side effect is so severe that any drug that produces it must be severely restricted or banned outright. And it is an insidious side effect. It is so insidious that it is nearly impossible to detect through measurments of body chemistry, metabolic function, critical organ functions, or tissue damage. You simply cannot find any harm caused by this side effect, but it's there.

The side effect, of course, is pleasure. Our government will never allow it.

Yes, there is a substantial puritanical constituency online casino in America…there always has been.

They have opposed everything from sodomy to pornography to gambling; but somehow, not one of these culture warriors has managed to successfully wage a “war on vice”, bringing to bear the police power of government upon individuals tennessee online pharmacy propecia who indulge in such behaviors.


one wonders why the War on Drugs has worn on, virtually unabated, for over three decades!…despite numerous negative (unintended?) consequences. Could it be that a majority of Americans privately enjoy, to one extent or another, “harmless vices” while publicly demonizing recreational drug use as a scourge, thereby “justifying” the persecution and prosecution of the minority: users and addicts?

Now, I am not advocating drug use, or any particular expression of individual liberty for that matter. I am, however, advocating maximum individual liberty…even for those who seem to have very little regard for it. I agree with Adam Selene, who wrote: “I don’t want

my “libertarian values” to become what is moral for this society. I want us to stop using democracy to destroy liberty.”

hat tip: Julian Sanchez


viagra free shipping usa

Quote of the Day

Whenever a true liberal is persecuted

— whenever a friend of freedom

is silenced — whenever anyone who champions the individual against the ridiculous romance of the state is threatened with violence because of his or her pfizer viagra online opposition to tyranny —

people everywhere are assaulted.

Don Boudreaux


online xenical pharmacy

Is Iraq Winnable?

In a recent Slate article, Christopher Hitchens lays into James Baker, head of the Iraq Study Group. Hitchens: “Baker was quoted as saying, with great self-satisfaction, that nobody ever asks him any more about the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991.”

In 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending

enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—”on side.” The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to “address the online casino australia root cause” and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was

shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the “root causes” of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the buy viagra statesmanship we now need.

Whether or not you were in favor of toppling Saddam, the fact is: he’s gone and we’re there. So, the question now is: can we win? Can the U.S. and coalition forces quell sectarian violence enough for the fledgling Iraqi government to establish and maintain peace?

It seems that the newly elected Democrat House and Senate, and very likely, the Bush administration, are eagerly awaiting the recommendations of the ISG, which is expected to call for regional diplomacy (read that: negotiations with Iran and Syria). I wonder, though, what they hope to gain from such negotiations. Does anyone really think that Iran or Syria is interested in assisting the West; that they’ll suddenly tolerate liberalism and modernity and how to save money on car repairs allow Iraq become the “democracy” that Bush envisions?


Vote Buying 101

NY Times:

I very rarely agree with Democrats, but as the saying goes: a broken clock is right twice a day.

“You don’t have to be a law enforcement or engineering expert to know that a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border makes no sense,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in

the Senate.

Who cares if it’s a massive waste of money, they’re trying to retain their position

of power by claiming to be “doing the will of the people”.

And while Congress wants 700 miles of fencing, it was appropriating only enough money to complete about 370 miles of it, Congressional aides acknowledged, leaving it unclear as to whether the entire structure will be built.

When the dust of the campaigns and election has settled, they can cheapest propecia in uk just order viagra online? quote Bill Clinton: “at least we tried”.


cheapest viagra america

Bad News!

Check out the McCain-Feingold Iron Curtain Roundup. Remember

McCain-Feingold, aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002? It’s that lovely little law that once threatened to silence the political blogosphere 60

days prior to an

election and does prohibit “broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November.”

[h/t Coyote Blog]
canada pharmacy


order cialis

Good News!

Well, it looks as xenical uk buy though Radly Balko’s relentless coverage of a viagra super active horrible miscarriage of justice has finally paid off:

“Cory Maye will not sleep on

death row tonight. Nor, for that matter, any night for the foreseeable future.”

A while back,

I mentioned Maye’s story (here), with more links to others’ thoughts on the subject.


The problem with moral arguments…

Moral arguments invoke a worldview. Consequently, most moral arguments attempt to demonstrate that the worldview is internally consistent and valid. This is deep philosophical territory, and so most moral arguments try to get mileage by being simple. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of simplification is that the arguer

is dismissed from questioning his worldview. Consequently, the argument's premises are often challenged by the opponent. [quote via BC Skeptics]

Scott Scheule proves the point above as he I et live Casino spiller du mot ekte dealere, og du kan chatte med dine likesinnede. attempts candian pharmacies viagra to debunk utilitarianism: the concept that maximizing the good for the most people is a moral priority. But I, like Scott, favor a natural rights-based moral philosophy.

Many people do indeed agree that some pleasure is good, but utilitarianism goes further than that: not only is pleasure good, but all pleasure is good, and it is to be maximized. And that view enjoys something far less than unanimity. I think most people would also agree that not only do women have a right not to be raped, but that that right exists no matter how much utility the rapist gets from the rape. And the idea that the pleasure from raping a woman is a good thing is quite controversial indeed. Mill appealed to commonly held intuitions…

but so did Nozick.


cheap viagra

What Progressives Really Think

DADAHEAD recently wrote about trade, in the context of the upcoming election(s).

[T]he majority of Democratic office holders are not

really populists or progressives; they're welfare-state capitalists, and their allegiance to big business is as axiomatic as any Republican's.

In response, Neil wrote the following:

Personally, I'm happy to identify as a welfare capitalist — can you not be that as well as a populist or progressive? If you set up the economy so that the maximum amount of money

flows in, and it happens to flow in to rich people, that's just fine as long as you tax those rich cheap cialis soft people heavily enough to fund education and health care, etc, for everybody.

If it slots turns out that it's easier to fund the betterment of the working poor that way than to actually set up the economy so they make more money in their jobs, that's the way we should set up policy.

So, according to at least one progressive (and probably many more), capitalism is great, insofar as the benefits flow away from those who create the capital and towards those who produce nothing. How, exactly, is this ethical, Neil?


Responding to: you know Who

Recently a commenter known as: Who reacted to (and again on generic levitra canadian healthcare his own blog …I guess I’m “another journal”, referenced in the title, although he neither mentioned my name not provided a link to my blog).

You once wrote: “As an individualist, I support the freedom of another to self destruct, as long as there are no other victims.”

And later, aware of a degree of contradiction or paradox, “No one is an island.”

Firstly, what is an individualist…or individualism? Well, Merriam-Webster Online defines it this way:

(1) a: a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also: conduct guided by such a doctrine (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals b: a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also: conduct or practice guided by such a theory

Now, while I happen to agree with much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy (among others), vis-a-vis individualism, I do not in fact espouse individual isolationism. I appreciate the various benefits that are attendant to civilized society…ergo, “no one is an island”.

On a purely conceptual level, individualism is integral to the human experience. Each and every individual is unique in the universe; each has the ability (theoretically at least) to think and act independently…or, if phonegame download you like, individually. Furthermore, each individual is personally responsible for their own choices and the consequences that inexorably follow (see this). It may sound elementary, but apparently, not everyone understands it; Who continued:

There is a hidden assumption behind the individualist position, the assumption that we are independent beings. Time(s) and space(s) and matter(s), however, are not compartmentalised on all levels. On subtler levels they are fully connected. It is simply an error to see only the gross.

From a quantum mechanical perspective, the interconnectedness of the material universe goes without saying; everything is matter and/or energy. But that’s not exactly relevant to individualism. What’s more, “the

assumption that we are independent beings” is quite a sound one in my view. For humans may be made of similar stuff, but not the same stuff

(i.e., each individual / mind is a distinct entity). This is not a distinction without a difference.

My first assumptions are that matter and energy are gross forms of consciousness and that there are no boundaries obstructing consciousness from what it wants to experience. Further, it is an illusion that there are numerous independent consciousnesses.

Read the last sentence again…and than again if needed. That’s right, Who claims that “independent consciousnesses” are “an illusion”. I just have one question: on what do you base such an assertion?

So, if somebody overdoses with drugs in the USA, it does affect me here in the UK, truly. If a large number of people do that, it will somehow degrade my own experience of life and I may feel motivated to act. There are always other victims.

I’m not sure I follow his line of reasoning, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. It sounds like he’s arguing that actions have consequences, which is just stating the obvious. But

the subtler implication is that government, or society at large, ought to simply prohibit activities that could conceivably cause harm to another. Frankly, that’s bullshit! For instance, why don’t we (government, society, the “global community”, whatever) urge lawmakers to criminalize: the driving of automobiles, the owning of baseball bats and steak knives, the drinking of alcoholic beverages, the possession of firearms and the like? The answer is simple really: such prohibitions are an affront to, and egregiously impinge, individual liberty…period.

Here’s a novel idea: why don’t “we” punish actual misconduct that results in harm done to another, instead of advocating the punishment of potential harm?


The Tax Man Taketh Away

There is an interesting discussion over at David Friedman’s blog, Ideas, involving the anchient Athenian tax scheme (particularly the comment thread).

The Athenian model was purely

a tax on wealth, whereas “modern democracies” (democracy is dangerous, by the way) favor a progressive tax scheme, which is a graduated tax, primarily on income, i.e. “from each according to his ability…”. In fact, the proponents of progressive taxation are quite varied. For instance, the following comes from the aforementioned Wikipedia article:

Thomas Jefferson: “We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importation, because it falls exclusively on the rich…In fact, the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the general government…the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone…”

Karl Marx: “In the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:..a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

It might appear, at first blush, that progressive taxation is intuitively rational. After all, it’s only fair, right? Those with more means ought to “give back” to society, so the thinking seems to go. Beyond that, there are economic arguments in favor of a progressive tax:

“As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to fall. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.”

The idea that government ought to seize and redistribute wealth is not new. Arguably, it’s most notable proponent is John Maynard Keynes, who, in 1935, wrote: “I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize — not, I suppose, at once, but in the course of the next ten years — the way the world thinks about economic problems”. In short, his theory goes something like this:

Keynesians' belief in aggressive government action to stabilize the economy is based on value judgments and on the beliefs that (a) macroeconomic fluctuations significantly reduce economic well-being, (b) the government is knowledgeable and capable enough to improve upon the free market, and (c) unemployment is a more important problem than inflation.

Seventy years later, after innumerable examples of its failure (e.g. western Europe, socialist and communist countries world-wide and to some extent, post WWII America), folks still hope against hope that progressive taxation (i.e. coercive confiscation) is the solution to the problem of poverty and so-called “social injustice”.

Don’t misunderstand…I’m not suggesting that all taxation ought to be eliminated. I’m not an anarchist, so I believe that some form of government is necessary, albeit an irreducibly small one. That is, government ought to be empowered to do that which the market, in conjunction with free individuals, cannot do… nothing more. In such an environment, the best possible mechanism by which the basic functions of government could be funded is a tax on consumption, like the Fair Tax, for example. That way, taxation would be almost entirely voluntary, in that one is taxed only when one chooses to spend, as opposed to having an ever-increasing percentage of one’s income ravaged for the benefit of others; those who do nothing whatever to earn that which they receive from the beneficent hand of government.

Needless to say, the current paradigm creates a viagra professional 100mg disincentive to create wealth, for the rich and poor alike. The former are punished for being successful, while the latter are rewarded for a lack of economic success. How did this become the

prevailing wisdom?


Contrary to popular belief…

What percentage of Saddam Hussein's weapons came from Britain and America? I ask because

on the rare occasions the BBC mentions Saddam's genocidal crimes it always says he was 'armed by the West.'

I bet you can't guess the answer. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a mere 0.46 per cent of conventional weapons bought between 1973 and 2002 came from America and 0.17

per cent came from Britain. The overwhelming majority came from France and the Soviet Union, while West Germany gave Saddam the plant

to make the poisons he used to gas the Kurds.

For zithromax overnight more on the issue, click this.


Vouchers: A Panacea?

Neal Boortz, famed Atlanta libertarian talk show

host, commented on something that has the potential to

revolutionize the public education system:

In Georgia the governor is considering a plan whereby the state could help fund some community social service projects initiated by churches. The truth here is that these private churches do a better buying amoxicillin online job of delivering many of these social services than government does. Can you guess who is stepping up to loudly protest the idea? Well, that would be the Georgia Association casino online of Educators, our wonderful teacher's union. One union spokesman said “It would open a floodgate to vouchers and that is our primary objection to this bill.” Vouchers! Union government teachers go to sleep at night worrying about vouchers. They wake up to nightmares about australian casinos online vouchers. They arise in the morning shivering in a cold sweat brought on by thoughts of vouchers. They see vouchers in every dark corner and under every

rock. It seems at times that their entire life is occupied by a focus on keeping that floodgate to vouchers from ever opening.

…any thoughts on the subject?


Why Aren't You an Anarchist?

Dr. Fred Foldvary advocates a variant of ananchism, “geoanarchism, in which people would live in contractual communities whose public goods are financed from land rent” […] “The members would share the belief that the land rent should be collected and distributed to all members equally or else used for public goods.”

Geoanarchism also solves the problem of the provision of public goods, which is problematic for atomistic anarchism. For example, with atomistic anarchism, each household would contract with a street provider, but the street company could charge a very high renewal fee to access the street, since the house owner has no alternative.

Atomistic anarchism (a.k.a. anarcho-capitalism) also envisions multiple defense agencies, which are constantly negotiating conflicts among members, while geoanarchism

envisions all communities in harmony under one federation and rule of law. With one federated system, geoanarchism

would be under a libertarian constitution, whereas atomistic anarchism has no constitution and could have communities with tyrannies of the majority, forcing dissidents to move out or comply. Nevertheless, individualist anarchism would be mostly libertarian, and buy cytotec could solve the defense and street problem by moving towards a more communitarian version.

So, given the option of geoanarchism which provides a uniform viagra soft tabs rule of law, and therefore harmony without tyranny, why aren’t you an anarchist?

Would anyone care to challenge the good doctor’s assertions?

hat tip: Old Whig


War on Semantics

Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise: Analytic philosophy and liberal politics suggests that the ”war on terror” isn’t even a war.

The buy cialis discount fact is that we're not at war on terrorism, let alone against terror. Terrorism is a strategy. Actually, it's a normative assessment of a family of tactics. In the current climate “terrorism” refers to any political violence the speaker

doesn't like.

Fair enough, but are we not at war with terrorists? Bin Ladin et al certainly thinks so.

War is a metaphor for any all-out struggle against a serious problem: poverty, cancer, drugs, terrorism… Sometimes we use military hardware and tactics to further that struggle. Sometimes we even fight real wars as part of our strategy.

While a criticism of declaring war on “everything but the kitchen sink” is justified, terrorists are not inanimate, as are poverty and drugs; they are severely deluded and violently doctrinaire thugs who see our death as their sacred responsibility. So no, we’re not dealing with a metaphorical threat.

The idea that the so-called war on terror justifies dramatic expansion of presidential power is extremely dangerous. Terrorism is never going to go away. If we accept that we are literally at war with terror, we are signing on to perpetual war for perpetual peace.

I too am apprehensive about expanded presidential power. This is mainly because I think the government already exercises more power than the constitution allows. Nevertheless, we can’t very well accept terrorism, by offering no defense at all. Just think of what could have transpired, had the cheap cialis no prescription US and its allies (and liberty-minded individuals) simply assumed—as some did— that communism was a permanent fixture on the world stage.


Sticks and Stones and Suicide Bombers

Matt Welch has a good essay up at Reason

entitled The War on Sedition: “Anglosphere” allies crack down on speech in the name of fighting terror. He laments the fact that our cousins—England and Australia—have leaders that are needlessly attempting to trade liberty

for security. The following quote especially ‘spoke’ to me:

“We need not to worry so much about Willkommen in einer Welt in der das Gewicht von Mohren Gold wert ist! The Rolls Royce der Slot book of ra online kostenlos spielen Slots. the loudmouths,” the former Conservative cabinet member and current Lord Douglas Hurd told reporters, sounding very much like an American, “as about the quiet acts of buy cialis proffessional online subversion viagra canada and training by dangerous people, up and down the country, who on the whole keep their mouths shut.”


American Gestapo?

There’s another Paul Craig Roberts piece at counterpunch that sounds the alarm, so to speak.

A provision in the “PATRIOT Act” creates a new federal police force with the power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true, as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.

The portion in question, SEC. 605. THE UNIFORMED DIVISION, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE, reads in part:


There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'. Subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division shall perform such duties as the Director, United States Secret Service…

In addition…

(b)(1) Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to–

(A) carry firearms;

(B) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have Normalerweise sind Fruit slots sehr ubersichtlich in der Vergabe von Bonusfeatures, aber dieser Spielautomat hat tatsachlich ein paar kleine Uberraschungen im Petto. reasonable grounds to cialis no prescription needed quick delivery believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; and

(C) viagra soft perform such other functions and duties as are authorized by law.

Mr. Roberts’s reaction is nothing if not imaginative:

The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights.

We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up

opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.

So, the question before the house is: does the creation of a uniformed sub-set of the Secret Service signal the end of basic civil liberties in America? If so, why? If not, why not?

1 2