One of the favorite verses (or, at least, one of his favorites to quote when we're arguing about the issue of statism!) of my cousin Will would have to be the first passage of Romans 13. He seems to interpret this as an endorsement of totalitarianism and the "mob rule" of 51% Majority Democracy. Realizing that we DO NOT live in a "democracy", but rather a Constitutional Republic", I tend to disagree with him quite often on this subject.
In my personal opinion, the constitution is the ultimate legal authority in this nation, and it is one of the greatest gifts my Almighty God ever bestowed upon me. It also trumps the decisions of every cop, district attorney, legislator, and judge...with the notable exception of when our federal legislature properly acts to modify it.
As such, this constitution has the final say, which gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside when I disregard those who act OUTSIDE their lawful authority of the constitution...and, in my own opinion, the Bible is backing me up on this.
While I understand that this nation was founded by people who readily identified themselves as "Christian", I do not buy into the baloney spewed forth by wallbuilders.org and their ilk, who claim that this nation was founded as a "Christian nation". Simply put, history tells us it wasn't...and our founders had good reason for doing so.
Even within the basic general umbrella of "Christianity", under which I personally fall, there is a great deal of disagreement over beliefs once you get past the general observation that Christ is our Lord and Savior. My uncle's church physically demonstrates a belief and reverence toward Christ by drinking wine every Sunday, but my grandmother's church declares the mere act of drinking to be a sin. The list could go on, but I think you see where I'm going with that.
Our founders instituted a secular (read: NOT ATHEIST, NOR CHRISTIAN) government that allowed each person to worship as he saw fit. This was the entire purpose of the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause".
I am a taxpayer. I am an ANGRY taxpayer. I am what the IRS would (and probably has!) labeled as a "Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer"! As such, I hate to see my money being wasted on things that are prohibited by the constitution...mainly, because I hate to see an entire third of my paycheck being stolen from me before I eve get a chance to pull it out of that little envelope.
My anger toward unnecessary taxpayer expenditures run the gamut. Among the things I'm very upset about are unconstitutional aggressive wars, welfare hand-outs, "wars" against bumpersticker slogans like poverty, drugs, et cetera.
Also, there are public expenditures at our local level that fly in the face of the US Constitution, since the First Amendment has been incorporated to the Several States via the SCOTUS. Infringements of our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceable assembly don't typically waste money that wouldn't be spent otherwise...so while I do plenty of bitching about these infringements, I understand that they aren't really wasting money in most cases.
As far as the First Amendment goes, the infringement that seems to always seems to be costing the most money occurs when our right to religious freedom is stepped on. I am a Christian. Most of the people who actually take the time to read this also identify themselves as "Christian". However, even though people who claim Christianity as their religion may be the "majority" in this nation, they are not the ONLY taxpayers in this nation.
We all have a right to not be forced to engage in publicly-funded displays or endorsements of religion...yes, even if it's a "Nativity Scene" in front of city hall. I personally don't have a problem with that, nor do I honestly have a problem with any other religion's public displays, as it's not costing me money. What DOES cost money, however, are legal battles that get fought when people offended by government-endorsed public displays of Christianity are willing to take them to court.
Personally, I never really cared about the opinions of others, so long as it was simply an OPINION...and not something that actually affected my life. However, there are a good many taxpaying Americans who actually ARE offended by the notion of Christianity.
To put yourself in their shoes, I'll ask...how would you feel if your local city government decided that, instead of putting up a nativity scene during the winter holiday season, it instead allowed a Wiccan organization to put up a lighted pentacle in observance of the Winter Solstice on the courthouse lawn?
You and I both know that many otherwise decent Christians would, out of ignorance, start foaming at the mouth and organizing protests against such "devil worship"...even though every Wiccan I've ever had the pleasure of meeting followed a personal set of morals that is more "Christ-like" than the majority of Christians I know.
People love bashing the ACLU over the fact that they had the audacity to sue the federal government, in order to have a large and obtrusive cross removed from the gates of a US Military cemetery on grounds that it violated the establishment clause...and, yet, what these same people continue neglecting to mention is the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE BURIED THERE ARE JEWISH!
Imagine if your husband, brother, or son were buried in a military cemetery that had a Muslim crescent and star emblazoned on the front gates? Would you feel like your constitutional rights had been violated?
The fact remains that our government is simply NOT permitted to endorse religion in any form or fashion...and, while a law may not have been passed that specifically endorses religion, TAXPAYER-FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES, AND BUREAUS ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS, PRACTICES, AND/OR RECOGNITION AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY. The reason for this, of course, is what I have been getting at since the early part of this posting...it boils down to our government forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for these agencies.
The moment a law is passed granting our government the right to tax a citizen or business, any organization or agency receiving tax dollars is prohibited from endorsing or officially recognizing any particular religion if one religion is shown preference over another.
This is, whether it suits our purposes or not, the LAW OF THE LAND. Our constitution is a gift from God, and we should respect it. Our religious beliefs belong in our churches, our homes, and our hearts. We are allowed to exercise our personal religious freedoms anywhere we choose, unless it requires taxpayer money to do so.
You wouldn't like it if views you didn't agree with were forced upon you, while being paid for with the taxes stolen from your paycheck, so please don't expect others to sit down, shut up, and smile as you force your beliefs on others while forcing them to pay for it. Our government, and everything it owns, is in reality actually owned by ALL American citizens...Christian or otherwise.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
When the shit hits close to home...
If you know me, you know that the "War On Drugs" hits very close to home for me, in so many ways. My youngest brother was a convicted felon before he was old enough to have a driver's license, due to crimes committed in an effort to support his drug addiction and our state's willingness to try children as adults so politicians can get votes.
The War on Drugs is responsible for a particular incident in my own life that, ironically, was both the biggest reason for my decision to enlist in the United States Marine Corps...as well as being the cause of my getting booted for fraudulent enlistment. The real irony? I had, at that point, never even smoked a cigarette. My "experimentation with drugs", at the time, consisted of taking a single sip of champagne at a wedding when I was twelve.
In the past week, there have been three incidents that severely trouble my heart.
I was made aware of the first incident via a friend of mine working for the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office. I was told of how a classmate and mutual friend of ours had gone down a different route, and had somehow gotten tangled up in methamphetamine.
The second was a major bust involving nine people in Brazoria County (including a girl I didn't personally know, but was known by friends of mine) involving the meth trade.
The third incident is, tonight, a "web-first breaking news" story about 16 high school kids being arrested for drugs at Columbia High School in West Columbia, TX today.
Now, before I go any further, I'll come right out and say that I am "old school". I was born in the latter part of the Carter administration, which means that Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign was coming about in full swing when I entered the first grade.
My mother, a drug abuser, was also a registered nurse...which means I had access to her textbooks when I'd go to visit as a youngster. Me, being the introverted little shit that I was, liked to read a lot....and I learned quite a bit about the effects of drugs. I also went to a public high school, and had health class. I knew drugs were bad for you.
The thing that really taught me what was up, however, was having a father to teach me. I distinctly remember driving through Houston one day with him as a teenager, and we had stopped at a gas station. If memory serves, it was because he needed a beer, but I suppose that's probably not important. Anyhow, there was a toothless bum wearing a ripped t-shirt in the middle of February, begging for change. My father looked at me and said, "See that? That's what drugs do to you." Needless to say, I've got enough problems, I never felt the need to complicate them with a crack pipe.
Obviously, there are all manner of crimes assorted with drugs. You get murder, robbery, and theft when people can't afford their fix, can't pay their drug debts, can't report being ripped off, et cetera.
You can't open a newspaper today without reading a story about this happening last night. Mexico, formerly an impoverished nation that relied upon American tourist dollars, is now even poorer because Americans are afraid to travel there. In Ciudad Juarez, the drug cartels have reportedly completely taken over and now essentially own the city.
Right here in America, people are being arrested in record numbers for drug offenses.
Is it worth it? Not quite.
Drugs are bad, m'kay? Meth, coke, smack, et cetera will KILL YOU. If it doesn't kill you while you're doing it, it's going to kill you slowly over an extended period of time. Everyone with half a brain knows this.
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THE THREAT OF GOING TO PRISON IS GOING TO STOP SOMEONE, IF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH DOESN'T? Seriously, grow a fucking brain.
If you're too ignorant to know that snorting anything made out of anti-freeze, rat poison, diesel engine starting fluid, et cetera isn't bad for you, making it against the law won't help.
Does it suck to have some crackhead rip off your shit? Of course it does. Are our drug laws working? Hell, no!
Imagine, if you will, that meth, smack, coke, pot, et cetera are instantly legalized in this nation. What happens?
Instantly, a full 20% of prisoners are no longer the responsibility of the American taxpayer, because they don't stay locked up for the nonviolent offense of merely being in possession of, or selling, drugs.
Then, the majority of our law enforcement resources are freed up, because we don't have years-long investigations into someone selling meth from their backyard lab. Assaults drop when drug debts gone bad are handled in the courts. Tax bases are instantly multiplied, because dealers get out of the black market and start selling in regulated markets. Drugs become harder for the average teenager to get, because dealers know they have to ask for ID or go to jail.
Most normal people don't smoke crack, snort meth, shoot smack, et cetera. Those who choose to do it will continue to do it, regardless of prohibition...as evident by what I've seen this past week. You can't legislate intelligence. I wouldn't snort coke if it were legal. Would you?
So where does drug legalization and regulation leave us? Less expense, more resources. This allows our law enforcement agencies to go after that crackhead that stole your shit.
I read yesterday about nine people getting busted for a "meth ring". The investigation lasted for more than a year, and tied up resources from several jurisdictions. Before the news was even printed, someone else had already fired up another meth lab, because methheads aren't going anywhere. Seriously, you can cook it up in a 2-liter bottle as you drive down the street. You ain't gonna win that war!
So now, a select nine people have been arrested. Millions of tax dollars were pissed away to do this. These people have lost everything but their lives, if convicted. The charges carry a mandatory ten year sentence, with a maximum of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Their property has been seized. Their families are destroyed.
Did it put any kind of dent in the meth epidemic we're facing in this nation? Hell, no. It didn't even put a dent in the meth problem IN THIS COUNTY. Someone else already had a batch cooking up before the high these people were responsible for had worn off. "Getting meth heads off the street"? Give that bullshit to someone who might buy it, because I know better.
"Injustice" occurs when our laws do more harm than the potential harm they are designed to prevent.
Just like an accidental head injury, you may recover from a meth addiction. You may not. That's the chance you take when you decide to snort meth. You can arrest a dozen people per year (which is far better than our local authorities are doing) for cooking meth, and you'll have ten dozen others who are ready, willing, and able to take their place the next day.
I don't know the people who got busted...their lives may have been salvageable, they may not have been. However, I will say this to the law enforcement agencies responsible for the busts:
A) You did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the meth issues in this county.
B) You have completely destroyed the lives of nine people, as well as the lives of their loved ones.
C) You have cost the taxpayers of this nation, and specifically this county, an immense amount of money with this "intense investigation", and again, you truly accomplished NOTHING.
D) With the mandatory minimum sentencing of the charges, you have saddled this nation with at least five million dollars worth of expenses in nothing more than incarceration for these people. This doesn't cover expenses relating to court costs, appeals, et cetera...and certainly doesn't even get started on the millions of dollars spent on the initial investigation.
The War on Drugs is responsible for a particular incident in my own life that, ironically, was both the biggest reason for my decision to enlist in the United States Marine Corps...as well as being the cause of my getting booted for fraudulent enlistment. The real irony? I had, at that point, never even smoked a cigarette. My "experimentation with drugs", at the time, consisted of taking a single sip of champagne at a wedding when I was twelve.
In the past week, there have been three incidents that severely trouble my heart.
I was made aware of the first incident via a friend of mine working for the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office. I was told of how a classmate and mutual friend of ours had gone down a different route, and had somehow gotten tangled up in methamphetamine.
The second was a major bust involving nine people in Brazoria County (including a girl I didn't personally know, but was known by friends of mine) involving the meth trade.
The third incident is, tonight, a "web-first breaking news" story about 16 high school kids being arrested for drugs at Columbia High School in West Columbia, TX today.
Now, before I go any further, I'll come right out and say that I am "old school". I was born in the latter part of the Carter administration, which means that Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign was coming about in full swing when I entered the first grade.
My mother, a drug abuser, was also a registered nurse...which means I had access to her textbooks when I'd go to visit as a youngster. Me, being the introverted little shit that I was, liked to read a lot....and I learned quite a bit about the effects of drugs. I also went to a public high school, and had health class. I knew drugs were bad for you.
The thing that really taught me what was up, however, was having a father to teach me. I distinctly remember driving through Houston one day with him as a teenager, and we had stopped at a gas station. If memory serves, it was because he needed a beer, but I suppose that's probably not important. Anyhow, there was a toothless bum wearing a ripped t-shirt in the middle of February, begging for change. My father looked at me and said, "See that? That's what drugs do to you." Needless to say, I've got enough problems, I never felt the need to complicate them with a crack pipe.
Obviously, there are all manner of crimes assorted with drugs. You get murder, robbery, and theft when people can't afford their fix, can't pay their drug debts, can't report being ripped off, et cetera.
You can't open a newspaper today without reading a story about this happening last night. Mexico, formerly an impoverished nation that relied upon American tourist dollars, is now even poorer because Americans are afraid to travel there. In Ciudad Juarez, the drug cartels have reportedly completely taken over and now essentially own the city.
Right here in America, people are being arrested in record numbers for drug offenses.
Is it worth it? Not quite.
Drugs are bad, m'kay? Meth, coke, smack, et cetera will KILL YOU. If it doesn't kill you while you're doing it, it's going to kill you slowly over an extended period of time. Everyone with half a brain knows this.
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THE THREAT OF GOING TO PRISON IS GOING TO STOP SOMEONE, IF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH DOESN'T? Seriously, grow a fucking brain.
If you're too ignorant to know that snorting anything made out of anti-freeze, rat poison, diesel engine starting fluid, et cetera isn't bad for you, making it against the law won't help.
Does it suck to have some crackhead rip off your shit? Of course it does. Are our drug laws working? Hell, no!
Imagine, if you will, that meth, smack, coke, pot, et cetera are instantly legalized in this nation. What happens?
Instantly, a full 20% of prisoners are no longer the responsibility of the American taxpayer, because they don't stay locked up for the nonviolent offense of merely being in possession of, or selling, drugs.
Then, the majority of our law enforcement resources are freed up, because we don't have years-long investigations into someone selling meth from their backyard lab. Assaults drop when drug debts gone bad are handled in the courts. Tax bases are instantly multiplied, because dealers get out of the black market and start selling in regulated markets. Drugs become harder for the average teenager to get, because dealers know they have to ask for ID or go to jail.
Most normal people don't smoke crack, snort meth, shoot smack, et cetera. Those who choose to do it will continue to do it, regardless of prohibition...as evident by what I've seen this past week. You can't legislate intelligence. I wouldn't snort coke if it were legal. Would you?
So where does drug legalization and regulation leave us? Less expense, more resources. This allows our law enforcement agencies to go after that crackhead that stole your shit.
I read yesterday about nine people getting busted for a "meth ring". The investigation lasted for more than a year, and tied up resources from several jurisdictions. Before the news was even printed, someone else had already fired up another meth lab, because methheads aren't going anywhere. Seriously, you can cook it up in a 2-liter bottle as you drive down the street. You ain't gonna win that war!
So now, a select nine people have been arrested. Millions of tax dollars were pissed away to do this. These people have lost everything but their lives, if convicted. The charges carry a mandatory ten year sentence, with a maximum of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Their property has been seized. Their families are destroyed.
Did it put any kind of dent in the meth epidemic we're facing in this nation? Hell, no. It didn't even put a dent in the meth problem IN THIS COUNTY. Someone else already had a batch cooking up before the high these people were responsible for had worn off. "Getting meth heads off the street"? Give that bullshit to someone who might buy it, because I know better.
"Injustice" occurs when our laws do more harm than the potential harm they are designed to prevent.
Just like an accidental head injury, you may recover from a meth addiction. You may not. That's the chance you take when you decide to snort meth. You can arrest a dozen people per year (which is far better than our local authorities are doing) for cooking meth, and you'll have ten dozen others who are ready, willing, and able to take their place the next day.
I don't know the people who got busted...their lives may have been salvageable, they may not have been. However, I will say this to the law enforcement agencies responsible for the busts:
A) You did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the meth issues in this county.
B) You have completely destroyed the lives of nine people, as well as the lives of their loved ones.
C) You have cost the taxpayers of this nation, and specifically this county, an immense amount of money with this "intense investigation", and again, you truly accomplished NOTHING.
D) With the mandatory minimum sentencing of the charges, you have saddled this nation with at least five million dollars worth of expenses in nothing more than incarceration for these people. This doesn't cover expenses relating to court costs, appeals, et cetera...and certainly doesn't even get started on the millions of dollars spent on the initial investigation.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Why the US will never "win" in Afghanistan...
There are several reasons why the US will never win, but here are the "top three" in my not-so-humble opinion.
A) The Afghan people are, for the most part, unwilling to simply quit.
B) The US military is unwilling to utilize nuclear weapons, or any other strategy that will result in the complete and total annihilation of the Afghan people.
C) The US military has completely failed to define what constitutes "victory".
Now, please allow me to clarify a few things.
The Afghan people, historically, simply refuse to be conquered by anyone. If you doubt this, please see the entire plot of Rambo III. It just ain't gonna happen, they'd rather die than live as a subservient to an outside government. Do they, largely, hate the Taliban? Of course...but they hate the American government even more. Not "American culture", per se, as plenty of them enjoy Big Macs and iPods, but rather, the government that has propped up every major war in that region for the past hundred years. As part of our anti-communist efforts, we essentially created Al Qaeda. As part of our anti-drug efforts, we gave millions upon millions of dollars to the Taliban. As part of our anti-terror efforts, we have killed (knowingly or unknowingly) an untold number of innocent civilians. Teenage boys who happened to know someone that knew someone that made a phone call to a guy who drove a cab for Osama's cousin have been imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed without any valid justification. Things like these create an intense hatred for the US government, as well as for the armed men who fight under its flag.
While we kill many more men in Afghanistan than we lose, we must keep this in mind: NOT EVERY AFGHAN MAN WITH A RIFLE IS HOLDING THAT RIFLE BECAUSE HE HATES AMERICAN CHRISTIANS WITH FREEDOM. Some simply hate American soldiers who work for the same government that accidentally killed his entire family with a UAV drone attack on a funeral procession. I don't know about you, but that would make me want to pick up a rifle and shoot back. How would you feel? When this war started almost ten years ago, there less than 50k people who identified themselves as "Taliban". That's slightly less than the combined populations of Angleton and Lake Jackson, TX. That's it, and it certainly wasn't concentrated in two cities. In 2008, there were around 11,000 Taliban. In 2009, there were 25,000.
What does this tell us? I don't know about you, but it tells me that our efforts in Afghanistan are helping to actually "build" the Taliban. When we seek out to destroy something that others sympathize with, you will find support amongst these people. When you kill innocents, either knowingly or unknowingly, you will add to the strength of your enemy because the loved ones of that person you killed will likely hate you for it. When the state of Texas executes a man, it often does not simply kill a man...it kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, a nephew, et cetera, and these relatives are left behind. When our military kills a man in Afghanistan, it also kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, and a nephew...and these relatives are also left behind. When the person you kill is an innocent goat herder that happened to "look like a bad guy" when he got shot, or was part of a wedding party that was mistaken for a terrorist training camp on a satellite photo, you're doing nothing but inspiring vengeance.
When we are unwilling to exterminate the entire population, and the people we leave behind would rather die than surrender, we do nothing but breed enemies...regardless of how righteous our fight may be.
Of course, our biggest problem in Afghanistan is, quite simply, our complete and utter failure to define what constitutes "victory" in Afghanistan. Until we actually know what "winning" consists of, how do we know if/when we've "won"?
A) The Afghan people are, for the most part, unwilling to simply quit.
B) The US military is unwilling to utilize nuclear weapons, or any other strategy that will result in the complete and total annihilation of the Afghan people.
C) The US military has completely failed to define what constitutes "victory".
Now, please allow me to clarify a few things.
The Afghan people, historically, simply refuse to be conquered by anyone. If you doubt this, please see the entire plot of Rambo III. It just ain't gonna happen, they'd rather die than live as a subservient to an outside government. Do they, largely, hate the Taliban? Of course...but they hate the American government even more. Not "American culture", per se, as plenty of them enjoy Big Macs and iPods, but rather, the government that has propped up every major war in that region for the past hundred years. As part of our anti-communist efforts, we essentially created Al Qaeda. As part of our anti-drug efforts, we gave millions upon millions of dollars to the Taliban. As part of our anti-terror efforts, we have killed (knowingly or unknowingly) an untold number of innocent civilians. Teenage boys who happened to know someone that knew someone that made a phone call to a guy who drove a cab for Osama's cousin have been imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed without any valid justification. Things like these create an intense hatred for the US government, as well as for the armed men who fight under its flag.
While we kill many more men in Afghanistan than we lose, we must keep this in mind: NOT EVERY AFGHAN MAN WITH A RIFLE IS HOLDING THAT RIFLE BECAUSE HE HATES AMERICAN CHRISTIANS WITH FREEDOM. Some simply hate American soldiers who work for the same government that accidentally killed his entire family with a UAV drone attack on a funeral procession. I don't know about you, but that would make me want to pick up a rifle and shoot back. How would you feel? When this war started almost ten years ago, there less than 50k people who identified themselves as "Taliban". That's slightly less than the combined populations of Angleton and Lake Jackson, TX. That's it, and it certainly wasn't concentrated in two cities. In 2008, there were around 11,000 Taliban. In 2009, there were 25,000.
What does this tell us? I don't know about you, but it tells me that our efforts in Afghanistan are helping to actually "build" the Taliban. When we seek out to destroy something that others sympathize with, you will find support amongst these people. When you kill innocents, either knowingly or unknowingly, you will add to the strength of your enemy because the loved ones of that person you killed will likely hate you for it. When the state of Texas executes a man, it often does not simply kill a man...it kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, a nephew, et cetera, and these relatives are left behind. When our military kills a man in Afghanistan, it also kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, and a nephew...and these relatives are also left behind. When the person you kill is an innocent goat herder that happened to "look like a bad guy" when he got shot, or was part of a wedding party that was mistaken for a terrorist training camp on a satellite photo, you're doing nothing but inspiring vengeance.
When we are unwilling to exterminate the entire population, and the people we leave behind would rather die than surrender, we do nothing but breed enemies...regardless of how righteous our fight may be.
Of course, our biggest problem in Afghanistan is, quite simply, our complete and utter failure to define what constitutes "victory" in Afghanistan. Until we actually know what "winning" consists of, how do we know if/when we've "won"?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Acting swiftly? Sounds like an argument for "pre-crime detention" to me...
So once again, me and cousin Billiam were rehashing the same old debate the other night, and he tells me there's no such thing as a "victimless" crime. It started with a discussion about a slashed budget at a county sheriff's department, in which I remarked that they should stop wasting time arresting people for victimless crimes like smoking marijuana.
He goes on to inform me that there's no such thing as a "victimless crime", to which I asked him who the "victim" was in a case of a man sitting in the living room he pays for via his wages that smokes a marijuana cigarette that he pays for with his wages. His argument, typical of statists, reverted back to the old standby: "what if...?"
He rattled off a laundry list of possible things a man could do revolving around marijuana, and I had to correct him by informing him that the things he listed were already crimes in and of themselves, without the illegality of marijuana even being considered...but the act of one man smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home harmed NO ONE.
The reason I bring this up is because the entire rationale for the criminalization of marijuana use/possession revolves solely around the possibility of the commission of other crimes while under the influence. Yes, some people drive under its influence. Some people steal things and sell them to buy marijuana. Some people have even been murdered as a result of marijuana deals gone bad. However, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THESE THINGS are an inevitable act associated with the use of marijuana. Thousands of Americans, according to US Gov't Statistics, are sparking up RIGHT NOW in America...and will not drive, steal, or kill anyone while smoking marijuana.
However, to criminalize this is tantamount to criminalizing one action because another MAY occur. In an attempt to explain this to Billiam, I pointed at his new pistol, and asked him why he feels that it should be legal for him to own one since the possibility exists for him to murder others with it. Obviously, he's not going to, but he most certainly could. He couldn't provide a straight answer, nor did I expect him to, other than to say "you're comparing apples and oranges". In reality, it is exactly the same thing, because the possession of one thing (be it marijuana or a semi-automatic handgun) does not automatically equate to murder, robbery, or assault. The basis of criminalization remains the notion of "it could happen", which is no different than being punished without having actually done anything to anyone.
And here's where that becomes a problem. When you begin interfering with the liberties of others, you eventually slide down that slippery slope toward arresting people for LAWFUL activities based upon a "hunch" that they may commit a crime in the future. And yes, it has already started happening.
In Oregon, Mr. David Pyle was awakened by SWAT negotiators in the early morning hours after police had staked out his house overnight. He was "detained for mental health evaluation". Law Enforcement personnel claim he surrendered himself voluntarily, but Mr. Pyle claims he surrendered under implied threat of force due to being surrounded by heavily-armed SWAT team members. What was his crime? HAVING A BAD ATTITUDE AFTER BEING PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FROM HIS JOB.
Yes, you read that correctly. He was led from his home in handcuffs, and several of his privately-owned firearms were seized from him. There was no evidence of any crime, nor was there any reasonable suspicion to believe he was about to commit a crime. Police were acting on nothing more than reports that he was "disgruntled" (read: "very pissed off about losing his job"), and he had recently purchased three new firearms.
The police claim he was not "arrested", therefore they did not violate his rights, because he surrendered himself and his weapons "voluntarily"...however, they did cause him immense emotional distress and public embarrassment. I don't know about you, but coming out of a house after some guy on the phone tells me the SWAT Team is going to come and take me out if I don't do it on my own doesn't exactly sound like "voluntary" compliance any more than not moving after a cop puts a gun to your head and tells you to freeze. If you're threatened with death for non-compliance, that's not a voluntary action...that's compulsory action perpetrated due to the threat of lethal force. On top of this, he was told that he would not be handcuffed or arrested if he walked himself out...and yet, he was handcuffed and taken to a secure medical facility for a "mental evaluation" against his will.
Keep this in mind. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, even if you are not "officially" under arrest, it is still a de facto arrest if you are being detained by an agent of the government and are not free to leave on your own volition without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Yes, I learned this via research done after a very heated debate between me and the Lake Jackson, TX chief of police, when one of his officers illegally detained me.
In the case of most marijuana charges, the police are arresting people for "crimes" that have no victim. In this particular case, the police are now arresting people who have committed no crime!
He goes on to inform me that there's no such thing as a "victimless crime", to which I asked him who the "victim" was in a case of a man sitting in the living room he pays for via his wages that smokes a marijuana cigarette that he pays for with his wages. His argument, typical of statists, reverted back to the old standby: "what if...?"
He rattled off a laundry list of possible things a man could do revolving around marijuana, and I had to correct him by informing him that the things he listed were already crimes in and of themselves, without the illegality of marijuana even being considered...but the act of one man smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home harmed NO ONE.
The reason I bring this up is because the entire rationale for the criminalization of marijuana use/possession revolves solely around the possibility of the commission of other crimes while under the influence. Yes, some people drive under its influence. Some people steal things and sell them to buy marijuana. Some people have even been murdered as a result of marijuana deals gone bad. However, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THESE THINGS are an inevitable act associated with the use of marijuana. Thousands of Americans, according to US Gov't Statistics, are sparking up RIGHT NOW in America...and will not drive, steal, or kill anyone while smoking marijuana.
However, to criminalize this is tantamount to criminalizing one action because another MAY occur. In an attempt to explain this to Billiam, I pointed at his new pistol, and asked him why he feels that it should be legal for him to own one since the possibility exists for him to murder others with it. Obviously, he's not going to, but he most certainly could. He couldn't provide a straight answer, nor did I expect him to, other than to say "you're comparing apples and oranges". In reality, it is exactly the same thing, because the possession of one thing (be it marijuana or a semi-automatic handgun) does not automatically equate to murder, robbery, or assault. The basis of criminalization remains the notion of "it could happen", which is no different than being punished without having actually done anything to anyone.
And here's where that becomes a problem. When you begin interfering with the liberties of others, you eventually slide down that slippery slope toward arresting people for LAWFUL activities based upon a "hunch" that they may commit a crime in the future. And yes, it has already started happening.
In Oregon, Mr. David Pyle was awakened by SWAT negotiators in the early morning hours after police had staked out his house overnight. He was "detained for mental health evaluation". Law Enforcement personnel claim he surrendered himself voluntarily, but Mr. Pyle claims he surrendered under implied threat of force due to being surrounded by heavily-armed SWAT team members. What was his crime? HAVING A BAD ATTITUDE AFTER BEING PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FROM HIS JOB.
Yes, you read that correctly. He was led from his home in handcuffs, and several of his privately-owned firearms were seized from him. There was no evidence of any crime, nor was there any reasonable suspicion to believe he was about to commit a crime. Police were acting on nothing more than reports that he was "disgruntled" (read: "very pissed off about losing his job"), and he had recently purchased three new firearms.
The police claim he was not "arrested", therefore they did not violate his rights, because he surrendered himself and his weapons "voluntarily"...however, they did cause him immense emotional distress and public embarrassment. I don't know about you, but coming out of a house after some guy on the phone tells me the SWAT Team is going to come and take me out if I don't do it on my own doesn't exactly sound like "voluntary" compliance any more than not moving after a cop puts a gun to your head and tells you to freeze. If you're threatened with death for non-compliance, that's not a voluntary action...that's compulsory action perpetrated due to the threat of lethal force. On top of this, he was told that he would not be handcuffed or arrested if he walked himself out...and yet, he was handcuffed and taken to a secure medical facility for a "mental evaluation" against his will.
Keep this in mind. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, even if you are not "officially" under arrest, it is still a de facto arrest if you are being detained by an agent of the government and are not free to leave on your own volition without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Yes, I learned this via research done after a very heated debate between me and the Lake Jackson, TX chief of police, when one of his officers illegally detained me.
In the case of most marijuana charges, the police are arresting people for "crimes" that have no victim. In this particular case, the police are now arresting people who have committed no crime!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
With all due respect, Ms. Mintz...
So in this morning's edition of the Brazosport Factless, my local newsrag published a letter I had written about how Chief Neil Longbotham had stolen over one hundred thousand dollars worth of cash and video poker machines from a local "Eight Liner" parlor that had been found to be paying out cash prizes.
Also on the opinions page was an op-ed piece by Ms. Yvonne Mintz of the Brazosport Facts, telling me and the countless others who were disgusted about this obvious theft by a "public servant" that our anger is "misplaced" and should be directed toward our state legislature.
While I am angry at my legislature in general anyway, I do firmly understand that they could honestly care less about the wants and wishes of the People of the State of Texas...unless those people are so pissed off at their legislators that they're chasing them down the road with pitchforks.
Regardless, our LOCAL officials deal with what is going on LOCALLY. The reason I am disgusted by the confiscation of a man's personal property (other than, of course, Chief Longbotham's inability to be publicly honest about it, saying that he raided the place to "protect the public"), is that our local officials can and do have the authority to decide what priorities to place on certain things within the arena of their respective offices.
Ms. Mintz's own article provides plenty of reason to be very upset about this...not with the legislature, but with the local law enforcement and the county DA's office.
I used to work at one of these "eight-liner parlors" when I was in college, and I know for a fact that they DO NOT STAY IN BUSINESS WHILE OPERATING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW. Let there be no mistake about it, you do not run a video gambling joint legally without going broke. It just does not happen. While this may have been possible ten or fifteen years ago, the laws have been changed within the past decade in a manner that makes these places a no-win situation for everyone involved...unless the relationship between the house and the player crosses the line of the law.
Prior to laws being changed (or possibly just clarified), an eight-liner parlor was forbidden to pay out in cash...but it was able to pay out in the form of "gift certificates" that could be worth a maximum of $5 in game credits or merchandise. The way it worked was simple...they couldn't pay you in cash, but they could give you a $600 television if you had saved up 120 of these $5 certificates. Often, the player would show the house a newspaper flier of the merchandise desired, and someone working for the house would go purchase it, bring it back to the game room, and help load it up for the customer.
After the law was updated, they still couldn't pay you in cash...and now, the maximum value of any prize was $5. You could no longer collect a stack of 100 certificates and trade them for a prize worth $500, you now had to trade them in for 100 prizes worth $5 each. Anyone stupid enough to continuously pump $20 bills into a machine for hours at a time, with no possibility of actually winning anything bigger than a $5 plastic trinket, likely wouldn't have that kind of money to begin with. The law, in effect, turned what was once legalized gambling into an overrated video game arcade.
Game rooms are typically open 24/7. That's AT LEAST five grand a month in payroll, provided you have only one attendant on duty at any given time...and that attendant is only making minimum wage. Then you have the light bills. Do you have any idea how much power consumption goes on when you have 50 computers sitting side by side? Don't forget about the complimentary snacks and drinks that are often provided for the players, because most municipalities require a permit to sell food/drinks. Then there's the lease or mortgage on the building, if you don't own it outright. Most importantly, don't forget about paying your annual taxes on each coin-operated gaming machine.
You're looking at an overhead of at least eight grand a month, which means you have to be pulling in about $300 every 24 hours. That's just to break even. This is required EVERY SINGLE DAY, regardless of how jacked up the economy is, or whether it's a Tuesday night, or the county fair is in town, or whatever other reason there may be for people not coming into your game room. If you have more than one employee, you're going to need to bring more dollars into those machines.
Simply put, you're going to have one hell of a hard time getting enough people into your game room spending that kind of money on what is essentially an obnoxiously noisy Nintendo game, without breaking the law. Grown folks just are not going to come into a game room and pump $50 into a machine for the prospect of winning a trinket worth $5. Seriously, you can't even buy a Barbie doll for $5 anymore. What kind of prizes are these people giving away? Keychains and beer koozies, maybe?
Okay, so now we've established that EVERY eight liner parlor is breaking the law. Yes, every single one of them. Here's why it shouldn't matter...
IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE! THAT'S RIGHT, IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE AT ALL!
Interestingly enough, Ms. Mintz tells us that investigations, such as the one resulting in the THEFT (you'll notice I don't use the word "confiscation", because "confiscation" is simply theft by a government employee) of over one hundred thousand dollars worth of cash and video gambling devices, required the use of an informant and took several months of surveillance.
According to the original article, Chief Longbotham was quoted as saying that several "complaints" had been made to the police department about this establishment paying cash to its players. Okay, really? Come on. Who calls the police to complain about a video game parlor paying cash to its customers? Obviously, it isn't the police department themselves, otherwise that statement would be a complete and total lie...which would leave only two other options.
Either A) the complaint was made by a player that lost his rent money for the month in hopes that he would score big, or B) the complaint was made by the owners of another game room. Either way, I continue to ask...who was harmed by paying cash to the players?
Absolutely NO ONE that didn't wantonly and willingly put himself into a position to lose money. You're a complete idiot, if you think the house doesn't have an advantage in "games of chance". The odds of winning any casino-style game are severely stacked in favor of the house. With any computer-based game (such as video poker, keno, slots, et cetera), the odds can actually be manipulated via the game's processor chips...ironically, most avid players even know this, and continue to play.
But now, I ask this...if a man is willing to risk losing his rent money for the chance of winning it back five-fold, is the house he's betting against not also running the risk of losing more money, even if the odds are stacked in favor of the house? If so, is this not a mutually agreed-upon contractual relationship?
Keep that in mind, and now ask yourself this: Are there not other problems that thousands of dollars worth of man-hours and resources could not be spent on, especially when these problems involve crimes against people and property?
As a police chief, is it not Longbotham's responsibility to his community to more wisely utilize his department's resources in a manner that actually IS "protecting the public", as opposed to wasting them on something as petty as arresting someone for paying cash prizes at an eight-liner parlor?
I know there are worse places to live, but I also know for a fact that burglary and thievery goes on in the city of Brazoria. You know it, I know it, and the police chief knows it. What's more important, protecting the private property of the citizens you are paid to serve, or attempting to enforce legislated morality in a manner that the majority of the public does not agree with by STEALING the private property of the citizens you are paid to serve?
Should we hold our legislature responsible for outlawing video poker? Absolutely, but the officers who enforce these laws are equally culpable, as are the district attorneys who prosecute these cases. Without investigators and prosecutors, such laws are utterly useless.
Since the newspaper article has stated that arrests will be coming soon (for all I know, they've already been made), I suppose the only recourse the owner of Jacks R Better will have is a sympathetic jury.
Regardless of this, the majority of people in Texas support legalized gambling. When faced with choices for our legislature, however, we are far too often given candidates that place legalized gambling at the bottom of their list of priorities (where it probably should be, were it not for our budget problems and the possibility of the metric shitloads of tax money we could be bringing in for the state through legalized gambling). Because it isn't a "hot-button issue", it isn't being used as a campaign promise. As such, our legislators don't want to be known as "the guy that wants to bring in gambling", because his re-election opponents will seize on this as an opportunity to claim that such a legislature is attempting to destroy the "family values of Texas" or some such nonsense.
I probably wouldn't have cared about any of this, as I'm not a gambler and don't even live in the city of Brazoria. I was, however, just a bit miffed when I saw Chief Neil Longbotham being quoted as saying he was shutting the gaming parlor down to "protect the public"...because I know that statement is complete and utter bullshit.
Also on the opinions page was an op-ed piece by Ms. Yvonne Mintz of the Brazosport Facts, telling me and the countless others who were disgusted about this obvious theft by a "public servant" that our anger is "misplaced" and should be directed toward our state legislature.
While I am angry at my legislature in general anyway, I do firmly understand that they could honestly care less about the wants and wishes of the People of the State of Texas...unless those people are so pissed off at their legislators that they're chasing them down the road with pitchforks.
Regardless, our LOCAL officials deal with what is going on LOCALLY. The reason I am disgusted by the confiscation of a man's personal property (other than, of course, Chief Longbotham's inability to be publicly honest about it, saying that he raided the place to "protect the public"), is that our local officials can and do have the authority to decide what priorities to place on certain things within the arena of their respective offices.
Ms. Mintz's own article provides plenty of reason to be very upset about this...not with the legislature, but with the local law enforcement and the county DA's office.
I used to work at one of these "eight-liner parlors" when I was in college, and I know for a fact that they DO NOT STAY IN BUSINESS WHILE OPERATING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW. Let there be no mistake about it, you do not run a video gambling joint legally without going broke. It just does not happen. While this may have been possible ten or fifteen years ago, the laws have been changed within the past decade in a manner that makes these places a no-win situation for everyone involved...unless the relationship between the house and the player crosses the line of the law.
Prior to laws being changed (or possibly just clarified), an eight-liner parlor was forbidden to pay out in cash...but it was able to pay out in the form of "gift certificates" that could be worth a maximum of $5 in game credits or merchandise. The way it worked was simple...they couldn't pay you in cash, but they could give you a $600 television if you had saved up 120 of these $5 certificates. Often, the player would show the house a newspaper flier of the merchandise desired, and someone working for the house would go purchase it, bring it back to the game room, and help load it up for the customer.
After the law was updated, they still couldn't pay you in cash...and now, the maximum value of any prize was $5. You could no longer collect a stack of 100 certificates and trade them for a prize worth $500, you now had to trade them in for 100 prizes worth $5 each. Anyone stupid enough to continuously pump $20 bills into a machine for hours at a time, with no possibility of actually winning anything bigger than a $5 plastic trinket, likely wouldn't have that kind of money to begin with. The law, in effect, turned what was once legalized gambling into an overrated video game arcade.
Game rooms are typically open 24/7. That's AT LEAST five grand a month in payroll, provided you have only one attendant on duty at any given time...and that attendant is only making minimum wage. Then you have the light bills. Do you have any idea how much power consumption goes on when you have 50 computers sitting side by side? Don't forget about the complimentary snacks and drinks that are often provided for the players, because most municipalities require a permit to sell food/drinks. Then there's the lease or mortgage on the building, if you don't own it outright. Most importantly, don't forget about paying your annual taxes on each coin-operated gaming machine.
You're looking at an overhead of at least eight grand a month, which means you have to be pulling in about $300 every 24 hours. That's just to break even. This is required EVERY SINGLE DAY, regardless of how jacked up the economy is, or whether it's a Tuesday night, or the county fair is in town, or whatever other reason there may be for people not coming into your game room. If you have more than one employee, you're going to need to bring more dollars into those machines.
Simply put, you're going to have one hell of a hard time getting enough people into your game room spending that kind of money on what is essentially an obnoxiously noisy Nintendo game, without breaking the law. Grown folks just are not going to come into a game room and pump $50 into a machine for the prospect of winning a trinket worth $5. Seriously, you can't even buy a Barbie doll for $5 anymore. What kind of prizes are these people giving away? Keychains and beer koozies, maybe?
Okay, so now we've established that EVERY eight liner parlor is breaking the law. Yes, every single one of them. Here's why it shouldn't matter...
IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE! THAT'S RIGHT, IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE AT ALL!
Interestingly enough, Ms. Mintz tells us that investigations, such as the one resulting in the THEFT (you'll notice I don't use the word "confiscation", because "confiscation" is simply theft by a government employee) of over one hundred thousand dollars worth of cash and video gambling devices, required the use of an informant and took several months of surveillance.
According to the original article, Chief Longbotham was quoted as saying that several "complaints" had been made to the police department about this establishment paying cash to its players. Okay, really? Come on. Who calls the police to complain about a video game parlor paying cash to its customers? Obviously, it isn't the police department themselves, otherwise that statement would be a complete and total lie...which would leave only two other options.
Either A) the complaint was made by a player that lost his rent money for the month in hopes that he would score big, or B) the complaint was made by the owners of another game room. Either way, I continue to ask...who was harmed by paying cash to the players?
Absolutely NO ONE that didn't wantonly and willingly put himself into a position to lose money. You're a complete idiot, if you think the house doesn't have an advantage in "games of chance". The odds of winning any casino-style game are severely stacked in favor of the house. With any computer-based game (such as video poker, keno, slots, et cetera), the odds can actually be manipulated via the game's processor chips...ironically, most avid players even know this, and continue to play.
But now, I ask this...if a man is willing to risk losing his rent money for the chance of winning it back five-fold, is the house he's betting against not also running the risk of losing more money, even if the odds are stacked in favor of the house? If so, is this not a mutually agreed-upon contractual relationship?
Keep that in mind, and now ask yourself this: Are there not other problems that thousands of dollars worth of man-hours and resources could not be spent on, especially when these problems involve crimes against people and property?
As a police chief, is it not Longbotham's responsibility to his community to more wisely utilize his department's resources in a manner that actually IS "protecting the public", as opposed to wasting them on something as petty as arresting someone for paying cash prizes at an eight-liner parlor?
I know there are worse places to live, but I also know for a fact that burglary and thievery goes on in the city of Brazoria. You know it, I know it, and the police chief knows it. What's more important, protecting the private property of the citizens you are paid to serve, or attempting to enforce legislated morality in a manner that the majority of the public does not agree with by STEALING the private property of the citizens you are paid to serve?
Should we hold our legislature responsible for outlawing video poker? Absolutely, but the officers who enforce these laws are equally culpable, as are the district attorneys who prosecute these cases. Without investigators and prosecutors, such laws are utterly useless.
Since the newspaper article has stated that arrests will be coming soon (for all I know, they've already been made), I suppose the only recourse the owner of Jacks R Better will have is a sympathetic jury.
Regardless of this, the majority of people in Texas support legalized gambling. When faced with choices for our legislature, however, we are far too often given candidates that place legalized gambling at the bottom of their list of priorities (where it probably should be, were it not for our budget problems and the possibility of the metric shitloads of tax money we could be bringing in for the state through legalized gambling). Because it isn't a "hot-button issue", it isn't being used as a campaign promise. As such, our legislators don't want to be known as "the guy that wants to bring in gambling", because his re-election opponents will seize on this as an opportunity to claim that such a legislature is attempting to destroy the "family values of Texas" or some such nonsense.
I probably wouldn't have cared about any of this, as I'm not a gambler and don't even live in the city of Brazoria. I was, however, just a bit miffed when I saw Chief Neil Longbotham being quoted as saying he was shutting the gaming parlor down to "protect the public"...because I know that statement is complete and utter bullshit.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
...from my Cold, Dead Hands!
That's where they can take them from, the sonsabitches!
What am I rambling about? Why, nothing much, just Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ban my hunting rifle!
Yes, all the major news outlets are reporting that Mr. Holder is pushing for not just a reinstatement, but a PERMANENT reinstatement, of the "assault weapons" ban.
Okay, I'm sorry, but I've been speaking the English language for the better part of three decades. I understand that "assault" is an ACTION, not an OBJECT.
The reason for wanting to reinstate the ban on "military-STYLE" weapons? It has absolutely nothing to do with crime in America, and everything to do with crime in MEXICO! Well, that's the excuse we're getting, anyway. In reality, it has nothing to do with crime ANYWHERE, and everything to do with the disarmament of the American people.
You see, for ten years (1994-2004), America was under the "Assault Weapons Ban" (henceforth known as the "AWB"). Violent crimes involving assault weapons were CUT IN HALF! Yeah, but then read the fine print. You see, crimes involving assault weapons went from 2% to 1%. That still leaves out, of course, the 98% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES THAT WERE NOT BEING COMMITTED WITH SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" TO BEGIN WITH! The AWB did absolutely nothing in the way of actually deterring violent crime. All it did was make it more expensive for target shooters, collectors of militaria, et cetera to purchase the rifles they wanted.
How does that work? The same way the amendments to the National Firearms Act in 1986 made an M16 more expensive to own! You see, these weapons were not actually "outlawed" outright, you could still own them. You just had to jump through more hoops to get them, and their supply was limited because full-auto weapons could not be manufactured for civilian use. Any full-auto weapon owned by a civilian had to be taxed and registered with the BATFE, which caused a $1,000 rifle to instantly become priced at $10,000.
Every day, we're hearing about how Mexican drug cartels are waging war in the streets of Mexico. They're shooting people in broad daylight, like it's the cool new thing. You hear about automatic rifles and hand grenades being used regularly.
And yet, Mr. Holder thinks that this is because of some sort of "gun show loophole". BULLSHIT. Unless you have been fingerprinted, had your personal paperwork signed by the local chief of police, and gone through a very thorough background check via the BATFE, YOU CANNOT BUY A FULL-AUTOMATIC RIFLE. In all likelihood, you won't even ever see one of these at a gun show, since most vendors bring what is available to the general public...even if they have a Class III Federal Firearms License.
So where do these weapons come from, if the Mexican cartels are using them to murder people in record numbers? Armalite M16 rifles, the full-auto rifles used by the US Military, get to Mexico via the US government. They are either given, or sold at below market value, as part of our "foreign aid" to Mexico in our efforts to win the "War On Drugs". Unfortunately, the government of Mexico is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mexican drug cartels. If you have an army officer responsible for a few hundred automatic rifles, and the cartels want those rifles, that officer will either be a few thousand dollars more wealthy, or that officer will be dead.
Full-auto AK47 rifles are also not available in America, nor are hand grenades...but American law cannot prevent manufacturing plants in Venezuela, ComBloc eastern European nations, or China from producing and selling these weapons. Obviously, the gun control laws that outlaw private citizens from owning firearms can't stop it either.
Oh, you didn't know that? That's right, it is ILLEGAL for the average Mexican citizen to own a firearm. In order to own one, he must meet certain legal requirements...in addition to registering the rifle and every round of ammunition. On top of this, it is a "may issue" situation, as opposed to a "shall issue". In other words, the government doesn't have to issue the permit if it does not want to. Even still, the TYPES of firearms that may be purchased by Mexican citizens is severely restricted. A Mexican citizen is FORBIDDEN to own anything capable of firing a "military caliber", such as ***dingdingding*** an AR15, an SKS, an AK47, and countless other so-called "assault rifles".
So what does that mean? EVERY SINGLE CARTEL-RELATED SHOOTING IN MEXICO WITH ONE OF THESE RIFLES HAS BEEN COMMITTED WITH A FIREARM THAT IS ALREADY UNLAWFUL TO OWN.
Obviously, gun laws won't stop criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", and all that jazz.
In nations where guns are outlawed and the police departments aren't COMPLETELY corrupt, such as China and the United Kingdom, the rate of violent crime is not much different than here in the United States. Notice I didn't say "violent GUN crime". Obviously, if it's next to impossible to obtain a gun even by illegal means, you're going to use something else. In England, the weapon of choice is a kitchen knife. In China, it's actually rat poison!
Furthermore, the "90%" figure all too often thrown out about the number of so-called "assault weapons" being traced back to American buyers is complete bullshit. It's 90% of TRACEABLE weapons being traced back to American buyers. That's 90% of all weapons that have serial numbers that can be traced...which is a very small fraction of a percentage of all weapons recovered by the Mexican government. Did I mention that most weapons used by Cartel members can't actually be traced to anyone, and that the entirety of the Mexican gov't is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the drug cartels?
Now, let's get to this supposed "gun show loophole" that Mr. Obama and his ilk keep referring to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE". This "loophole" they refer to is nothing more than a lack of a legal requirement to register a transfer of ownership of a firearm between two private parties via the federal government, according to federal law. If you go to a gun show, and see a guy at a booth selling firearms, that guy has a federal firearms license...which means that he's going to either do the paperwork and background check, or he's going to risk jail for breaking the law. If you purchase a firearm from someone who is NOT A LICENSED DEALER, you don't have to do a background check. It doesn't matter if this person is your grandpa, your next-door neighbor, or some random individual walking around at a gun show trying to sell his deer rifle. You don't have to do an FFL transfer from a private seller (at least not in this state, I am not sure of other states).
So what does this mean? This supposed "loophole" does not apply to gun shows, but rather, every single individual gun owner in the United States of America that does not sell guns for a living.
Okay, so moving right along. We've discovered that the weapons used in cartel violence aren't coming from Joe Bob the redneck that bought a truckload of Semi-Auto AK47s at a gun show so he could smuggle them into Mexico. Why would they, when the cartels can just as easily import the real deal from Venezuela? But anyhow, let's now look to WHY there is cartel violence in Mexico to begin with!
If you outlaw a substance that people are going to continue to consume illegally, you're going to create a black market for it. You haven't reduced its consumption, you've merely increased its potential for profitability. When the demand is extremely large (such as that of, oh I don't know, COCAINE), and its supply is limited to those willing to risk a life sentence in federal prison to get it here, the price is going to skyrocket.
Unlike alcohol or marijuana, cocaine cannot be easily and readily produced domestically. The climate, labor requirements, et cetera for producing cocaine make its domestic production next to impossible. As such, it must be imported.
Smuggling in cocaine through customs at an international airport in the US is rather difficult, especially if one is wanting to bring in enough to make it economically viable. Our porous border to the south, on the other hand, is ready to rock and roll...and has been, for decades. This is how the drug cartels became so powerful! Coca plants are grown in south and central American nations, smuggled up into Mexico, and then trucked across the border via NAFTA trade routes. If you don't believe me about the NAFTA thing, check every major cocaine bust coming in on a truck from Mexico!
So how do we stop it? Do we start shooting people who smuggle cocaine? We could start doing that, but it won't put a dent in the problem. The short answer is, of course, WE DON'T STOP IT. If a man is willing to risk a life sentence for smuggling tons of cocaine into America, you're not going to stop him with the threat of death. There is a market for cocaine in America, and there are willing participants in other nations that smuggle it in.
So the proper answer to this? LEGALIZE IT! Yes, I said that. Legalize the sale, use, and possession of crack, coke, smack, meth, weed, and every other illicit drug known to man, for those over the age of 18.
Wait, did I just really say that? You're damned right I did. Almost every person in America knows, right now, that smoking crack is bad for you. There's a reason why the term "crackhead" has such negative connotations. Regardless, we're still not even close to putting a dent in the consumption of cocaine in this nation.
But imagine what would happen if you were to legalize the sale, use, and possession of drugs in this nation...and have them regulated like you would with a bottle of Maker's Mark.
About half of the prison population would be GONE, instantly. About 20% of our prisons are comprised of inmates incarcerated solely for the non-violent sale and/or possession of drugs...which is, with the exception of marijuana, a felony in every state. Then, you have the other 30% who are incarcerated for the violence revolving around drug-related issues that cannot be solved in a civil court due to the fact that disputes involving illegal activities cannot be resolved in such a manner. Of course, old cases of murder and assault will still be housed...but there will be drastically fewer new ones, if you could buy your reefer or coke at a "dope store" like you can with tequila at a liquor store. Remember how debts were settled in the days of alcohol prohibition?
Then, you look at treatment and education. While they comprise less than ten percent of all the money spent on our "drug war", they have been shown to be 16 times more effective than "drug interdiction" (read: arrests and incarcerations). Double or even triple your efforts in these areas, and spend zero money on the DEA, and you're saving billions of dollars every year while simultaneously reducing the number of people who are actually using drugs.
Then, think of all the money, man-hours, and other resources that can be saved at the local law enforcement level. You've got fewer users because you are educating more people before they start to use drugs, you've got less users still using because you've treated more of them, and both of these things equate to fewer drug-related crimes not involving sale or possession (i.e. theft, robbery, et cetera). These crimes will be further reduced by the fact that a drug habit becomes less expensive once it becomes regulated and can be sold by any licensed dealer...just like alcohol licensing provided more competition and lower prices.
Then, you have fewer children using drugs. Children typically have far less money than adults do, which means the market for selling DAMNED NEAR ANYTHING is going to be more lucrative if you are dealing your dope in a regulated market and abiding by the rules. If these rules say you'll lose your license and go to jail for selling a rock of crack to a 17 year old kid, what's the incentive to do so when you have an adult customer willing to buy it legally?
When you have a free market, there is money to be made, just like there is with tobacco and alcohol. I am unaware of any deaths over "turf wars" involving alcohol sales, since the end of prohibition in America.
As usual, the proper answer is less regulation, not more. The same applies to firearm sales.
What am I rambling about? Why, nothing much, just Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ban my hunting rifle!
Yes, all the major news outlets are reporting that Mr. Holder is pushing for not just a reinstatement, but a PERMANENT reinstatement, of the "assault weapons" ban.
Okay, I'm sorry, but I've been speaking the English language for the better part of three decades. I understand that "assault" is an ACTION, not an OBJECT.
The reason for wanting to reinstate the ban on "military-STYLE" weapons? It has absolutely nothing to do with crime in America, and everything to do with crime in MEXICO! Well, that's the excuse we're getting, anyway. In reality, it has nothing to do with crime ANYWHERE, and everything to do with the disarmament of the American people.
You see, for ten years (1994-2004), America was under the "Assault Weapons Ban" (henceforth known as the "AWB"). Violent crimes involving assault weapons were CUT IN HALF! Yeah, but then read the fine print. You see, crimes involving assault weapons went from 2% to 1%. That still leaves out, of course, the 98% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES THAT WERE NOT BEING COMMITTED WITH SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" TO BEGIN WITH! The AWB did absolutely nothing in the way of actually deterring violent crime. All it did was make it more expensive for target shooters, collectors of militaria, et cetera to purchase the rifles they wanted.
How does that work? The same way the amendments to the National Firearms Act in 1986 made an M16 more expensive to own! You see, these weapons were not actually "outlawed" outright, you could still own them. You just had to jump through more hoops to get them, and their supply was limited because full-auto weapons could not be manufactured for civilian use. Any full-auto weapon owned by a civilian had to be taxed and registered with the BATFE, which caused a $1,000 rifle to instantly become priced at $10,000.
Every day, we're hearing about how Mexican drug cartels are waging war in the streets of Mexico. They're shooting people in broad daylight, like it's the cool new thing. You hear about automatic rifles and hand grenades being used regularly.
And yet, Mr. Holder thinks that this is because of some sort of "gun show loophole". BULLSHIT. Unless you have been fingerprinted, had your personal paperwork signed by the local chief of police, and gone through a very thorough background check via the BATFE, YOU CANNOT BUY A FULL-AUTOMATIC RIFLE. In all likelihood, you won't even ever see one of these at a gun show, since most vendors bring what is available to the general public...even if they have a Class III Federal Firearms License.
So where do these weapons come from, if the Mexican cartels are using them to murder people in record numbers? Armalite M16 rifles, the full-auto rifles used by the US Military, get to Mexico via the US government. They are either given, or sold at below market value, as part of our "foreign aid" to Mexico in our efforts to win the "War On Drugs". Unfortunately, the government of Mexico is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mexican drug cartels. If you have an army officer responsible for a few hundred automatic rifles, and the cartels want those rifles, that officer will either be a few thousand dollars more wealthy, or that officer will be dead.
Full-auto AK47 rifles are also not available in America, nor are hand grenades...but American law cannot prevent manufacturing plants in Venezuela, ComBloc eastern European nations, or China from producing and selling these weapons. Obviously, the gun control laws that outlaw private citizens from owning firearms can't stop it either.
Oh, you didn't know that? That's right, it is ILLEGAL for the average Mexican citizen to own a firearm. In order to own one, he must meet certain legal requirements...in addition to registering the rifle and every round of ammunition. On top of this, it is a "may issue" situation, as opposed to a "shall issue". In other words, the government doesn't have to issue the permit if it does not want to. Even still, the TYPES of firearms that may be purchased by Mexican citizens is severely restricted. A Mexican citizen is FORBIDDEN to own anything capable of firing a "military caliber", such as ***dingdingding*** an AR15, an SKS, an AK47, and countless other so-called "assault rifles".
So what does that mean? EVERY SINGLE CARTEL-RELATED SHOOTING IN MEXICO WITH ONE OF THESE RIFLES HAS BEEN COMMITTED WITH A FIREARM THAT IS ALREADY UNLAWFUL TO OWN.
Obviously, gun laws won't stop criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", and all that jazz.
In nations where guns are outlawed and the police departments aren't COMPLETELY corrupt, such as China and the United Kingdom, the rate of violent crime is not much different than here in the United States. Notice I didn't say "violent GUN crime". Obviously, if it's next to impossible to obtain a gun even by illegal means, you're going to use something else. In England, the weapon of choice is a kitchen knife. In China, it's actually rat poison!
Furthermore, the "90%" figure all too often thrown out about the number of so-called "assault weapons" being traced back to American buyers is complete bullshit. It's 90% of TRACEABLE weapons being traced back to American buyers. That's 90% of all weapons that have serial numbers that can be traced...which is a very small fraction of a percentage of all weapons recovered by the Mexican government. Did I mention that most weapons used by Cartel members can't actually be traced to anyone, and that the entirety of the Mexican gov't is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the drug cartels?
Now, let's get to this supposed "gun show loophole" that Mr. Obama and his ilk keep referring to. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE". This "loophole" they refer to is nothing more than a lack of a legal requirement to register a transfer of ownership of a firearm between two private parties via the federal government, according to federal law. If you go to a gun show, and see a guy at a booth selling firearms, that guy has a federal firearms license...which means that he's going to either do the paperwork and background check, or he's going to risk jail for breaking the law. If you purchase a firearm from someone who is NOT A LICENSED DEALER, you don't have to do a background check. It doesn't matter if this person is your grandpa, your next-door neighbor, or some random individual walking around at a gun show trying to sell his deer rifle. You don't have to do an FFL transfer from a private seller (at least not in this state, I am not sure of other states).
So what does this mean? This supposed "loophole" does not apply to gun shows, but rather, every single individual gun owner in the United States of America that does not sell guns for a living.
Okay, so moving right along. We've discovered that the weapons used in cartel violence aren't coming from Joe Bob the redneck that bought a truckload of Semi-Auto AK47s at a gun show so he could smuggle them into Mexico. Why would they, when the cartels can just as easily import the real deal from Venezuela? But anyhow, let's now look to WHY there is cartel violence in Mexico to begin with!
If you outlaw a substance that people are going to continue to consume illegally, you're going to create a black market for it. You haven't reduced its consumption, you've merely increased its potential for profitability. When the demand is extremely large (such as that of, oh I don't know, COCAINE), and its supply is limited to those willing to risk a life sentence in federal prison to get it here, the price is going to skyrocket.
Unlike alcohol or marijuana, cocaine cannot be easily and readily produced domestically. The climate, labor requirements, et cetera for producing cocaine make its domestic production next to impossible. As such, it must be imported.
Smuggling in cocaine through customs at an international airport in the US is rather difficult, especially if one is wanting to bring in enough to make it economically viable. Our porous border to the south, on the other hand, is ready to rock and roll...and has been, for decades. This is how the drug cartels became so powerful! Coca plants are grown in south and central American nations, smuggled up into Mexico, and then trucked across the border via NAFTA trade routes. If you don't believe me about the NAFTA thing, check every major cocaine bust coming in on a truck from Mexico!
So how do we stop it? Do we start shooting people who smuggle cocaine? We could start doing that, but it won't put a dent in the problem. The short answer is, of course, WE DON'T STOP IT. If a man is willing to risk a life sentence for smuggling tons of cocaine into America, you're not going to stop him with the threat of death. There is a market for cocaine in America, and there are willing participants in other nations that smuggle it in.
So the proper answer to this? LEGALIZE IT! Yes, I said that. Legalize the sale, use, and possession of crack, coke, smack, meth, weed, and every other illicit drug known to man, for those over the age of 18.
Wait, did I just really say that? You're damned right I did. Almost every person in America knows, right now, that smoking crack is bad for you. There's a reason why the term "crackhead" has such negative connotations. Regardless, we're still not even close to putting a dent in the consumption of cocaine in this nation.
But imagine what would happen if you were to legalize the sale, use, and possession of drugs in this nation...and have them regulated like you would with a bottle of Maker's Mark.
About half of the prison population would be GONE, instantly. About 20% of our prisons are comprised of inmates incarcerated solely for the non-violent sale and/or possession of drugs...which is, with the exception of marijuana, a felony in every state. Then, you have the other 30% who are incarcerated for the violence revolving around drug-related issues that cannot be solved in a civil court due to the fact that disputes involving illegal activities cannot be resolved in such a manner. Of course, old cases of murder and assault will still be housed...but there will be drastically fewer new ones, if you could buy your reefer or coke at a "dope store" like you can with tequila at a liquor store. Remember how debts were settled in the days of alcohol prohibition?
Then, you look at treatment and education. While they comprise less than ten percent of all the money spent on our "drug war", they have been shown to be 16 times more effective than "drug interdiction" (read: arrests and incarcerations). Double or even triple your efforts in these areas, and spend zero money on the DEA, and you're saving billions of dollars every year while simultaneously reducing the number of people who are actually using drugs.
Then, think of all the money, man-hours, and other resources that can be saved at the local law enforcement level. You've got fewer users because you are educating more people before they start to use drugs, you've got less users still using because you've treated more of them, and both of these things equate to fewer drug-related crimes not involving sale or possession (i.e. theft, robbery, et cetera). These crimes will be further reduced by the fact that a drug habit becomes less expensive once it becomes regulated and can be sold by any licensed dealer...just like alcohol licensing provided more competition and lower prices.
Then, you have fewer children using drugs. Children typically have far less money than adults do, which means the market for selling DAMNED NEAR ANYTHING is going to be more lucrative if you are dealing your dope in a regulated market and abiding by the rules. If these rules say you'll lose your license and go to jail for selling a rock of crack to a 17 year old kid, what's the incentive to do so when you have an adult customer willing to buy it legally?
When you have a free market, there is money to be made, just like there is with tobacco and alcohol. I am unaware of any deaths over "turf wars" involving alcohol sales, since the end of prohibition in America.
As usual, the proper answer is less regulation, not more. The same applies to firearm sales.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Andrew Joseph "Joe" Stack III..."martyr" or "murderer"?
By now, I'm sure you've likely heard about the nutjob that crashed his single-engine prop plane into the tax office in Austin, TX. "Keep Austin Weird", right? Anyway...am I going to call him a "murderer", because he killed an IRS worker? Nope, and here's why...
In the 1940s, our own government set out to write what would become the first internationally-binding criminal statutes. This set of Ex Post Facto laws, known as the "London Charter", are what was used to prosecute not only the Nazi leadership but also lower-level Nazi party members. The reasoning was, essentially, that the Nazi party's various agencies that were responsible for these "crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity", were actually "criminal organizations" in and of themselves...and the mere membership in these organizations was a criminal act. As such, every member of the organization was culpable for any act carried out by the organization if that act was committed by official policy of the organization. This is how men who simply guarded the gates of concentration camps were hanged for the atrocities committed within the camps, even though the gate guards were "just following orders" and had no actual hand in gassing anyone.
Fast-forward to 1970. Section 18, United States Code, was amended to include the Racketeering-Influenced Criminal Organizations (aka "RICO") statutes provided for by Section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act. Much the same as the London Charter had codified what constitutes a "criminal organization", the RICO law allows for prosecution in the presence of certain predicate offenses. What might have been a max penalty of 10 or 20 years can now be prosecuted with the possibility of a life sentence if the offender is found to have been a member of this "criminal organization".
Does the Internal Revenue Service meet the definition of a "criminal organization", according to the RICO law? Well, for starters, it is an "organization" (obviously, right?). Second, it is involved in systematic robbery, kidnapping, and even murder as an official policy of that organization!
Okay, so that last statement is open for debate, but let's look at it this way...suppose you get up and go to work Monday through Friday, at a specific wage. You get your paycheck every Friday afternoon, and go cash it. Ten minutes later, some crackhead hops out from behind a minivan and demands 1/3 of your paycheck as you're trying to get into your car to leave, all the while threatening to kidnap you if you do not comply. In the state of Texas (and many others), you're allowed to tell this crackhead to get lost...and if he attempts to make good on his threat to kidnap you, you're allowed to put one in his forehead.
However, since it is a government agency performing the robbery, it isn't considered "robbery" at all. That doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the wages YOU worked for were taken from you, under the threat of being kidnapped (the government likes to call it "confinement in federal prison"...oh, the semantics!), and these people are likely to murder you in the event that you should assert your right to your own property and not allow them to take it under the threat of force.
So yes, I consider the IRS to be a "criminal organization", as it robs American citizens every day by demanding tribute. Make no mistake, the "income tax" DOES NOT have anything to do with maintaining our infrastructure. Plenty of other taxes handle that stuff. It doesn't go into road-building, social security, et cetera. It goes to pay for entitlement programs and government salaries.
I don't know about you, but I personally disagree with a "War on Drugs", the notion that a congressman should have a taxpayer-funded aide for his taxpayer-funded aide, the welfare state, and about 95% of everything else our federal government pisses away our hard-earned wages on. On a daily basis, new programs are added when our government finds new and inventive ways to waste our money.
On top of this, the income tax has become even more of a violation of the "equal protection" amendment, as it does not apply to everyone individually. Obviously, we have a progressive-scale income tax rate in this country, in the sense that we use a "bracket system" that taxes a person at a higher rate when that person has a higher personal income. In addition to this, we also tax different people in the same tax brackets differently, according to the taxpayer's personal lifestyle.
The amount of interest paid on a student loan by the taxpayer, the number of children living in the taxpayer's household, the decision made by the taxpayer to go into debt by purchasing a new home or automobile, et cetera has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the taxpayer's income...and yet, the amount of income tax he is required to pay is different from another taxpayer with a different lifestyle.
For instance, I paid several thousand dollars more in income taxes last year than a coworker, even though that coworker had a far greater personal income than I did in that same time period. Why? Because that coworker has several children, and had several other deductions he was able to claim. I personally chose to not have children, and as a result, my government feels that I am responsible for paying for the "fair share" of the children of others.
I am not sure what Mr. Stack's issues with the IRS were the result of, for three reasons. Mr. Stack is dead, and did not detail these issues in his several-page-long suicide note. Mr. Stack's wife has not yet spoken to the press about these issues. The IRS refuses to disclose such information to the press.
However, I will say this...Mr. Stack was, in my mind, obviously not a "crazy sociopath". 31 years of life experience has told me that you don't have a wife, two children, a nice home, college degrees, and a private airplane when you're batshit crazy to the point where you're unable to function in normal society. Mr. Stack, in addition to working in private industry, also apparently had many professional relationships with various government entities he did engineering work for.
Last night, a friend asked me what I thought about this, and I said that I didn't condone it...but that I understood it. Then he asked me, if things were so horribly bad with the IRS, why couldn't Mr. Stack have simply left the country and set up shop somewhere that didn't have the ridiculous taxation we face here. My response was that, in all reality, he should never have had to. Mr. Stack was an American citizen. Texas was his home. He probably felt that a life without the home he knew was not a life worth living...which is, likely, why he decided to take his life.
Again, I certainly do not condone the actions of Andrew Joseph Stack III...but I definitely understand them. Mr. Ken Hunter, the son of the man who was killed, states "My dad, in that building, he didn't write the tax laws. If he would have talked to my dad, my dad would have helped him.” Doubtful, Mr. Hunter. Doubtful. Your father may not have written tax laws, but he damned sure helped with their enforcement...which, by extension, makes your father an accessory to robbery, kidnapping, and murder.
Lest we forget, the IRS office Mr. Stack crashed into was not simply a place to drop off your 1040EZ forms. It housed the regional IRS Criminal Investigations Unit, which is the enforcement arm of the IRS. If the Internal Revenue Service is to be viewed as a "criminal enterprise", the office Mr. Stack flew his plane into could be said to house the IRS's "leg breakers". The Criminal Investigations Unit is the unit making sure that John Q. Taxpayer is forking over Big Brother's cut every time a paycheck gets cashed, "or else".
I'm not sure how high up Mr. Hunter was in this office, but he was in his late 60s and had been employed by the IRS for about 30 years...which leads me to believe that he wasn't exactly a secretary. If this is the case, he was undoubtedly involved in the prosecution of those who refused to be robbed by the government.
As such, Vernon Hunter was a robber. In Texas, you're allowed to kill people who attempt to rob you...provided they don't wear a government ID badge. Vernon Hunter's family will get no sympathy from me. Personally, I think this tax-collecting scumbag got his due.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should start chasing tax collectors with torches and pitchforks, nor should we just shoot them or crash airplanes into their offices. What I am saying is that every person who works for the IRS is working there voluntarily, and should fully expect animosity from those they steal from. Personally, I think I would rather spit on a tax collector, as opposed to shaking his hand...but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill him. If someone does shoot a tax collector, I won't shed any tears over it.
In order to maintain an honest living, a man has to work. In order to lawfully work in the United States of America, a man is forced to give a specific amount of his wages to the government, against his will. If you are willing to collaborate with robbers, thieves, kidnappers, and murderers (by seeking employment with the Internal Revenue Service), you are simply asking for whatever harm comes your way as a result of this activity.
No, I don't think this makes Andrew Joseph Stack III a "martyr", but I don't quite think it makes him a "murderer", either. He was just a man that had enough, and decided it was worth it to him, to end his life if Big Brother wasn't going to allow him to live free.
In the 1940s, our own government set out to write what would become the first internationally-binding criminal statutes. This set of Ex Post Facto laws, known as the "London Charter", are what was used to prosecute not only the Nazi leadership but also lower-level Nazi party members. The reasoning was, essentially, that the Nazi party's various agencies that were responsible for these "crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity", were actually "criminal organizations" in and of themselves...and the mere membership in these organizations was a criminal act. As such, every member of the organization was culpable for any act carried out by the organization if that act was committed by official policy of the organization. This is how men who simply guarded the gates of concentration camps were hanged for the atrocities committed within the camps, even though the gate guards were "just following orders" and had no actual hand in gassing anyone.
Fast-forward to 1970. Section 18, United States Code, was amended to include the Racketeering-Influenced Criminal Organizations (aka "RICO") statutes provided for by Section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act. Much the same as the London Charter had codified what constitutes a "criminal organization", the RICO law allows for prosecution in the presence of certain predicate offenses. What might have been a max penalty of 10 or 20 years can now be prosecuted with the possibility of a life sentence if the offender is found to have been a member of this "criminal organization".
Does the Internal Revenue Service meet the definition of a "criminal organization", according to the RICO law? Well, for starters, it is an "organization" (obviously, right?). Second, it is involved in systematic robbery, kidnapping, and even murder as an official policy of that organization!
Okay, so that last statement is open for debate, but let's look at it this way...suppose you get up and go to work Monday through Friday, at a specific wage. You get your paycheck every Friday afternoon, and go cash it. Ten minutes later, some crackhead hops out from behind a minivan and demands 1/3 of your paycheck as you're trying to get into your car to leave, all the while threatening to kidnap you if you do not comply. In the state of Texas (and many others), you're allowed to tell this crackhead to get lost...and if he attempts to make good on his threat to kidnap you, you're allowed to put one in his forehead.
However, since it is a government agency performing the robbery, it isn't considered "robbery" at all. That doesn't change the fact that a large portion of the wages YOU worked for were taken from you, under the threat of being kidnapped (the government likes to call it "confinement in federal prison"...oh, the semantics!), and these people are likely to murder you in the event that you should assert your right to your own property and not allow them to take it under the threat of force.
So yes, I consider the IRS to be a "criminal organization", as it robs American citizens every day by demanding tribute. Make no mistake, the "income tax" DOES NOT have anything to do with maintaining our infrastructure. Plenty of other taxes handle that stuff. It doesn't go into road-building, social security, et cetera. It goes to pay for entitlement programs and government salaries.
I don't know about you, but I personally disagree with a "War on Drugs", the notion that a congressman should have a taxpayer-funded aide for his taxpayer-funded aide, the welfare state, and about 95% of everything else our federal government pisses away our hard-earned wages on. On a daily basis, new programs are added when our government finds new and inventive ways to waste our money.
On top of this, the income tax has become even more of a violation of the "equal protection" amendment, as it does not apply to everyone individually. Obviously, we have a progressive-scale income tax rate in this country, in the sense that we use a "bracket system" that taxes a person at a higher rate when that person has a higher personal income. In addition to this, we also tax different people in the same tax brackets differently, according to the taxpayer's personal lifestyle.
The amount of interest paid on a student loan by the taxpayer, the number of children living in the taxpayer's household, the decision made by the taxpayer to go into debt by purchasing a new home or automobile, et cetera has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the taxpayer's income...and yet, the amount of income tax he is required to pay is different from another taxpayer with a different lifestyle.
For instance, I paid several thousand dollars more in income taxes last year than a coworker, even though that coworker had a far greater personal income than I did in that same time period. Why? Because that coworker has several children, and had several other deductions he was able to claim. I personally chose to not have children, and as a result, my government feels that I am responsible for paying for the "fair share" of the children of others.
I am not sure what Mr. Stack's issues with the IRS were the result of, for three reasons. Mr. Stack is dead, and did not detail these issues in his several-page-long suicide note. Mr. Stack's wife has not yet spoken to the press about these issues. The IRS refuses to disclose such information to the press.
However, I will say this...Mr. Stack was, in my mind, obviously not a "crazy sociopath". 31 years of life experience has told me that you don't have a wife, two children, a nice home, college degrees, and a private airplane when you're batshit crazy to the point where you're unable to function in normal society. Mr. Stack, in addition to working in private industry, also apparently had many professional relationships with various government entities he did engineering work for.
Last night, a friend asked me what I thought about this, and I said that I didn't condone it...but that I understood it. Then he asked me, if things were so horribly bad with the IRS, why couldn't Mr. Stack have simply left the country and set up shop somewhere that didn't have the ridiculous taxation we face here. My response was that, in all reality, he should never have had to. Mr. Stack was an American citizen. Texas was his home. He probably felt that a life without the home he knew was not a life worth living...which is, likely, why he decided to take his life.
Again, I certainly do not condone the actions of Andrew Joseph Stack III...but I definitely understand them. Mr. Ken Hunter, the son of the man who was killed, states "My dad, in that building, he didn't write the tax laws. If he would have talked to my dad, my dad would have helped him.” Doubtful, Mr. Hunter. Doubtful. Your father may not have written tax laws, but he damned sure helped with their enforcement...which, by extension, makes your father an accessory to robbery, kidnapping, and murder.
Lest we forget, the IRS office Mr. Stack crashed into was not simply a place to drop off your 1040EZ forms. It housed the regional IRS Criminal Investigations Unit, which is the enforcement arm of the IRS. If the Internal Revenue Service is to be viewed as a "criminal enterprise", the office Mr. Stack flew his plane into could be said to house the IRS's "leg breakers". The Criminal Investigations Unit is the unit making sure that John Q. Taxpayer is forking over Big Brother's cut every time a paycheck gets cashed, "or else".
I'm not sure how high up Mr. Hunter was in this office, but he was in his late 60s and had been employed by the IRS for about 30 years...which leads me to believe that he wasn't exactly a secretary. If this is the case, he was undoubtedly involved in the prosecution of those who refused to be robbed by the government.
As such, Vernon Hunter was a robber. In Texas, you're allowed to kill people who attempt to rob you...provided they don't wear a government ID badge. Vernon Hunter's family will get no sympathy from me. Personally, I think this tax-collecting scumbag got his due.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should start chasing tax collectors with torches and pitchforks, nor should we just shoot them or crash airplanes into their offices. What I am saying is that every person who works for the IRS is working there voluntarily, and should fully expect animosity from those they steal from. Personally, I think I would rather spit on a tax collector, as opposed to shaking his hand...but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill him. If someone does shoot a tax collector, I won't shed any tears over it.
In order to maintain an honest living, a man has to work. In order to lawfully work in the United States of America, a man is forced to give a specific amount of his wages to the government, against his will. If you are willing to collaborate with robbers, thieves, kidnappers, and murderers (by seeking employment with the Internal Revenue Service), you are simply asking for whatever harm comes your way as a result of this activity.
No, I don't think this makes Andrew Joseph Stack III a "martyr", but I don't quite think it makes him a "murderer", either. He was just a man that had enough, and decided it was worth it to him, to end his life if Big Brother wasn't going to allow him to live free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
