In keeping with my attitude of “I don’t invite Ebola into my house, so why treat the USSA gov any differently?”, I tend to explore its doings only to the depth of the headlines on the Google News page. However, with the current “shutdown” continuing, discussion of it and the reasons behind it have seeped into a lot of usually less-political commentary I regularly peruse. As a result, I’ve encountered a particular line of reasoning—truly, only for very large values of same—for which I cannot contain my ire any longer.
Police State USSA
I'm not done reading this yet, but it is powerful stuff and well worth a look. Download free or read on line.
Rats! Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin
By Claire Wolfe
with the Commentariat of the Living Freedom blog
Not because I suddenly have something new and insightful to add, but just because this so-called news headline pushed me to it.
I’m not sure if whatever cheer you seven gain from my recent slump being so short–lived will offset my returning to a theme that some may find tiresome. Be that as it may; it’s a topic that is only going to be increasingly important unless (or until) the collapse comes.
Most of the regulars here already know that the Senate’s version of the food fascism bill, alternatively known as S.B. 510, was passed yesterday. According to the sources I follow on this issue, a few issues stand in the way of it becoming law—more than the usual reconciliation with the House version, which was passed some time ago. Some see hope in that; but I don’t ... since the general idea has gotten congressional approval, I expect some sort of food tyranny will become the law within the next year or two. I don’t like it one bit, but am inured to it. Anyway, that isn’t what I want to focus on at the moment.
My TSA Horror Story. You knew it was just a matter of time.
Rasmussen Reports recently announced the results of an interesting little poll of American voters, regarding the idea of “the consent of the governed”. Shall we poke around in the data a bit?
What with all the military madness this country maintains, I’m rather surprised it took the winter Olympics to bring one of my favorite Rush songs out of the recesses of my memory:
David Gumpert has become something of a hero to me—not because his blog focuses on the healthful properties of raw milk, but rather because he actively seeks to understand, and to present, all the players’ perspectives in the complicated regulatory dance that has developed around it. Recently, he’s focused on challenges in Wisconsin—an area that doesn’t make the news frequently, but which is suffering economically along with much of this country.
I expect that many freedom-loving individuals would answer that question in the negative; but some would aver otherwise, pointing to the power of a jury as a (perhaps “the”) remaining check on the state’s dominance. I’ve pondered that issue for some time—wanting to be convinced by the arguments, truth be told, but never making it that far. The primary obstacle is the vanishingly small role juries directly play in most people’s lives. How many adults are tapped for jury duty? Out of those who go, how many actually serve? How many times does an average person sit on a jury? I have no numbers to pin to those questions, but it should be clear that I am skeptical that an activity that at best probably commands only a few hours of a person’s life is going to be seen as enormously important to him.
Another assertion that would likely be offered is that juries can make or break laws—and that does affect many people, as we all live under the burden of the laws of our jurisdiction. But again, I have problems ... Jury nullification depends upon at least one informed, courageous person; and the voir dire process actively seeks to eliminate such individuals from juries. That person must also keep his intentions secret until deliberations, else a mistrial could be called. Even that doesn’t guarantee that a mistrial won’t happen.
But—and here’s the heart of the matter—all the jury power in the world won’t make a bit of difference if the judge plays fast and loose with his power in the courtroom. A judge has a variety of means by which he can skew a trial, including what he allows as evidence, lines of questioning the lawyers are allowed to pursue, and the instructions he gives to the jury before they retire for deliberation.
Some judges have apparently become so brazen that they will not allow the jury access to the actual law(s) under consideration in a case. Pete Hendrickson says that’s what happened to him in his recently-concluded trial with the IRS.
Finally getting to the long promised story of my trip to California. You were warned. [grin]
It all started months ago when my sister sent me tickets for the airfare. She'd always wanted to do that, but I'd never before agreed to fly... but I had a 2 1/2 year old grandson I'd never seen, and wanted badly to reconnect with my two sons, so I bit the proverbial bullet and accepted.
Just thought I'd jump in and say I'm traveling for a few days and can't always get on line. I'll be writing about my experiences soon, just be warned. [grin]
My friend Peter and I have discussed the speculation surrounding what may lie ahead for this country, and those who live here, a fair bit. Being a much better multi–tasker than I, he has offered a stimulating perspective in a new essay, American Winter. It’s fairly long, full of cogent observations and asides, and I barely finished skimming it before starting to tell you nine about it—so I don’t have any deep thoughts of my own to offer at present.
Given how frequently I’ve been pointing to him of late, it probably comes as no surprise that I’m pointing to another essay by Peter Saint-Andre this morning.
A Cryptohippie friend brought to my attention their recent report on the electronic police state. Quite intriguing, it is.