Category Archives: Law

UPDATED: FBI: The Face of Treason

Government, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The State

FBI Director James Comey believes that “unless [his] passport is revoked,” an American citizen who holds an American passport and who has fought for ISIS—maybe even decapitated a dhimmi or two—“is entitled to come back” to the US.

Comey was discussing American exported fighters for ISIS on “60 Minutes.” This traitor to the people who pay for his keep promised to “track them very carefully.”

That makes me feel much better. How about you?

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s retort, on “The Kelly File,” was to praise this FBI director’s mettle, in general, while disputing the legal grounds for Comey’s odd position:

“He forgot there’s a statute called providing material assistance to a terrorist organization,” Napolitano said of Comey. “So if he knows that Americans have been fighting with ISIS and he also knows that the secretary of state has declared ISIS a terrorist organization, that is more than enough evidence for him to arrest them upon their re-entry to the U.S. It is crazy to let them back in and wait and see what they do.”

“Is this treason,” Kelly wanted to know. She was referring, of course, to the returning ISIS terrorists, and their position vis-a-vis the US.

What about the clear-cut case of Comey?

UPDATE: “Lite libertarians” or “thin libertarians” live in la-la land and don’t much care about the rights to property and life of innocent friends, family and neighbors. Let me make this simple: Individuals who want to behead Americans: yes, the nightwatchman state has a case of limiting their access to heads. To limit their access to American heads is not aggression. To say, “No, you creep, you can’t come in,” is not aggression. OK, leave “creep” off if it offends left-libertarians.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Going: Attorney General Of Black America

Ethics, Justice, Law, Race, Racism

He’s going, and not a moment too soon. Attorney General Eric Holder is on the way out of the Injustice Department. Granted, Holder’s departure will make little difference. A replacement with the same twisted, tribal proclivities will almost certainly be ensconced.

Here are some of the highlights of Holder’s career of corruption and cupidity:

* Called America “a nation of cowards,” for not discussing race constantly and in an even more obsequious tone than already mandated. By his Holiness’ estimation, Americans are not having the kind of “conversation” about race he had ordered them to have. What Holder wanted was not a give-and-take, but a take, take, take ? a one-way talking-to, where brothers like him read the errant American people their rights.

* “Assertions of broad executive authority to conduct military strikes on terror targets, to use lethal drones against U.S. citizens overseas suspected of terrorism and to gather Americans’ communications records.” In all, supported and justified an “extraordinary assertion of executive power.”

* Extracted record-setting penalties from big banks.

* Went on a crusade about so-called “racial disparities in criminal sentencing and voting.”

* “… wrote a legal justification for killing American citizens overseas if it is determined they pose a threat to U.S. lives and can’t be apprehended through traditional means.” (WSJ)

* Oversaw the National Security Agency’s ever-expanding surveillance programs.

* Ran guns to Mexican drug cartels. Enabled the murders of many Mexicans and at least one American. A gang going by the acronym ATF—the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—watched over and gave cover to Mexican gangsters and their local gun-runners, who later used this ATF immunity to gun down innocent Americans and Mexicans.

* Issued subpoenas for journalists’ phone records.

* Used his office to push for certain criminal justice policies. Has boasted about using “the bully pulpit that I have as attorney general to make people and public officials aware of the nature of this problem and also the consequences that flow from not fixing, not dealing with this problem.”

Most notably, “Holder [was] what we call a ‘sin eater’ inside the Beltway — high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions,” wrote Professor Jonathan Turley.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

‘Scaredy Cops’

Fascism, Law, Terrorism, The State

“[These are the very men who gear up in military assault gear to gang-assault grandmothers and infants in no-knock raids. And they’re whining that a copkiller hunting them doesn’t give THEM fair warning? Please.” So writes the acerbic Vox day (a former WND colleague and a fellow paleolibertarian) about Eric Frein, who “who is charged with ambushing two Pennsylvania state troopers last Friday night, shooting them with a rifle. One was killed. The other remains in critical condition.”

The police should be grateful that the guy is playing fair enough to only target police officers and not police families. And considering that there are “hundreds of officers” hunting him, about the last thing you can call Eric Frein is a coward. Cowards are those who only have the courage to act in packs. Frein is probably a lunatic and may even be a psychopath, but he doesn’t strike me as a coward.
Never forget: you can’t have a police state without police.

MORE Vox.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Merciful Judge Masipa

Justice, Law, South-Africa

On Fox News, Megyn Kelly was screeching that Oscar Pistorius got away with murder. Kelly’s reasoning was of a piece with neoconservative chauvinism: Judge Thokozile Masipa, the presiding justice in the Pistorius case, did not render the verdict an American judge would have handed down, hence to Kelly, the verdict had to be wrong.

I can’t say the decision Judge Masipa read out was an elegant decision. It is, nevertheless, a merciful one:

Pistorius was found guilty, Friday, of culpable homicide, the South African term for unintentionally, but unlawfully, killing a person. It’s akin to negligent killing.
A day before the verdict, Judge Thokozile Masipa cleared him of murder in the killing of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.
His sentencing starts on October 13, the judge said after granting him bail.
There is no minimum sentence for culpable homicide in South African law, so it will be up to the judge to decide. … … But in grabbing his gun and heading toward the supposed threat, Pistorius “acted too hastily and used excessive force,” Masipa ruled Thursday.
“His conduct was negligent” and not what a reasonable man would do in the circumstances — not even a disabled one, she said.
Defense arguments that his upbringing “in a crime-riddled environment and in a home where the mother was paranoid and always carried a firearm” might explain his conduct that night, but “it does not excuse the conduct,” Masipa said.(CNN)

I believe Oscar Pistorius is stupid, irresponsible; an example of a bad gun-owner. But I do not believe he purposefully “murdered Reeva Steenkamp after a domestic row,” as the state endeavored to show, but, it would appear, failed to show.

“Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is dedicated to—and I quote—“my African sisters, Nomasomi Khala and Annie Dlahmini, whose lives touched mine.” In her deliberative, wise manner, Justice Mazipa reminded me of those two ladies whom I miss dearly. She seemed impervious to the racial, liberal rubbish that swirled around the case.

Questions about the Masipa verdict are raised in “Pistorius judgment: Was there no intention to kill someone behind the toilet door?”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Rand Paul Opportunistic—And Wrong—On Race

Barack Obama, Drug War, Fascism, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Race, Racism, Ron Paul

“Rand Paul Opportunistic—And Wrong—On Race” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Police brutality? Yes! Militarization of the police force? You bet! “A Government of Wolves”? Yes again! “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”? No doubt! But racism? Nonsense on stilts! So why have some libertarians applied this rhetoric to the murder-by-cop of black teenager Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri? The same people who would argue against color-coded hate-crime legislation—and rightly so, for a crime is a crime, no matter the skin pigment of perp or prey—would have you believe that it is possible to differentiate a racist from a non-racist shooting or beating.

Predictably, BBC News had taken a more analytical look at the “unrest in Ferguson,” pointing out that liberal outrage had centered on what the left sees as racial injustice. Libertarian anger, conversely, connected “the perceived overreaction by militarized local law enforcement to a critique of the heavy-handed power of government.”

As its libertarian stand-bearers, the BBC chose from the ranks of establishment, libertarian-leaning conservatives. Still, the ideological bifurcation applied was sound. With some exceptions, libertarians have consistently warned about a police state rising; the left has played at identity politics, appealing to its unappeasable base.

As refreshingly clever as its commentators are, BBC is inexact. The very embodiment of political opportunism, Sen. Rand Paul has managed to straddle liberal and libertarian narratives, vaporizing as follows:

“… Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. …”

The senator from Kentucky is considered “one of the leading figures in today’s libertarian movement.” Even so, on matters libertarian, Rand Paul is a political pragmatist; not the purist his father is. Alas, Rand has imbibed at home some unfortunate, crowd-pleasing habits—the leftist penchant for accusing law enforcement of racism. In 2012, in particular, during the debate between Republican presidential front-runners, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Ron Paul lurched to the left, implicating racism in the unequal outcomes meted by American justice:

“How many times have you seen the white rich person get the electric chair?” he asked. “If we really want to be concerned with racism … we ought to look at the drug laws.”

Laws prohibiting the individual from purchasing, selling, ingesting, inhaling and injecting drugs ought to be repudiated and repealed on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist. But statism is not necessarily racism. Drug laws ensnare more blacks, because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing in drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because cops are racists. …

Read the rest of the column. “Rand Paul Opportunistic—And Wrong—On Race” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Father Of Decorated Soldier Killed By Cop Speaks

Fascism, GUNS, Law, Terrorism, The State

Ilana,

Many, many thanks for this superb commentary! As always, you and Mark are on-target.

My son, Erik B. Scott, a decorated ex-Army officer, West Point grad, and Duke Univ. MBA, was shot to death by Las Vegas cops, because a scared moron mistook Erik’s BlackBerry for a firearm. Per SOP, LVMPD’s chief cover-up architect, Capt. Patrick Neville, “disappeared” security system video that would have proven my son was murdered; planted “evidence,” corrupted the crime scene, broke into my son’s condo and stole several guns to support the cops’ narrative, and ensured several officers lied repeatedly, even under oath, during a coroner’s inquest hearing. As was the case with more than 200 such officer-involved shootings over three decades, my son’s murder was ruled “justified.” Not a single cop had been found at fault in 34 years.

As a former aerospace journalist and ex-USAF officer, I was shocked and appalled, when confronted with such bald-faced cover-up tactics in a country that my sons, father and I had sworn to protect and defend against all enemies. I quickly learned that few Americans will believe cops routinely kill, cover and lie, so I wrote a novel, “The Permit,” based on my son’s murder-by-cop. This work of “faction” is selling well, and educating the masses about killer-cops, just as you are.

Last week, the turmoil in Ferguson, MO, prompted a flurry of interviews, where I discussed this question: “Should rogue/outlaw police officers be considered America’s most dangerous domestic terrorists?” Here’s the NewsmaxTV clip:

Again, many thanks for your superb blog postings and columns. You’re an invaluable voice in a campaign to “Rid the Ranks of Rogues” and clean up police departments across the nation. If we don’t succeed, I fear outraged armed citizens WILL take out the killer-cops. That will trigger chaos—and it could be imminent.

Regards,
Bill

William B. Scott
Author
www.williambscott.com
“The Permit”
Video – “The Permit”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint