Category Archives: Crime

UPDATE IV: Not Cueing The Mariachi Band For Perry (Female Self-Ownership)

Abortion, Conservatism, Crime, Elections, Individual Rights, Political Philosophy, Politics, Private Property, Republicans, States' Rights, Welfare

I “Cued The Mariachi Band” when Rick Perry, the (dashing) governor of Texas, defied Mexico City, The Hague, and their enablers in Washington, and ended José Medellin’s miserable life. Bush, on the other hand, was willing to wrestle a crocodile for Medellin, the man who raped Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña in every which way possible and then proceeded to strangle, slash, and stomp the young Texan girls to death.

And it is a happy occasion when any American politician whoops it up for the Tenth Amendment, and speaks about property rights, as Gov. Perry did at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, La. Have you noticed that almost none does? It’s usually, “The right of Boeing to open a business,” rather than the title an owner has in his property, as an extension of the individual’s self-ownership (and they always preclude a woman’s right of self ownership, for some reason). (“The right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. In order to survive, man must— and it is in his nature to — transform the resources around him by mixing his labor with them and making them his own. Man’s labor and property are extensions of himself.”

Fair enough: Seventy percent of all jobs created in the US last year were in Texas. Alas, the governor’s record is at best spotty. And at a time when no one but a minority cares to sweat the “social issues,” these, unfortunately, formed a good part of his address in New Orleans.

UPDATE I: I’d like to clarify (but not discuss abortion, because the abortion issue is one hill upon which I refuse to die): When, last night, I praised Gov. Perry for “whooping it up for property rights,” I added in parenthesis that “this precludes a woman’s self-ownership.” What I meant is this: I always wonder why it is that, when speaking of the right of ownership (property), which is an extension of each individual’s dominion over his body and the things he homesteads—conservatives sidetrack the problem of a woman’s dominion over her body. I don’t wish to discuss abortion. However, conservatives never flesh out this inconsistency. Perhaps they believe human beings, women in particular, don’t have a property right in their own bodies. How does ownership arise, in the conservative mind? Does property not include one’s own body?

UPDATE II (June 20): Cross-posted @ facebook: Kevin (Williamson), I have worked out a formulation about abortion that appeases (as opposed to pleases) me as a paleolibertarian and an absolute propertarian. But is it safe to share it? I worry, because I die on enough hills. It seems prudent not to come out on this issue. Libertarians can agree that no state funding, local or federal, should be allocated to such a procedure. Liberals should be exposed, but never are (certainly not by conservatives), for conflating this position (no public funding) with a denial of what they term “abortion rights.” However, it’s highly problematic to say that by virtue of her fertility, a woman loses a property title in her body. She doesn’t.

UPDATE III (June 20): Kevin, Myron, Don, Joseph, Guy, etc: The tone on this Facebook thread/Wall is pleasingly rational and civil. It’s not surprising among these respondents/writers/thinkers, here. I wonder how many friends I’d lose if I shared my solution, which is still unsatisfactory. Look, abortion is a horrid procedure; especially now that what was promoted as a “blob,” can be viewed by available technology. At 6 weeks in utero, my daughter’s heartbeat was loud—it melted me. Walter Block, a dear friend, has developed “the evictionism theory of abortion.” I don’t subscribe to it, needless to say. But any traditionalist/libertarian solution to the abortion vexation has to be rational, and consider a person’s dominion over his body.

UPDATE IV: From the Facebook thread/Wall: It’s, however, incontrovertible to say that “late-term” termination is a euphemism for cold-blooded murder. Not to evoke the Argument from Nazi-ism (one of the laziest and lowest forms of argument); but it’s the stuff of Josef Mengele, or his female counterpart (his right-hand “service provider,” the proverbial Brunhilda).

Treason Tarted-Up

Crime, Ethics, Free Speech, GUNS, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Morality, Paleolibertarianism

“Fatally flawed.” “A colossal failure of leadership.” “Deadly miscalculation.” “Flawed assumptions.” These are some of the euphemisms used by America’s governing traitors to finesse their crimes against the people they swore to protect. A gang going by the acronym ATF—the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—watches over and gives cover to Mexican gangsters and their local gun-runners, who later use this ATF immunity to gun down innocent Americans.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by weapons purchased under the umbrella of an ATF gun-running operation called “Operation Fast and Furious.” When good guys like Agents John Dodson and Lee Casa questioned the practice, they were ordered to “stand down,” or confine their activities to “surveillance.”

I oppose regulation of firearms; I advocate throwing the detritus of humanity—the gangs and the cartels of Latin America—out of this country.

A decadent society is one where the law prohibits local militia and farmers from firing on trespassers, but supervises the arming of the gangs that would kill these very farmers and other innocents. That’s a decadent society right there. This is who we are.

Another sign of a corrupt culture: Law that encourages enforcers to touch and fondle the sexual organs of its citizens, but forbids the same force to ask, inquire—verbally, using words that waft into the ether—if a suspicious-looking ruffian, loitering around a kiddie’s park, is in the country legally.

A society has atrophied when it cannot sharply distinguish non-noxious speech (asking a ruffian for ID) from a noxious assault (TSA terrorism).

UPDATE IV: The Hue of Hatred (Glenn Looks Away)

Africa, Crime, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race, Racism, South-Africa

This is the hue of hatred in America, and in South Africa, as I document in my book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (release date: May 10). I back this claim with lots of numbers. Watch this clip, if you can tolerate the focused, feral drive to extinguish a manifestly helpless, fragile young woman (hat tip to my young, Facebook friend Laura Fer):

Here is the transcript appended to the LiveLeak.com footage:

Here is another fine example of the trend of violence in fast food restaurants. Two females beating the hell out of a patron, while several employees stand by and watch. One male manages to provide the facade of assistance to the victim in this brutal attack.
The two females exit, then re-enter the store to continue the beating, until a an older woman attempts to stop them from dragging the victim outside into the parking lot. Note: the male employees have disappeared from camera view, even though they are plenty well capable of stopping the attack.
At the end, the white victim is beaten until she has a seizure, at which point the camera operator warns the female attackers to flee, because the police are on the way. Note: he makes sure to repeatedly tell the criminal attackers to flee, instead of keeping them there for the police to apprehend.

I expect the main objection to my characterization here to come from the prototypical liberal male. That’s been my experience, over the years. The “one-case-anomaly” “argument” will, invariably, be voiced by an ignoramus—a male with left-liberal instincts. There is almost nothing more immoral and unnatural than this specimen, for he misplaces compassion and forsakes the true–and most vulnerable—victims of aggression. In short, he is not a man.

When you condemn Al Sharpton or other such race baiters, remember this: the dangerous delusions about racism held in contemporary America are promulgated by WASPs. And, as night follows day, the progressive policies enacted by such people have led to a regressive society.

Dangerous racial hatred in contemporary America, and certainly in the New South Africa, is, for the most, unidirectional: whites do not harbor hared for blacks. And if they do, they seldom act on it like this.

UPDATE I: That the victim of this crime is allegedly a transgendered woman will allow the authorities, and the assorted identity activists, to skirt the real issue—a crime of racial hatred—and make it a crime motivated by homophobia.

The legal category of hate crimes is ludicrous; it should not exist. However, one should not confuse or conflate an objection to prosecutions granting legal privilege based in race, sexual orientation, or religion, with valid observations made about racism in the West. Crime statistics show quite clearly who hates whom.

UPDATE II (April 24): Cross-posted on Facebook: Many people pointed to the need to be armed in this situation. I agree, on principle. But you do know what would have happened to this poor waif of a girl had she been armed. The goons of government would have tackled her, tazed her, maybe hurt her just as badly, only …. LEGALLY.

UPDATE III: American TV news failed to report this crime; the newspapers finessed the onlookers’ indifference. The Mail Online tells it as it is, and does not fail to identify the culprits as “the black girls”:

The victim of a sustained attack in a Baltimore County McDonald’s has spoken for the first time about the beating she received, and how nobody came to her aid. Chrissy Lee Polis, a 22-year-old transgender woman, said she was afraid to go outside after the attack, and hinted that it might have been racially motivated – as both of her attackers were black.
She said: ‘They just hurt me really bad, and I’m afraid to go outside now because of stuff like this.’
She said the violence kicked off after she had used the ladies restrooms in the McDonald’s outlet, but denied reports that this was the reason why the violence erupted.
She said of her attackers: ‘They just seemed like they wanted to pick a fight that night.’
She said she was approached by one of the girls, who accused her of ‘looking at my man’.
When Miss Polis insisted that she was not even aware of the girl’s partner, the physical abuse began with the girl spitting in her face.
She said: ‘She started ripping my hair, throwing me on the floor, kicking me in my face

UPDATE IV (April 25): Glenn Beck took credit for speaking out, of course, when he is late to this story; it’s been on the blogosphere for days. He also blamed the general state of Godlessness for the crime and for onlookers’ indifference and approval. Above all, Glenn looked away with the rest when he had the opportunity to speak openly about real racial hatred (physical aggression), as opposed to impolite and impolitic speech (noose hanging, writing, etc).

His Holiness Eric Holder

Constitution, Crime, Federalism, Homeland Security, Law, Terrorism

Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., was unequivocal today in asserting Executive branch supremacy and his own omniscience in the matter of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four, 9/11 co-conspirators. (Transcript.) Recall, Holder’s preference was for the federal courts to try the case. “[O]ur justice system,” he stated today, “would have performed with the same distinction that has been its hallmark for over two hundred years.” (Here’s one example of that justice.) Alas, Holder’s all-knowing self—he informed FoxNews’ reporter, and I paraphrase, “Yes, I do know best”—was frustrated:

Unfortunately, since I made that decision, Members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States, regardless of the venue. As the President has said, those unwise and unwarranted restrictions undermine our counterterrorism efforts and could harm our national security. Decisions about who, where and how to prosecute have always been – and must remain – the responsibility of the executive branch. Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments. Yet they have taken one of the nation’s most tested counterterrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious ramifications. We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions.