Category Archives: Law

Updated: Goons Against Gays, Gun Owners & Other Good Folks

Criminal Injustice, Ethics, Feminism, Gender, Homosexuality, Law, Military, The Military, The State

I’ve been concentrating quite a bit lately on the way the State moves swiftly and speedily against good, patriotic Americans, who’ve transgressed some or another petty rule. But to dangerous or undesirable aliens—the very people upon which the state must clamp down and control — it almost always grants immunity and inordinate privileges.

Consider the latest SCOTUS decision that encourages and incentivizes identity theft. Or the many cases where a gun owner is nabbed for self-defense or for nothing much at all.

Deporting or bringing to book an illegal criminal takes forever, and often doesn’t take place at all. On the other hand, the military, a lumbering complex, moves against gays and lesbians who’ve come out at the speed of light.

Dan Choi, West Point graduate, Arabic linguist, and a Lieutenant in the United States Army, was fired for coming out in no time at all. No sooner did it become known that Choi was gay than he was dismissed.

The same goes for “Sandy Tsao, who was booted from the military after telling her superiors she was gay in January.”

That’s one fast and efficient bureaucracy.

Now, homo or hetero—you ought to keep you sexuality to yourself, and out of my face, be it in the army or in the office. I’ve lamented before that, sadly, “The closet has come to signify oppression, rather than discretion.”

Moreover, women ought to barred from the military completely, unless they are lesbian Amazons; a rare breed which can almost match men in physicality, and is unlikely to have the toxic effects straight women have on esprit de corps (and on rates of illegitimacy and welfarism).

Still, the way the state has hounded and proceeded against gays and gun-owners so quickly and callously goes to show again that in a corrupt, fascistic country, the law protects the outlaw, not the law-abiding.

Update (May 11): The Israelis use women in auxiliary roles; not as equals on the battle field or as candidates to consider for The-Right-Stuff sort of missions. I will say, that I’ve watched an Israeli woman (on American TV) instruct American men in face-to-face combat. She was as good as a man. But more importantly, Israeli women are different from American women; they’re tough, no-nonsense types, who do not whine much, speak quite well, and don’t report for duty with breast implants and painted finger-nails. The women I’ve seen who rise to prominence there inspire confidence; which is more than I can say for the flaccid empire’s females.
There are exception, of course. CNN featured a few tragic stories of upbeat, wiry little American girls, minus a few limbs, who graduated from military academies and were just gems. Still, these exceptional young women (tiny and nowhere near as resilient as a fit young man) do not belong near the battle fields, other than in supporting roles.

If you’re interested in the subject, STEPHANIE GUTMANN, a very good writer, whose book “The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy,” I recommend, wrote the best book on the topic. Fred Reed praised her books too.

SCOTUS Legalizes ID Theft (While Gun Owner Is Nabbed)

Crime, Criminal Injustice, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, The Courts, The State

The Supreme Court has “ruled in favor of an illegal alien convicted of using false social security numbers, reports BILL TUCKER for CNN’s Lou Dobbs.

“The court said an individual using a false identity cannot be charged unless prosecutors can prove that the individual knew in advance that the identity belonged to a real person. … Do you feel better knowing that it is now legal for an illegal alien to steal your identity if he or she doesn’t know it’s yours?”

“The courts ruled differently in the case of a Wisconsin gun owner, David Olofson remains in prison for something he didn’t know that his malfunctioning rifle would be classified as a machine gun by federal authorities.”

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: David Olofson will remain in the federal penitentiary where he’s been for 10 months. He must complete his 10 to 30 month sentence for illegally transferring a machine gun. Olofson lent his AR15 rifle to a neighbor to shoot on a target range, the semiautomatic gun fired a couple of multi-round bursts after firing hundreds of rounds of single shots.
Instead of simply seizing the gun or ordering its repair, Olofson was put on trial, convicted and given a jail sentence. The judge at his trial said he had shown he was ignoring the law and had considerable knowledge of machine guns. The seventh circuit court heard his appeal in January and now has affirmed his conviction. It’s a ruling that gun rights advocates call chilling.

DAVID KOPEL, INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE: The taking away if the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Firearms wants to enforce the gun laws against you with the utmost stringency the courts are not going to provide any protection.

TUCKER: Part of Olofson’s appeal rested on the argument that his gun malfunctioned, therefore it didn’t fit the definition of a machine gun, but the jury, following the judge’s instructions, convicted Olofson.

PROF. MICHAEL O’HEAR, MARQUETTE UNIV. LAW SCHOOL: There is a very high degree of deference to jury decisions.

TUCKER: The court did not accept Olofson’s argument that he did not know he had a machine gun.

“On the same day, the Supreme Court threw out an illegal immigrant’s conviction for identity theft saying the government had not proved that the man knew the documents he received were false.”

KRIS KOBACH, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: It is interesting that the two opinions come down on the same day. The Supreme Court said in the case of the immigration identity theft statute, knowingly means knowingly and you have to know you stole a specific person’s identity.

[SNIP]

As I’ve said, “I know I can always rely on America’s deracinated elites to elevate the interests of the enemy above those of the people. In other words, I trust the government’s untrustworthiness. When it comes to breaching the public’s interests, the government’s track record is better than good.”

Still, the American state takes treason to new heights.

Torturing The 'Torture' Issue II

Democrats, Iraq, Law, Military, Morality, Neoconservatism, The Military, War

In the first installment to the ongoing saga of torture under Bush, I asked:

Ever wonder why the Democrats and their media lapdogs never shut-up about the issue of torture, when Bush’s decision to wage an unjust, illegal war ought to be the focus of their ire? The matter of torture is, after all, subsumed within the broader category of an unjust war. Moreover, one can make the case for torture in desperate, dire situations. (I’m not making the case, I’m saying that one can attempt to justify incidents of torture: you were not thinking clearly, you were desperate to avert another disaster, you wanted to save hostages; you worried you’d be blamed if you didn’t extract crucial information.) But how on earth do you justify lugging an army across the ocean to occupy a third-world country that is no danger to you and has not threatened you? You don’t, you can’t.

Democrats are nearly as culpable as Republicans on the matter of the war on Iraq. So they stick with their limited, safe mandate of torture. MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann, and their constitutional scholar, are thus careful to skirt the need to prosecute Bush and his bandits for invading Iraq. Instead, they stick to waterboarding.

The current torture kerfuffle was elicited by Obama’s release of CIA interrogation protocols.

(A note to the neoconservatives who stalk this site, and believe their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis Iraq ought to be featured on my private property: The war against Iraq is not going to be adjudicated again on this site–not ever. That crime I chronicled at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce. The case is closed! The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their makers or consciences for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!)

Updated: Barack’s Bitches

Barack Obama, Business, Capitalism, Economy, Fascism, Law, The State

Michelle Malkin makes an important, if limited, point when she writes the following about the ponces in Congress. They indeed have some nerve pointing fingers at other parasitical incompetents:

“How nauseating to hear the growing chorus of lawmakers on Capitol Hill inveighing about the AIG bonuses and the rewarding of incompetence. This, after the Senate refused to give up automatic pay increases for themselves and Nancy Pelosi refused to give the measure a hearing. Congress sez: Incompetence bonuses for me, but not for AIG. Spare me.”

Of course, “Congress played major role in AIG mess,” as it has in our credit woes.

But the larger issue here is interventionism. You may be surprised to learn that I am completely indifferent to anything that our Kenyan kleptocrat inflicts on business leaders and their bonuses if they have been bailed out.

Take what you get; you’re Barack’s bitches now.

Economist Ludwig von Mises warned that the road to socializing the means of production is paved with interventionism. Middle of the road interventionism leads directly to socialism.

AIG has made common cause with the State. Now that the State owns a good chunk of the company, it gets to regulate and terrorize its corporate lackeys; take over operations completely, and sink the whole sorry ship with all on board.

And don’t let anyone on the Left try to tell you that this is the culmination of the unfettered free-market. Lies. This is the outcome of fascism, corporate cronyism. Let those who partake in this system suffocate in its deadly embrace.

Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, would have allowed unviable industries to fail. Under freedom, no one would survive at the expense of another.

Update (March 18): The corrective chaos that’ll come with state takeover is obvious: companies, CEOs especially, will see that it is better to go bankrupt, and look for other, honest employment, than become the state’s bitch. How can anyone suggest that the contracts of those who suck at the state’s teat ought to be sacrosanct? As far as I’m concerned, state employees ought to be denied the vote too. Contract law is a feature of the voluntary free market, not a prerogative of the plundering class.