Category Archives: Rights

Citizens Vs. Criminals (Lawful & Unlawful)

Britain, GUNS, Individual Rights, Islam, Jihad, Rights, The State

There is no doubt that were an American-born Jihadi stupid enough to perform an act of butchery in public, he would not have left the scene alive as Michael Adebolajo, the butcher from Woolwich, did. US police would have arrived on the scene quickly and that would be it.

As was observed in “Disarmed Brits Can Only Shoot Savage … With A Camera,” there is a lot to be said for “an armed citizenry and an unarmed police force.” Although permitted to bear arms, Americans are nevertheless severely limited in how vigorously they can defend their homes and lives without incurring the wrath of the law.

However, since the US police is not unarmed, as it is in the UK, our homegrown Jihadis are a little more circumspect about carving up a countryman in public, a la Adebolajo. They are still perfectly comfortable setting off remote-controlled explosions.

A day after “Disarmed Brits Can Only Shoot Savage … With A Camera” went up on WND, The Daily Caller asked, “Why did British bystanders watch a soldier get hacked to death?

The DC answered its rhetorical question with a list of regulations imposed in the UK which would prohibit any form of self-defense.

According to the United Kingdom government website, the online storehouse of British government regulations, it is illegal to:
sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under 18
carry a knife in public without good reason – unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, eg a Swiss Army knife
carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife)
Folding knives, regardless of blade size, with a locking mechanism are illegal in the U.K. for carry in public and are referred to as “lock knives.” According to British law, “The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000.”
Pepper spray is also illegal under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, which prohibits “any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.”
It is illegal to import pepper spray or a stun gun because British law expressly states that pepper spray and stun guns are classified as firearms. Blow guns are classified as “offensive weapons” and are prohibited to own, except for veterinarians or registered animal handlers.

The DC neglected to mention that the US also has “bewilderingly complex, startlingly severe” “State and local knife-control laws.”

There can be no doubt that an American is better off than a Brit in as much as he can defend himself in public if he abides by strict laws—rules which do not impede criminals (not that this fact would penetrate Piers Morgan’s skull).

An Englishman attempting the same is pretty much doomed. If the criminal does not get the better of the Brit, the long arm of the law surely will.

UPDATED: The Balanced Budget Deception (‘Debt? What’s That,’ Says The Ass With Ears)

Conservatism, Constitution, Debt, Economy, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Republicans, Rights, Taxation

At least those who tout the Republican budgetary version of a decrease in the increase in spending are no longer claiming to downsize the government.

So proud was Sean Hannity of Paul Ryan’s latest budget iteration that he boasted that, while it increases spending by trillions, it still manages to shave off $4.64 trillion in increases.

According to the Washington Examiner, the current spending trajectory will see “federal government outlays … rise from $3.61 trillion this year to $5.77 trillion in 2023, for a cumulative 10-year total of $46.1 trillion in federal spending.”

“Under Ryan’s new budget, federal spending would reach just $4.95 trillion in 2023, for a 10-year total of $41.46 trillion. That’s $4.64 trillion in deficit savings, which is a good start,” conclude the Examiner editors.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has dusted off last year’s budget, tweaked it a bit and resubmitted it to Republican applause.

Lauding so-called “balanced budget” initiatives is laughable. The real problem is that the quest to “balance federal spending and taxes” is meaningless. It does nothing to stop the federal government from raising taxes as it increases spending and grows in scope and size, ad infinitum.

Ultimately, “A balanced-budget requirement implies is that government has the constitutional right to spend as much as it takes in; that government is permitted to waste however much revenue it can extract from wealth producers, and that the bums must merely bring into balance what was stolen (taxes) with what is squandered (spending).”

“The Powers Delegated to the Federal Government are Few and Defined.” A return to the 18 or so functions the Constitution delegates to the federal government would be a much better start. This requires that entire departments be shuttered.

UPDATE: Scrap everything I’ve just said (NOT). This just in from the president: “There is no debt crisis.”

Without reading what TAWE (“The Ass With Ears”) has said, you know that, to dismiss a $16.5 trillion debt, you have to think that “macroeconomics and microeconomic are two separate solitudes, governed by different laws.”

To say such a stupid thing as TAWE has said, “You have to to believe that the values and virtues ordinary mortals hold themselves to don’t apply to government; that the laws of economics are NOT natural, but political, laws.”

“We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt,” President Obama told ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos this week.

In uttering such a fatuity, BHO showed that he has no regard for or knowledge of what Thomas Jefferson was warning about, when he said:

“The greatest danger came from the possibility of legislators plunging citizens into debt. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”

UPDATED: ‘Conservative’ Defects, Announces (D)evolution on Immigration (Tons Of Turncoats)

Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Paleolibertarianism, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Rights, States' Rights, War on Drugs

A full-throated support for individual freedoms would mean a denunciation of the wicked War on Drugs and an abandonment of the useless and creepy fetish over another person’s prime real estate: a woman’s title in her body.

In a bid to remain in the anchor’s chair and to play a part in national politics, a conservative has chosen, instead, to say bye-bye to borders. Well, sort of.

Sean Hannity said this, on Thursday:

(Politico) Sean Hannity said Thursday he has “evolved” on immigration and now supports a “pathway to citizenship.”
Hannity told his radio listeners Thursday afternoon that the United States needs to “get rid of the immigration issue altogether.”
“It’s simple to me to fix it,” Hannity said.

This, as the country is still surveying the debris left by the “D-Bomb” dropped on Tuesday, Nov. 6. The reference to demographics is from this week’s column, “The D-bomb has Dropped,” now on RT. It speaks to the demographic shift in US population, which only a moratorium on mass immigration, buttressed by strong secessionist movements (as specified in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot”) can remedy.

“Left-libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever.” (Mercer, May 1, 2009)

UPDATE: TONS OF TURNCOATS. Crybaby Boehner is leading a ton of other “conservatives” to the promised (la-la) land:

”A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

“overhaul,” “reform,” “comprehensive solution” “fixing a broken system”: These are all euphemisms for amnesty, Dream Act, preferential treatment, subsidies continued, etc.

A Good Country For Dead Beats

Business, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Law, Private Property, Rights, Socialism

Initially, every parasitical official seeking to renew or secure a grip on the public teat was demanding a halt to what are mostly perfectly legitimate foreclosures on delinquent homeowners. Now cities across the US are considering using eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages. One dreadful cur, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, claims that the effort will “boost a recovery of the housing market.”

Fox Business’ Melissa Francis hammered Moreno for his scheming.

“Chicago is threatening to undermine whole system,” blasted Ms. Francis. “If you seize these mortgages from the banks and you just rip them up, why would a bank ever lend money again?” Good for her. But why not use the words “contract” and “property rights”? Why use “system,” so vague and meaningless?

Public discourse never rises above the utilitarian: what works, what doesn’t. Rights be damned. Anything to get away from making a principled distinction between what is mine and what is thine. In a word, property rights.

It is almost always true that a necessary condition for a foreclosure is for the homeowner to have failed to make his mortgage payments. Some even “argue” for all-out sweetness and love for the foreclosed upon. They say that because the banks are embroiled in the fractional reserve system, they should suffer this fate.

That’s like saying that because a legal system is corrupt, murderers should go free; or because an owner who sells a parcel of land partakes in the property tax theft, the buyer should not have to pay him. Or because businesses often act like exuberant idiots during a phase of the business cycle—some as offenders; others as victims—their customers need not pay them. And on and on.