Category Archives: Police State

Friday Follies for May 29, 2015

Posted on by

This story could correctly be entitled, “Cycles.” For most of the 20th Century and the first decade and a half of the 21st, we’ve watched this cycle occur in our foreign and defense policies. It began with Wilson, continued with FDR, Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Each iteration of liberal polices led to disaster. It always seem to require a conservative administration to put our house back in order…until the next liberal administration betrays us once again.

Disavowing the appeal of the appeaser

The next president will be forced to face down tyrants whom Obama ignored

By Victor Davis Hanson – – Wednesday, May 27, 2015

For a time, reset, concessions and appeasement work to delay wars. But finally, nations wake up, grasp their blunders, rearm and face down enemies.

That gets dangerous. The shocked aggressors cannot quite believe that their targets are suddenly serious and willing to punch back. Usually, the bullies foolishly press aggression, and war breaks out.

It was insane of Nazi Germany and its Axis partners to even imagine that they could defeat the Allied trio of Imperial Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States.

But why not try?

Hitler figured that for a decade America had been unarmed and isolationist. Britain repeatedly had appeased the Third Reich. The Soviets initially collaborated with Hitler.

Hitler met no opposition after militarizing the Rhineland. He annexed Austria with impunity. He gobbled up Czechoslovakia without opposition.

Why shouldn’t Hitler have been stunned in 1939 when exasperated Britain and France finally declared war over his invasion of distant Poland?

Six years of war and some 60 million dead followed, re-establishing what should have been the obvious fact that democracies would not quite commit suicide.

By 1979, the Jimmy Carter administration had drastically cut the defense budget. President Carter promised that he would make human rights govern American foreign policy. It sounded great to Americans after Vietnam — and even greater to America’s enemies.

Then Iran imploded. The American embassy in Tehran was stormed. Diplomats were taken hostage. Radical Islamic terrorism spread throughout the Middle East. Communist insurrection followed throughout Central America. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. China went into Vietnam.

Dictators such as the Soviet Union’s Leonid Brezhnev and Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini assumed that Mr. Carter no longer was willing to protect the U.S. postwar order. Or perhaps they figured that the inexperienced American president was too weak to respond even had he wished to do so.

Then, Ronald Reagan defeated Mr. Carter in 1980 on the promise of restoring U.S. power. At first, both America’s friends and enemies were aghast at Reagan’s simplistic worldview that free markets were better than communism, that democracy was superior to dictatorship, and that in the ensuing struggle, the West would win and the rest would lose.

Foreign media damned Reagan as a warmonger for beefing up the U.S. defense budget, reassuring America’s allies and going after terrorists with military force.

The column continues onto a second page with Hanson’s analysis of Obama. The pattern is well established. Liberal, i.e., democrat administrations, weaken the nation, creates choas within our military with massive cuts and misappropriation of funds, thus allowing our enemies to become emboldened. The problems resist until a conservative administration is elected to fix the problems the liberals have created.

The column ends with this final statement:

The Obama foreign policy cannot continue much longer without provoking even more chaos or a large war. Yet correcting it will be nearly as dangerous.

Jumping off the global tiger is dangerous, but climbing back on will seem riskier.

Now you know why I said this section could rightfully be titled, “Cycles.”

***

Here is an item where the ACLU and Missouri conservatives agree. The use of ‘StingRay’ technology should be banned within the state. The St Louis Post Dispatch published this editorial on Wednesday.

Editorial: Secret use of StingRay technology could backfire on St. Louis police

May 27, 2015 4:07 pm  •  By the Editorial Board

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/1e/e1e8581f-afef-5885-bf81-13720cd549d9/55319997d8573.image.png?resize=620%2C368

Last summer, as the American Civil Liberties Union was standing side-by-side with Missouri Republicans supporting the passage of a constitutional amendment that sought to protect “electronic communication and data” from unreasonable search and seizure, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department was sitting on a secret.

In cooperation with the FBI, the St. Louis police had been using a cellphone tracking device known generically by the brand name of one such device: StingRay. The high-tech gadgets allow police to mimic a cell tower. They screen and track nearby digital data, determining the specific location in a building, for instance, of the cell phone they are tracking.

Last month, as first reported by the Post-Dispatch’s Robert Patrick, prosecutors dropped more than a dozen charges against three defendants in a case where the technology was employed. Defense attorneys believe the charges were dropped because police don’t want to reveal details about their new high-tech toy.

But in Missouri, there may be a bigger problem. It has to do with that constitutional amendment that the strange bedfellows of the ACLU and Missouri Republicans were promoting.

A plain reading of the language of Amendment 9, passed by 75 percent of the voters who turned out on Aug. 5, suggests that it is now unconstitutional in Missouri to use a StingRay device — at least without a warrant that offers significantly more detail about the data being sought.

The column continues at the website. As the editorial admits, the Post-Dispatch opposed the passage of Amendment 9 last year. They are reconsidering that opposition now that it appears the St Louis Police Department is actually using StingRay technology in defiance to Federal, and now, Missouri law.

Facebook

Will Europe wake up

Posted on by

…about arming their police? In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, and after the anti-terrorist raids in Belgium and Germany, some of the nations are reviewing their ‘unarmed’ police policies. The UK has traditionally had unarmed Constables. Prior to WW2, if a Bobby needed a firearm in pursuit of a criminal, it wasn’t uncommon for them to borrow a pistol from a passer-by. Today’s Bobbies are still unarmed…except for those roving police cars with weapons in the trunk.

The French and German police had a reputation for low tolerance of law breakers. One apocryphal story has a French policeman stopping a car for a traffic violation and ministering swift corporal punishment—a punch to the face, on the spot. I don’t know if that’s true but I have heard variations of the story from many people and for a long time.  In the same vein, mouth off to an Italian or German police officer and you’ll meet his friends when they take you in to the station.

The reality of these stories is that the police, in many if not most, of Europe’s countries, are unarmed and when faced with rebellious or armed criminals, choose to look the other way, or flee the spot choosing discretion over valor. At least some governments in Europe are reconsidering those policies.

To counter terror, Europe’s police reconsider their arms

By Lori Hinnant – Associated Press – Monday, January 19, 2015

PARIS (AP) — One was a young policewoman, unarmed on the outskirts of Paris and felled by an assault rifle. Her partner, also without weapons, could do nothing to stop the gunman.

Another was a first responder with a service gun, rushing to the Charlie Hebdo offices where a pair of masked men with high-powered weapons had opened fire on an editorial meeting. Among their primary targets: the armed police bodyguard inside the room.

With the deaths of the three French officers during three days of terror in the Paris region and the suggestion of a plot in Belgium to kill police, European law enforcement agencies are rethinking how — and how many — police should be armed.

Scotland Yard said Sunday it was increasing the deployment of officers allowed to carry firearms in Britain, where many cling to the image of the unarmed “bobby.” In Belgium, where officials say a terror network was plotting to attack police, officers are again permitted to take their service weapons home.

On Monday, French law enforcement officials demanding heavier weapons, protective gear and a bolstered intelligence apparatus met with top officials from the Interior Ministry. An official with the ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing talks, said automatic weapons and heavier bulletproof vests were on the table.

Among the most horrific images from the Paris attacks was the death of police officer Ahmed Merabet, who can be seen on eyewitness video lying wounded on the pavement as a gunman approaches and fires a final bullet into his head. Merabet, who is seen alone on the street, had a service gun and a bullet proof vest, said Michel Thooris, of the France Police labor union.

“But he did not come with the backup he needed, and the psychology to face a paramilitary assault,” Thooris said. “We were not prepared in terms of equipment or mind-set for this kind of operation.”

One of the attackers, Amedy Coulibaly, said in a posthumous video that his plan all along was to attack police.

“We don’t want necessarily the arms that American police have. We need weapons that can respond,” said Philippe Capon of French police union UNSA. (Read more here.)

Many of us on this side of the Atlantic will agree our police are overarmed and too paramilitary, ready to exercise their power at any excuse. The police of Europe and the US appear to be at opposite ends of a wide separation, the Europeans on the unarmed end and the US on the overarmed end. Many would agree that the best approach is somewhere in the middle.

The armament policies are the results of disasters and political policy. The militaristic of American police can be traced to the North Hollywood bank robbery where the two bandits were armed with full-auto AK-47s and body armor. The police were armed with pistols, some of them .38s, that were ineffective against the body armor of the two bank robbers.

In Europe, the culture is still ruled by statists, the government above all. As such, the populace must be unarmed lest they rise up against governmental tyranny. The socialist policies, and the effects of armed state police organizations of WW2, drove Europeans police policies in the opposite direction. Their primary fear, supported by the French Algerian Putsch against De Gaulle, reinforced the fear of armed police.

The US and Europe went down two paths to their current positions. The recent riots in Ferguson and the shootings in Europe are ample proof of the failures of both policies. The lessons of Ferguson is not so much of an overly armed police, but the ineffectual use of those arms. The lessons of Paris is to not send unarmed police into a shooting arena where the criminals are armed to a military level and the police are defenseless.

Perhaps a better solution is the one in Britain. The standard Constable is armed with an asp or baton and a chemical spray. In each locale are roving armed officers, trained in the use of firearms and tactics. In addition, ‘special’ assault teams, similar to American SWAT units, are on call if needed. The Constable’s responsibilities are limited. They are officially known as ‘community police support officers’ and have limited powers of arrest. The armed police have full police powers and respond to armed incidents.The beat cop still exists in the UK and the local communities support them.

A major difference is in traffic control. In the UK, traffic offenses have been decriminalized and are the responsibility of local community organizations. The UK is crowded. Most long-distance travel is still done by railways. The US is much different in that aspect and traffic control policies of the UK would be unsuitable in the US.

As I said above, perhaps the solution is in the middle of the two extremes. Americans have a long history of self-reliance and of a cultural emphasis of self-defense. The Europeans do not. Throughout their history, Europeans have been subjects…property, in essence, of the state whether that state is a monarchy or a pseudo-democracy. However much American liberals covet Europe’s welfare state, the traditional American culture will resist Europe’s assumption of state supremacy.

Europe, like the US, has allowed a potentially fatal infection to slip into their borders. In Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, the infection is Islamists. The larger one in the US is unrestrained illegal aliens. The infection is not necessarily an armed invasion, although the recent events in Europe may show a change of that direction. No, it is the conflict bewteen the imported cultures with the native culture that will destroy the traditions that built the US and Europe.

Consider, most of Europe is Catholic or Protestant, Christians, both. The history of conflict between Christians and. Islamists is centuries long. Just a few centuries ago, Islam was besieging Europe, outside the gates of today’s Vienna, Austria.

The United States grew from immigration—assimilated immigration. Today’s invasion across our borders has no interest in assimilation. They want us to assimilate to their culture, ignoring the fact that the three century old American culture produced the powerhouse that is the current United States.

When cultures clash, violence results. The culture clash is easy to see in Europe, not so in the US. The Ferguson riots is an example of a culture clash. On one hand you have the traditional American culture. On the other, is the liberal culture of parasitism known as the welfare state.

The working people in Ferguson did not riot. It was the unworking class and imported agitators who rioted. The traditional American culture consists of both blacks and whites, Asians and Hispanics, who work, raise families, and thrive. The direct opposite of the rioters. That is the American culture clash and it isn’t over.

Would a change in police policies alleviate future culture clashes? I don’t know. What we do know is that the current policies of a paramilitary police aren’t working. Those policies alienate both side of that culture clash. Paramilitary home invasions in the middle of the night overcome any possible resistance. But when faced with hundreds, thousands of possibly armed opponents, policy is ineffective due to the lack of resolve by political leaders.

That drives the question—would the police have responded differently if the rioters in Ferguson were white protesters against, say, abortion? Would liberal politicians have reined in their paramilitary forces? It’s a good thing that situation has not occurred. The results could have been much different.

Facebook

The Weekend Review

Posted on by

Do you know this man?http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/11/06/20121106-195938-pic-910164513_mugshot_four_by_three_s267x200.jpg?ec8f261d4936ae3433a61cef779c1dbc8a3728fb

No, it’s not a TV commercial. Richard Viguerie is a long-time conservative who has helped the campaigns of a number of conservatives. He is not among those who believe the GOP establishment should lead the GOP.

Viguerie has just released a book, titled, Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It, In it, he writes about the civil war that is taking place within the GOP. (Where have you heard that before, readers?)

The Daily Caller reviewed his book. According to the Daily Caller,  Viguerie said:

“Our true opponents are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove, and George Bush. They’re the ones who have been engaged in a massive expansion of government and the American voters don’t like them,” “Whenever they are the face of the opposition to the Democrats, the Republicans almost always lose on the national level. It is the most important political battle in America and it’s not between Republicans and Democrats — it’s inside the Republican Party. And for the most part, conservatives have been losing.” — The Daily Caller.

You can read the column by following the link above. One statement Viguerie makes is that the ‘new’ conservatives, new to the political scene like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, are loosely tethered to the GOP and more strongly to conservative principles. Viguerie views that as a positive trend within the GOP.

***

Have you heard about this? It wasn’t a recent report, although the lawsuit is. It’s another example of unrestrained police abuse. I have to wonder why the majority of these cases occur in the larger metropolitan areas dominated by liberals?

The short report is that some ABC agents in Virginia terrorized two colleges students for buying—a case of water and some cookie ingredients.

UVA student was victim of malicious, spiteful cops, $40 million lawsuit claims

Robby Soave, Reporter, 12:11 AM 03/31/2014

A University of Virginia student is suing the Commonwealth of Virginia for $40 million after her harrowing run-in with the state police, who–acting out of “anger and personal spite”–drew their guns and arrested her on obviously false charges, according to the lawsuit.

The incident happened last June, after 20-year-old Elizabeth Daly and two of her friends purchased a case of water bottles and cookie-baking supplies at a local Harris Teeter.

Officers with Virginia’s Alcohol Beverage Control agency were staking out the grocery store, on the hunt for lawbreakers. Mistaking Daly’s water bottles for beer, they thought they had found one.

Three officers followed the students to Daly’s car. After Daly and her friends had already climbed inside, the officers began banging on their windows. They were wearing their badges around their necks, but Daly couldn’t see them clearly and were unsure whether they were actual cops, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Daly was instructed to roll down her window, but she couldn’t do so without turning the car on, which angered the officers. One drew a gun and attempted to bash in the window.

Daly called 911 and tried to drive to a police station. The emergency operator then told her that the assailants were indeed police officers, so she pulled over. Police then arrested her for assaulting two different officers and failing to stop when ordered. She spent a night in jail. (RELATED: UPDATED: UVA student jailed for possession of bottled water, ice cream)

The charges were eventually dropped, after ABC determined that the officers’s heavy-handed tactics violated official policy.

The ordeal terrified Daly and left her in a nervous state. Her lawsuit alleges that the officers “acted with actual malice, out of embarrassment and disgrace for their own intentional and grossly negligent acts and charged (Daly) with three felonies and did so out of anger and personal spite.”

According to the lawsuit, Daly, “does not and never has consumed alcohol or abused drugs, and/or her parents, on her behalf, have incurred significant legal, medical and other costs, and will continue to do so in the future due to the malicious, intentional, and/or grossly negligent actions of the (d)efendants.”

The lawsuit asks for $40 million in damages.

While that may seem like a lot of money, The Washington Post’s Radley Balko wrote that it “may be just what Virginia policymakers need to start taking these issues seriously. The militarization of regulatory agencies such as the ABC is a disturbing trend,” he wrote.

It is interesting that even the uber-liberal Washington Post viewed the actions of the ABC agents as, “disturbing.”

***

In closing for today, here is another example of democrat deceit. Folks, never forget who are our real enemies.

Obamacare voter form pre-marked for Dems – Daily Caller: “A couple in La Mesa, California received a voter registration card from California’s Obamacare exchange already pre-marked for the Democratic Party… ‘I’m an old guy and I never would have noticed it, except I have an accountant that notices every dot and dash on a piece of paper as a wife,’ the man who received the card said… Covered California is in the midst of sending out voter registration cards to all of its sign-ups, due to pressure from left-wing groups threatening legal action if they don’t comply… Covered California denied responsibility for the violation.”

Facebook

Pass!

Posted on by

My morning and general lack of sleep has upset my routine. I’ve an appointment as well and don’t have the time to spend on my usual lengthy daily posts, I’ll post some links instead.

Loss of Liberty and Privacy…the DHS will haunt you.

Civil liberties may not survive the ‘Gorgon Stare’

Meet the new BOSS, short for Biometric Optical Surveillance System, a crowd-scanning technology under development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Last week saw the release of documents describing DHS’s latest efforts in “facial profiling.” The agency has awarded a $5.2 million federal contract to the defense firm Electronic Warfare Associates to develop facial recognition technology allowing video cameras to pick “watch-listed” suspects out of crowds at distances of up to 100 meters.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports on the expansion of a DHS initiative that’s bringing roving squads of armed Transportation Security Administration agents to trains, buses, and stadiums near you.

***

John Boehner is attempting to show some backbone over the coming Continuing Resolution fight. He’ll telling folks he’ll fight to cut Obamacare…in some fashion, in some way. Perhaps having the Tea Party picket his Ohio office had something to do with it…not that anyone really believes Boehner will buck Obama.

John Boehner: ‘Whale of a fight’ coming on debt ceiling

By SUSAN FERRECHIO | AUGUST 27, 2013 AT 1:50 PM

House Speaker John Boehner said “a whale of a fight” is coming over the debt ceiling, contradicting a prediction by U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew that President Obama will raise the debt limit without negotiating with Congress.

“I’ve made it clear that we’re not going to increase the debt limit without cuts and reforms that are greater than the increase in the debt limit,” Boehner told supporters in Idaho, the Idaho Statesman reported.

Yeah, sure, John.

***

Paul, Cruz and Lee are putting pressure on their RINO colleagues to cut funding for Obamacare.

Paul, Lee, Cruz to headline Obamacare defunding rally

By Ruth Tam, Published: August 26 at 5:31 pmE-mail the writer

In what tea party groups are calling a “battle to save America from the Obamacare ‘train wreck,’” Republican lawmakers plan to appear at a Capitol Hill rally on Sept. 10 to promote a proposal to defund the Affordable Care Act.

Filibuster_Fight-0c916_image_982w

Republican senators Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Ted Cruz (Tex.) will headline the “Exempt America Tour” rally on the West Lawn as a culmination of a five-day tour of six states. The tour, which will kick off in Kentucky on Tuesday, is sponsored by seven tea party groups, including Tea Party Patriots and For America.

The tour is the latest effort to pressure Republican lawmakers to take a tougher stance against Obamacare. It comes after a pointed online ad campaign targeting GOP senators who either oppose defunding Obamacare or haven’t yet announced a position. Republican leaders who have been the subject of online ads include House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.).

“If these Washington politicians think they can simply go home on summer break and claim they are doing everything they can to get rid of ObamaCare they have another thing coming,” said For America Chairman Brent Bozell in a statement.

Y’all have a great day and drop back tomorrow.

Facebook

The Abuses of Militarized Police

Posted on by

A story has come from Nevada of a lawsuit that was filed on July 1st, 2013. It contends the Henderson, NV, police violated the 3rd Amendment rights of a man and his parents.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The issue in this complaint against the Henderson PD is that “militarized” police, i.e., their SWAT organization, seized the home of a man against his wishes. When the SWAT police didn’t get permission to enter, they broke in the door, assaulted him, arrested him and took him off to jail. They subsequently, using a subterfuge, did the same with his parents who lived in another, nearby residence. The following day all charges were dropped. Clearly the arrest was a ploy to remove the man from his home and his parents from their home against their protests.

You can read the complaint of the lawsuit here.

Henderson [Nevada] police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court….

The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States….

“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.”

The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’”

It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor….

“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain….”

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

If you read the complaint, you’ll note the Henderson Police also violated their 4th Amendment rights as well by searching both homes without warrants nor any probable cause.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police searched, ransacked the house, for what reason?

When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.” — Courthouse News.

The Mitchells, son and parents, had broken no law. They were not the subject of the domestic dispute—that was their neighbor. So what justification did the police have for their actions other than they could? From what a number of legal professional have determined, none. There was no justification.

The crux of this suit is whether militarized police constitutes “soldiers” within the definition of the 3rd Amendment. They are agents of the state, as are soldiers. Many will say SWAT police are soldiers if you use the “walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” logic.

Although it’s not well known, there is a history of US military forces violating the 3rd Amendment. That last such occurance was during WW II.

During World War II, after Japan attacked the Aleutian Islands off Alaska’s coast, the United States forcibly evacuated the islands’ natives and quartered soldiers in private homes. That hitherto unremarked violation of the Third Amendment gives us a fresh perspective on what “Property” means in the U.S. Constitution. As a general legal matter, property includes not just real estate – land, fixtures attached thereto, and related rights – but also various kinds of personal property, ranging from tangibles such as books to intangibles such as causes of action. That knowledge would, if we interpreted the Constitution as we do other legal documents, tell us just about everything we need to know about the scope of constitutional property. Case law and commentary do not speak as plainly, however, raising troubling questions about what “Property” means each of the four times it appears in the Constitution. In particular, some authority suggests that the Takings Clause protects personal property less completely than it does real property. The unjust treatment of Aleutian natives during World War II shows the risk of giving constitutional property so peculiar and narrow a definition. This paper describes the troubling inconsistencies that afflict the law of constitutional property and invokes the Third Amendment, that oft-forgotten relic of the American Revolution, to argue for giving “Property” a plain, generous, and consistent meaning throughout Constitution. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

The issue above is, that while troops “may” be quartered in private homes during wartime, the act must follow specific law. In other words, Congress must pass specific legislation that clarifies the circumstances when the 3rd Amendment doesn’t apply, compensation to the owners for damage, and the legal procedures to enact the seizure. That clarifying legislation has never been passed making the acts during WW II illegal.

The event in Henderson, NV in 2011 doesn’t have the quasi-justification of occurring during war. That is, if the Henderson PD does not consider themselves at war with the residents of Henderson.

The abuses of militarized police are growing across the country. It is a manifestation of a growing police state that has been actively encouraged by the federal government.

Whether our front door is kicked in by a group of lawless thugs, or by armed and armored SWAT troops acting like lawless thugs, it is still a violation of our castle. Theoretically, we could be justified in resisting under the auspices of castle laws. Of course, it wouldn’t matter when the SWAT team kills us. We’re still just as dead. And…the SWAT team would likely get off without charges.

It does beg the question. Can people defend themselves against police when it is the police who are violating the law? That is something for our Legislatures to address.

Facebook

A Pitful Example of Citizen Apathy

Posted on by

I’m still upset about the Siege of Boston where various paramilitary organizations suspended the Constitution. They claim “special circumstances.” The last I looked, there was no “special circumstance” that allowed for the suspension of the Bill of Rights.

Some Presidents have violated the Bill of Rights. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Roosevelt did likewise and more during World War II. The FBI, under Hoover and later Directors, has spied on American and violated numerous civil rights as well. All those examples of pass behavior and their acceptance at the time, does NOT make it right nor in many cases, legal.

The Constitution, in the 1st Amendment, provides for the freedom to assemble—to gather in groups to express political grievances. Freedom of movement, the right to travel about at will without restriction, is not in the Constitution although it was in the Articles of Confederation, Article 4. Freedom of Movement was not included in the Constitution because the authors felt it wasn’t needed but was a fundamental right recognized by all.

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.[4] — Wiki

The US Constitution provided for Freedom of Travel between states via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the authority to regulate that travel was granted to the states rather than the Federal Government. Travel within the states was deemed to be a state issue according to several SCOTUS decisions.

[T]he Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3] — Wiki

The result of this ambiguity is Boston on April 19, 2013. The rights of the people to assemble, to move about, to openly travel for whatever reason, is limited, according to law. Whatever government grants, the government can take away. We saw this last week in Boston. People were ordered to return to their homes and to remain there. Those who ventured outside risked being detained, restrained at gunpoint as the photos below testify.

Boston-No_free_passage

Boston-No_breaking_arrest_at_homeHowever, the Constitution, in the 4th Amendment, does say that people have the right to be secure in their homes. That right can only be suspended by a search warrant showing probable cause and to state specifically what is expected to be found.

The government forces in Boston did not acquire search warrants. One spokesman said there weren’t sufficient judges available and since they were in “hot pursuit” (four days later!?), a warrant wasn’t required. People were evicted from their homes, at gun point and without warrants—a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Boston-Alles_Geauf-2The tragedy of these acts is that the people of Boston accepted this violation of their rights. Some of us laughingly call Massachusetts as a “People’s Republic”, a reminiscence of the Communist governments of East Europe.

We’re not laughing now.

Welcome to the new “progressive” disunited states where the government decides what rights, if any, you may have. Mayor Bloomberg made this statement.

Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of U.S. Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ Following Boston Bombings

Apr. 23, 2013 8:16am

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that the Boston Marathon bombings have created a unique scenario — one in which traditional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution must change. Rather than shying away from cameras and other security mechanisms that some view as infringements upon individual privacy, the politician claims that the most recent attack calls for a new paradigm.

As for those who fear government intrusion and express serious concerns about how these technologies and other policies could impede privacy, Bloomberg is sympathetic — but only to a point.

…

As the Observer’s Politicker notes, Bloomberg also invoked gun control while making his point about the Constitution and security. In connecting what he said is the Supreme Court’s recognition that there are some interpretations of the Second Amendment that give way to “reasonable gun laws,” the mayor said that the nation will also need to “live with reasonable levels of security.”

That—is the view of the left. Whenever the Constitution prohibits some act or desire of government, whether it is freedom to travel, to be secure in our homes, or to our right of privacy, the needs of government must prevail and the Constitution be damned.

I’m still waiting for the citizens of Boston and Massachusetts to protest these arbitrary acts by their governments. It’s been nearly a week. I’m still waiting.

Facebook

Boston under Siege

Posted on by

The Boston Marathon was bombed. The ones who set the bombs are either dead or in custody.  That’s good. But the method used to find them?  That’s another issue.

From numerous reports, most of them still waiting for verification, Government, by this, I mean the state, local and the Federal government, suspended the Constitution in Boston. I don’t remember any declaration of martial law in Boston, but that is what, in effect, happened. The 1st and 4th Amendments were violated repeatedly. In some cases, even the media was treated like criminals (should I cheer?) being forced to the ground at gunpoint.

For those of you with access to Facebook, you can view nearly 150 photos taken by individuals in Boston and Watertown. They are horrifying.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.471951542877595.1073741826.373523032720447&type=1

How would you like to look out your window and see this pointed at you?

Boston under Siege

Boston under Siege

This is what you can expect when the dems and liberals control government. When the search for Dorner was on in California, there was no lock-down until they had him located and then it was only for a few surrounding blocks. Boston was massive, massive over-reaction.

And, Bostonians submissively accepted this.

Facebook