The People of Keene, NH Stand Up To Homeland Security

The latest at Downsize DC.

What "Freedom Isn't Free" Really Means

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[Let's] assume that some people would have been upset enough about seeing the upside-down flag on the Fourth to either steal the flag or act violently against Congine.

In a fantasy world where government exists to protect our rights, the police would have protected Congine at the first sign he was being threatened. If angry mobs were forming, the police in a "rights-protecting" government would have circled Congine's property and swung their clubs at anyone who dared trespass. In real life, however, it was the police who stole the flag.

Do you prefer your flags upside-down or black?

In a recent post, Tom Knapp quotes H.L. Mencken:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

The very next story I read while browsing the web was that an Iraq War veteran is close to bankruptcy because the government wouldn't give his supper club a liquor license, and then four policemen came to steal his American flag on the Fourth of July, just because he was flying it upside-down.

I would say it's very tempting to hoist the black flag. I wouldn't say it's tempting to begin slitting throats (I'm not threatening anyone, okay?), but it's sure tempting to fantasize about it.

Your right to own a knife. A knife! A freakin' knife!

Read about it at DownsizeDC.org.

Trying to understand the mind of the prosecutor

Football player Plaxico Burress's case has been delayed, probably until 2010, which will allow him to play football. It is still expected that he'll eventually serve jail time.

I don't agree that what Burress did should be a crime at all, and believe he shouldn't be prosecuted. Besides that, what is striking is:

• The maximum fine under this law, and any compensatory damages, would have been the cheapest way out for the State of New York.
• There is no evidence that Burress had violent intent against anyone, and indeed did not hurt anyone else.
• Due to the costs Burress has already paid for his mishap, he should have had is "wake up call" already and jail won't do any good. Jails tend not to rehabilitate people. There are two kinds of reckless people who get in this situation: those who "wake up" and rehabilitate themselves at the first sign of trouble, and those who never "wake up" despite one or more trips to jail. I don't know which way Burress falls, but jail won't make a difference. If he hasn't woken up now, jail could just as easily make him worse.
  

Why, then, does Mayor Bloomberg and the D.A. office insist on jail time for Plaxico?

Probably for the same reason prosecutors in other cases add count after unnecessary count in order to extract a plea deal and guarantee jail time.

They don't care for justice in the individual case. Imprisonment isn't a particularly just punishment. It adds cost to the taxpayers, it doesn't compensate victims, it doesn't rehabilitate, and its usually temporary, meaning that most prisoners, even violent ones, will be released at some point in the future.

The one thing jails and prisons have going for them is that they are absolutely dreadful places. For me, there are some illegal things I know are wrong and would think I would never do, like commit violence. There are other things I wouldn't do whether they are legal or not. There are some things I might do, or at least try, if they were legal.

I don't do them, not because conscience bounds me to obey stupid and unjust laws, but because I don't want to go to jail.

For me, jail is a deterrent. The more prosecutors cram the jails and prisons with more people, the more they scare the rest of us into compliance.

It's one of the more brutal and inefficient ways to maintain "law and order." It seems to me that a system where victimless crimes are repealed and, in violent crimes, perpetrators are made to compensate victims through work, would lead to more efficient enforcement, a safe society, just outcomes and the best chance at genuine rehabilitation of the criminal.

But I do see the logic in the heavy-handed methods of prosecutors. In our flawed, broken system, the use as jail/prison as deterrence is the one tool they have to "get tough" on crime. It still doesn't make it right.

How to produce more von Brunns

First, a short, one-question test:

Q: Passing a Constitutional Amendment or federal law against flag desecration would:
a) lead to fewer incidents of flag desecration.
b) lead to more incidents of flag desecration.

Would anyone with half a brain answer a)? It is obvious such a law would inspire protests, and create more of what the law was trying to eradicate.

It is also clear to me that other forms of censorship will most likely have deadly consequences.

But remarkably, columnists and playwrights are promoting censorship. That is, they want "hate speech" laws. This position is so obviously juvenile, and counter-productive, it's a shame that it has acceptance in the mainstream. It takes probably a minute's reflection to realize censorship will only beget more violence. Instead of "rounding up" the von Brunns of the world before they act, such censorship will only motivate them to act because they'll have little left to lose. If they don't shoot hated minorities, they will shoot the very cops who come to arrest them.

As Wendy McElroy has written, the 19th-century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker thought political violence "could be justified only when freedom of speech and freedom of the press had been destroyed."

This makes sense. Where there are freedoms of speech and press, there is the chance to educate and persuade. Violence would not be persuasive; violence would inspire others not to act against the State, but rather to side with the State.

Admittedly, it could be said that it wouldn't be prudent to use violence even after freedoms of speech and press have been destroyed, because the people still might side with the State.

On the other hand, where there is censorship, there is no "political order" and no ability to persuade. There is a lot less to lose. The calculation is:

1. Do nothing, say nothing, and the State might leave you alone (unless they found out you had said something it doesn't like back in the pre-censorship days).
2. Speak out, and get arrested.
3. Resort to violence, and get arrested.

The question I'm dealing with is not whether it is right to use violence in this situation, it is whether or not more people will resort to it.

Radical movements of every kind attract a disproportionate share of odd personalities, with radical movements founded in bigotry the most disproportionate by far. Such personalities often harbor fantasies of the coming race war and develop a sense of persecution. But like all citizens, they value their freedom to proclaim their thoughts and ideals. To vent, debate, persuade, and educate. They speak their opinion and move on to the next thing. They hope that over time more and more people come to their point of view. Von Brunn was an exception.

What happens if the freedom to speak and write is restricted by the government? What if it becomes a crime to speak or write from a certain point of view?

Then individuals who hold that point of view will have less to lose by resorting to violence. Those who are already unstable will more likely conclude that, with their freedoms of speech and press now gone, it is time to indulge their fantasy and resort to violence.

Moving against the speech of white supremacists will produce more von Brunns, not less.

Freedom of speech has only served to marginalize the white supremacist, Nazi, and other odious movements. Politically-motivated and hate-motivated crimes make the news because of their rarity, not their frequency.

Taking away the First Amendment rights of bigots will not lead to less bigotry. It will, instead, be the last straw for a number of them and provoke more violence.

Get Your Meth, Imported Assault Weapons, and Whores Here!

I know this is last month's news, but it's something I intended to comment on but became busy with other things and forgot about.

How freaking stupid can prosecutors be if they want the Craig's List Erotic Services section removed?

It seems to me they'd want people who sell illegal stuff to openly and brazenly advertise.

I don't frequent prostitutes, but if I did, I would rely on a word-of-mouth network. I would have assumed that every last erotic service ad on Craig's List was a sting operation. Indeed, I would have thought that the sex workers themselves would be stupid for posting, because all police would need to do is answer these ads and make the arrests. I'd have avoided that section like the plague.

Do people sell illegal weapons or drugs on Craig's List, or anywhere else online? Wouldn't they be certain that federal or local law enforcement would quickly be on to them?

The more black-market businesses publicly advertise, the easier it is for police and prosecution; the job is half-done. By suppressing this speech, governments are only making it harder on themselves to trace and prevent this activity.

Craig's List was a gift to law enforcement, and it makes absolutely no sense why people should be angry at Craig's List for allowing sex workers who are stupid enough to advertise and risk arrest from doing so. It's not Craig's List's fault that the police didn't take advantage.

It suggests to me that law enforcement does not have any intention of making any serious inroads on prostitution or any other black-market activity. Its dual purpose is rather to keep arrest and incarceration rates high enough to appear effective, yet also keep the "crime" rate high enough to justify bigger budgets.

Laws against vice, as opposed to violent crimes against person and property, are make-work jobs programs for the government. More police, prison guards, etc. The moral well-being of you and I has nothing to do with it.

Exporting Corruption

Check out the latest Dispatch at DownsizeDC.org.

S&M Christians

I came across this clip from 1986 that originally circulated through the Net a couple of years ago:



What was amazing, absolutely amazing, is how, all these decades later, the perspectives on what transpired and who "won" could be so fantastically different.

Here's one view: Burn In Hell, Frank Zappa!

This blogger, who relishes the thought that Zappa is in hell, believes Zappa was lying when he claimed he was a "conservative," or that Zappa was a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Why is this? Because Zappa believed in freedom of speech.

And the opposite view: Watch Frank Zappa Wipe the Floor With John Lofton

The first comment to this post also cheers Zappa's eternal torment, though most of the rest of the comments ridicule the first one.

I love the irony. Those who condemn Zappa for defending "filth" are themselves totally into S&M. Well, maybe not S&M, more like pure sadism.

After all, what excites them? Police batons, handcuffs, and dungeons. And not just for dangerous people who have done harm to others, but also for people they don't like. See someone doing or saying something you wouldn't say or do? Arrest them! Jail them!

Why do these people believe that Jesus endorses their perversion? It doesn't make sense.

It's not wholly a sectarian or right-wing phenomenon. There are fundamentalists, and conservative Catholics, who are also anarchists. And there are extremely "liberal" Christians who would conduct police raids on bars that allow smoking, or draft your daughter to liberate Zimbabwe. There are libertarian Christians in all sects, and S&M Christians in all sects.

And to the latter I say, please, just keep your weird fantasies of coercion and domination in your fantasy life. Or act them out with a consenting adult. Just leave the rest of us alone!

Real Extremists, Real Terrorists

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The ones who consistently spoke out against America's acts of terror against Serbian, Iraqi, and Afghani civilians, were branded the most likely domestic terrorists. The very people who are the most "pro-military" because they are most resistant to sending troops into harm's way for any reason other than America's own security, are profiled as the people most likely to resort to force against the government!

It is not coincidental that Paul, the LP, and the CP are also most critical of eminent domain takings and State terror tactics of civil asset forfeiture and no-knock raids - sources of power and profit for state and local governments. No wonder the government hates these people.

Highway Robbery

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/highway-robbery

Quote of the Day: "The idea that people lose their property but are never charged and never get it back, that's theft as far as I'm concerned." -- Texas State Senator John Whitmire

Subject: Highway Robbery

If you happen to travel through east Texas, avoid Tenaha, especially if you're African American. The Tenaha police may stop you and rob you, without even charging you with a crime. They even took $4,000 from a great-grandmother.

Tenaha, a town of 1,000, has used its robbery proceeds to build a new police station, and buy a second police car to extend its legal crime wave. But perhaps it's unfair to single out Tenaha. Police departments all over America are doing the same thing, committing not only robbery, but also acts of terrorism.

Apparently, no one is safe. Just ask Cheye Calvo, the Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland . . .

County police mistakenly targeted the Calvo home as a marijuana drop-off point. Police invaded the home, bound the mayor's mother-in-law, and shot the family's dogs. The Calvo's were cleared of all wrongdoing, but the police won't admit it made any mistakes.

Radley Balko reports that the use of SWAT teams and no-knock raids has soared, even when there's no evidence that a targeted home poses any threat. These aggressive raids allow police to surprise the suspect and find as much valuable property to seize as quickly as possible.

Law enforcement agencies then auction off this property and spend the money on themselves, even when the victims they robbed are never convicted of any crime. Instead, the victims must prove that they are NOT guilty of a crime.

Proving a negative is almost impossible. That's why innocence is presumed in free societies, and the state bears the burden of proving guilt. Civil asset forfeiture turn this principle on its head. It even forces victims to prove that their property was never used in a crime.

This means that most seized property is never returned, even to people who are completely innocent.

The asset forfeiture laws give police a huge incentive to steal as much as possible. They also create a conflict-of-interest. Police make more money seizing the proceeds of drug sales than by preventing drug sales. This contradicts the supposed purpose of drug prohibition.

But it gets worse . . .

The newly-enacted "stimulus" bill includes $4 billion for state and local law enforcement. You will now be funding an expanded wave of police robbery.

Please use our quick and easy Educate the Powerful System to ask Congress to repeal civil asset forfeiture.

You can cut and paste the examples provided above into your personal comments.

Please also share this Dispatch with others and Digg it on our blog.

Thank-you for being a part of the Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson

Assistant to the President

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Guess what else is in the Bailout bill

From Downsize DC:

Quote of the Day: "Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds." -- John Perry Barlow

Subject: Bailout bill contains buried provisions to invade your privacy

Do you think the IRS should set up undercover operations to entrap unsuspecting taxpayers?

Do you think the IRS should release your confidential tax returns to law enforcement and intelligence agencies upon request?

If you answered "No!" to either question, you're out of luck. Before its October recess, Congress passed a bill giving the IRS these powers.

You may ask, "Why didn't Downsize DC oppose this bill?"

As a matter of fact, we wrote against it virtually non-stop for two weeks!

Don't remember?

That's understandable. These provisions are buried in Sections 401 and 402 of Division C in H.R. 1424, the Bailout bill.

The Bailout, or "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act," has a wild history. In just twelve days it morphed from . . .

* A three-page proposal by the Bush Administration
* To a 110-page amendment attached to an unrelated bill that was rejected by the House
* To a 422-page bill passed by Congress and signed into law.

The Library of Congress's summary of the bill is nearly 6,200 words, or 14 pages! (The final Public Print version of the bill, in smaller fonts, is 169 pages.)

In other words, the bailout bill went from bad to worse, in the space of just a few days, and the final price tag included not just $700 billion, but your privacy rights as well.

Next week, we'll explain how the One Subject At A Time Act would have prevented the Bailout bill from passing. This week, however, we'll note how things would have been different under the Read the Bills Act.

* Because the Bailout bill would have gone through a full reading before a qorum in each chamber, Congress would have had incentives to make it as understandable and as brief as possible, with few unrelated provisions and earmarks.
* Because there would have been a seven-day waiting period before voting on passage, members of Congress would have had time to really consider the arguments for and against it.
* Because the bill would have been posted on the Internet during those seven days, Congress would have had an incentive to cut out objectionable parts, such as giving the IRS more power.

Under the Read the Bills Act, Congress would be prevented from spending only a few days to write and pass 400+ page bills costing nearly a trillion dollars. The Read the Bills Act would also make it harder for Congress to attach completely unrelated provisions, such as giving the IRS increased powers to invade your privacy.

Please use our Educate the Powerful System to demand that your Representative and Senators introduce the Read the Bills Act.

In your personal comments, tell them about the IRS provisions in the Bailout bill. Ask them if they knew about these provisions when they voted on the bill. Ask them if this bill was really passed with the "consent of the governed," given that members of Congress didn't read and couldn't understand the bill.

Please also place a Read the Bills Act Coalition button, banner, or tower-ad on your blog or website. This will raise awareness of the Read the Bills Act. In return, your site will be linked at DownsizeDC.org and be mentioned in a Downsizer-Dispatch reaching over 24,000 subscribers. For more information, write to rtbacoalition@downsizedc.org.

This week we welcome Worldwide Sawdust to the Coalition.

Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Spying on Children

Quote of the Day:
"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it".
-- George Carlin

Subject: Spying on Children

On Monday we made the case that had we passed the "Read the Bills Act" and the "One Subject at a Time Act" back in the 90s, the Big Bailout could not have passed last Friday.

If there had been a huge army of DC Downsizers back then, able to achieve universal visibility, and relentless, overwhelming pressure, the government laws, regulations, and programs that have led to the housing bubble and bust could also have been averted.

What was true then, remains true now. The seeds of future disasters are being sown even now, because this is what government does. It creates a crisis, and then exploits the resulting hysteria to gain new powers with which to create even larger disasters. But the cure for this disease also remains the same -- the big army, Operation Everywhere, and passage of "Read the Bills" and "One Subject at a Time."

Here's the latest reason to pass "Read the Bills" . . .

On September 17, the House passed the "School Safety Enhancements Act of 2008."

My first thought was, "The DC Upsizers are at it again!"

My second thought was that the Constitution gives Congress no authority over public safety, except on federal property. This power is left to the states.

But even aside from this, the bill implies something distressing -- that state and local governments are incapable of preserving public safety without Congressional help. But if the states really lack the will and competence to keep schoolchildren safe then they must also be incapable of governing at all. This would imply that, but for Congress, our country would be a nation of 50 Somalias.

This just isn't true.

But when you read the bill, you realize it isn't about school "safety" at all.

The bill expands an already-existing (and unnecessary) grant program for local governments to install metal detectors on school grounds. The bill increases the funding from $30 million to $50 million per year. Worse, it specifically expands the program to include funding for "surveillance equipment."

This, on top of Real ID, Animal ID, TWIC, warrantless spying . . . Perhaps if the younger generation are always being watched at school, they'll get used to it and won't mind the same on the streets, at their jobs, or in their homes.

Do you want to know how your Representitive voted for this atrocity? Too bad. Congress couldn't be bothered with a roll call vote; it passed under "suspension of the rules" by voice vote. (Somehow, though, they did find time for a roll call vote on whether to name a post office building after Theodore Roosevelt.)

Indeed, this "School Safety" bill contained just 8 of the 875 pages of legislation Congress has passed from September 8-20. (The Senate passed 1,185 pages over the same period; a list of the bills can be found below my signature in the blog version of this Dipsatch.)

A lot of them "upsize DC," just as this School "Safety" Act does.

Would it have passed if the Read the Bills Act was in force?

The Read the Bills Act requires that every bill considered by Congress must be publicly read before a quorum in Congress. 875 pages would take a long time to read. Congress would have to set priorities and consider only the most urgent and necessary bills.

The public reading serves another purpose. Thousands of bills are proposed each year, and it's difficult to keep track of which bill will get out of committee and go to the floor for a vote. The public reading of a bill would alert us that Congress is serious about passing a particular bill.

Moreover, the final version of the bill would have to be posted on the Internet for seven days before it comes to a vote, giving individuals and grassroots groups time to study the bill and provide feedback.

UNder the "Read the Bills Act" legislation like this "School Safety Act" might never have reached the floor in Congress, and if it did, groups like Downsize DC could have defeated it.

This is why we need the Read the Bills Act. Tell Congress to stop rushing through so many bills. Tell them you resent the "School Safety Enhancements Act" and that you don't want Congress spending your tax dollars to spy on children. Tell them to prevent bills like it from surfacing again by passing the Read the Bills Act. You can do so here.

Thank you for being part of our growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

End Asset Forfeiture!

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

Quote of the Day:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

Subject: End Asset Forfeiture!

Civil asset forfeiture is government seizure of property or cash owned by individuals not charged with any crime. Law enforcement agents can seize a piece of property if they merely suspect it was used in a crime, whereas its owner must prove innocence to get it back. This is an inversion of justice and a gross violation of the Bill of Rights. But if you think the federal courts will protect innocent property owners, think again . . .

* A police dog's sniff of bundles of cash totaling $124,700 was used as sufficient evidence for the government to confiscate the money, even though a large percentage of currency in circulation contains traces of narcotics, and the government couldn't establish how or when the money was used in criminal activity.

* An Ohio man who kept a small amount of medical marijuana and who also kept his life savings in his own home saw the money taken by the FBI – even though he was never charged with marijuana possession.

* Individuals who consent to police searches can lose money kept in their vehicles – even where there is no trace of illegal drugs or suspicion of illegal activity.

* A woman charged with illegally selling medical equipment saw her assets frozen by the government, on the grounds that her wealth was from ill-gotten gains - preventing her from hiring adequate council to defend herself, as is her right under the 6th Amendment.

Civil asset forfeiture laws breed conflict-of-interest . . .

* Federal law enforcement seized $1.6 billion last year – triple the amount four years ago.

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ordered Leathermen toolkits for their agents, engraved with the motto “Always Think Forfeiture.” Fortunately, the program was halted thanks to the objection of Rep. Bill Sali, but it expresses the attitude that federal law enforcement agents should put plunder ahead of the interests of justice.

* States seized $1.52 billion in 2007; the State of Texas by itself collected $125 million, and many police department budgets are reliant on forfeiture, or “addicted to drug money.” This encourages them to seize the money after drug sales have been made, rather than keeping the drugs away from children – defeating the nominal purpose of the War on Drugs.

Unfortunately, federal courts have used twisted logic to uphold civil asset forfeitures. They have contended that since the property itself is condemned, and not its owner, norms like “innocent until proven guilty” do not apply. But if the government can seize your life savings, or your house, or the car you need to get to work, the effective punishment can be as bad or worse than the penalties imposed upon conviction of a crime – yet the owner of the seized property possesses no due process rights.

Because the courts will not act to end civil asset forfeitures, Congress must. A “compromise” asset forfeiture bill will only lead to more abuses and outrages. Civil asset forfeiture must be abolished. Tell Congress to . . .

* Require full Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment protection for all federal proceedings against owners of personal property.
* Permit seizures of criminal profits only upon criminal conviction of its owner.
* Permit seizures of legally-owned property only if its owner is convicted of a crime, to pay for fines, court costs, or restitution.
* Withhold federal funds to all state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in civil asset forfeiture.
* Enforce the 14th Amendment's requirement that “no person shall be deprived of ... property, without due process of law” by allowing victims of state and local seizures to contest forfeitures in federal court.

Please send Congress a message telling them you are outraged by civil asset forfeiture and that it must be abolished. You can do so here.

Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

French Fascism

So the French government believes it has the authority to ban Muslim headscarves and other conspicuous religious symbols in French schools. But if a private citizen, Brigitte Bardot, merely says something critical about Muslims or other immigrants, well that's also a crime.

What you wear is the business of the State. What you say is the business of the State.

But give France credit: it's an equal-opportunity oppressor: it persecutes Muslim immigrants one day, national treasures the next. They got the égalité down -now they just need to work on the fraternité and, especially, the liberté.

Wisdom from Keith Richards

This interview by Michael Hainey is in GQ. Excerpt:

Is there one moment in your life that you will always remember above all others?

The Marlborough Street thing, when the judge’s gavel hit the table and “Ten pounds for the charge!” [In 1973 he and Anita Pallenberg were busted at their London home for drug possession.] That was a seminal moment when I thought I was going to jail. You try saying “Guilty” twenty-five times. I could get very spiritual here, but I’ll never forget walking out for lunch that day.

Where’d you go?
Somewhere where the cops weren’t going. I never saw myself being a target for the system. And suddenly you realize you are. It never occurred to me that just because I did a little of this [he pretends he’s injecting his arm] or took a little of that [he mimes a toke], that I was gonna get this heat, you know? And then I realized I’d been targeted. And then your mind takes on other things. I still look out the window to see if there are any unmarked cars. [laughs] It puts fear in you. Suddenly, you feel like a criminal.

Did you ever talk with John Lennon about that?
Yes. He felt he was hunted. That it was high-profile hunting. And then you realize that it doesn’t really matter if you’re doing it or not. They’ll shove it in your pocket. And you think, It’s not a game now. This isn’t just rock ’n’ roll. They’re afraid of you. And that was the thing that intrigued me. They’re actually frightened. I mean, I grew up in the British Empire and bop-bop-bop God Save the Queen, and you realize this whole edifice actually thinks you’re a threat to it? And you realize how paranoid they must be that if they get rid of a guitar player or two, everything’s gonna be cool in the empire? All they did was illustrate their fragility.

Support Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act"

This is important. Please, please, please, forward this message far and wide.

Quote of the Day:

"Should we wander [from the essential principles of our government] in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
- Thomas Jefferson, upon repealing the "Alien and Sedition Acts"

Subject: Support Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007"

This is what we've been waiting for. Please forward this message far and wide. Make sure everyone knows about it. The "American Freedom Agenda Act" is a bill . . .

• Created by conservatives
• Supported by progressives
• And introduced in Congress by Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas

The full text of this bill can be found on our Background page for this campaign. This legislation will . . .

• Repeal the "Military Commissions Act of 2007" and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
• Restore the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
• Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws
• Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
• Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions

This one simple 3-page bill will . . .

• Restore basic Constitutional protections
• Empower Americans to support human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the world at large, free from the stink of hypocrisy
• Protect Americans and American soldiers from blowback by foreign powers in retaliation for our government's transgression of America's most hallowed principles

If ever there was a bill that all Americans should support, it is this one. Please send a message to your elected representatives asking them to co-sponsor the "American Freedom Agenda Act."

Next, forward this message to friends and ask them to do the same. We need to flood Congress from all directions, and keep doing it until they bring this bill to a vote and pass it.

This bill has trans-partisan support. It comes from Ron Paul. It's what we've been asking for. Let's support this bill with everything we've got.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Disarm the Cops

Disarming police officers is the logical solution to prevent another tragedy like this.

At least we should prohibit them from carrying firearms while off-duty.

That would have prevented this, right?

Just as addicts will get illegal drugs, so it is that deranged individuals are not deterred by law.

Other thoughts related to this Crandon shooting:

Questions have been raised about Tyler Peterson passing the background check to become a police officer, which makes me think, he's 20! What "background" is there to check?

How low must the pay be for law enforcement officers in rural WI that 20 year-olds, who are not even responsible enough to drink, can become cops? If teachers have to get Ed. degrees to be "qualified," why shouldn't law enforcement officers be forced to get criminal justice degrees?

Also, he was killed by a SWAT team? In rural Wisconsin? I hope in that remote region of the state SWAT troops are part-time. Or maybe there are enough drug dealers in the area to keep them busy with no-knock raids.

Charge People for the Crimes They Actually Committed

Rev. Eddie Thompson of Jena, LA has an excellent article on the Jena Six. The article covers a lot of ground, but I want to focus on this: It looks like the second-degree murder charge was another example of what Vache Folle calls overcharging, charging people with more serious crimes in order to extract plea bargains from them and avoid jury trials. Thompson asks the D.A., "Why charge those black students with attempted second-degree murder if you intended to adjudicate lesser charges against them all along?"

The problem isn't just about race; whites get over-charged too, though probably not as often or as severely as blacks are. Which do you think is the best way to make the criminal justice system more equitable:

1. Overcharge whites to the extent blacks are now overcharged?
2. Overcharge blacks only to the extent whites are now overcharged?
3. Stop the practice of overcharging?

"Colorblind" conservatives may favor #1, whereas progressives may favor #2. Perhaps #3, the just solution, is not "practical," as the justice system has too many cases to process. The problem is, innocent people and others who refuse to plea would get the Genarlow Wilson treatment.

The problem of the overloaded justice system is that there are too many laws and too many crimes. If actual crimes against person and property were prosecuted, and laws against mere vices were repealed, the cops and the courts would do a much better job.

And race relations would be better.

Kidnapping?

The crimes O.J. Simpson is already accused of are serious enough: armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon. But kidnapping? Yes, it is in the nature of armed robbery to "detain somebody against his will" for as long as the robbery takes place. But I thought kidnapping was abduction. I thought kidnapping was not stealing from a person, but stealing the person. Not, "Don't move, or I'll kill you," but rather "come with me, or I'll kill you." According to the new definition, apparently every armed robbery is also a kidnapping.

You learn something new every day. Either that, or the Las Vegas prosecutor isn't interested in justice, but in piling on charge after charge to encourage O.J. to plea bargain. The guy who convicted O.J., wouldn't that be something! If that is the case, the prosecutor's probably a greater threat to the public than O.J. himself is.