The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, April 04, 2009

No middle class tax cut? What happened?

The Silent Majority

Obama's middle class tax cut may not survive budget. So read the ABC News headline. I was reminded of Bush Sr.’s “no new taxes” rhetoric and more of the same from his successor Bill Clinton. Is it realistic to expect Obama to hold true to his promises of a middle class tax cut? I think the evidence would point to a resounding no.

The truth is that any forthcoming “tax break” would be swallowed by the rise in costs in other areas. Simple mathematics will prove this point. Obama’s proposed spending will necessarily negate any tax cuts for the long term. Sooner or later the bill is going to come due and we are all going to pay. We shouldn’t forget this important fact; what debt our federal government incurs is paid by you and me.

Our current federal debt, or a more meaningful term public debt, stands at a staggering 11 trillion dollars. Maybe it is more meaningful to look at that number in long hand $11,042,533,971,450. That works out to about $36,314 per person. Let that sink in for a moment. At some point in the future this will be paid by tax payers, you, me and our progeny. Let me be clear, Obama is not responsible for this number. This was waiting for him when he arrived.

What does rest squarely on Obama’s shoulders is that which he has done and that which he plans to do. By conservative estimates his 2009 budget will add an additional $1.2 trillion to the debt. This does not include spending contained in the stimulus which is almost another trillion on top of that. Over the next ten years the number rises to almost 9 trillion added to the national debt.

A little perspective is helpful to grasp the enormity of spending that Obama has proposed. If you added all of the debt incurred from George Washington to George W. Bush you would still be under the amount Obama will spend in the next 5 years. Restated Obama will out spend every other president we’ve ever had combined.

You may be thinking that he is just going to raise taxes on the rich to cover all of this spending. Again a little perspective is helpful. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States for fiscal year 2008 was $13,840,000,000,000; let’s call it $14 trillion. If you combine our current $11 trillion debt with the $9 trillion expected to result from Obama’s spending you have a nice round $20 trillion. That means if the government confiscated every single cent earned by every man, women, child and business in the United States for an entire year we would still owe about $7 trillion. Which is nearly the GDP of Germany and Japan combined.

As I stated at the beginning, tax cuts are more than unlikely, they are all but impossible in the long term. The past may be less important than the future. Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for this fiasco. The republicans claim the have repented and have blasted Obama on his spending. Obama has responded by stating defiantly that “I suspect that some of those republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them.” In that statement he is not wrong but it misses the point.

I think an analogy may be in order; the republicans drove the nation into a ditch with their wasteful spending. No doubt about it. The voters responded by taking the keys and handing them over to Obama. Most assumed that Obama would back the car from the precipice slowly and responsibly, as he promised to do. No one expected him to jump behind the wheel, throw the car in drive, hit the gas and go screaming off the cliff; the whole while blaming the other party for leaving the car there to start with.

If anyone doubts the numbers I have used please feel free to look them up yourself; you will find them accurate. (Some estimates vary wildly; where that was the case I tried to err on the conservative side.)

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Barack W. Bush?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Friday, April 03, 2009

Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia! Obama Chia Pet

Hilarious! Check these out:

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Citizen grand jury indicts Obama

Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims - By Bob Unruh, © 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.

The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.

The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency.

Read more here.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

G-20 pumps $1 trillion into beating recession


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Leaders of the world's largest economies agreed on Thursday to a package worth more than $1 trillion to tackle the global economic crisis.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown heralded the emergence of a "new world order" Thursday following the release of what he called an "unprecedented" package of measures to tackle the crisis.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Who Is Arming the Mexican Drug Cartels?

by Michael Gaddy

The state, Mexican authorities and their US propaganda arm, known in most circles as the Mainstream Media, have recently embarked on a huge disinformation campaign to demonize the American gun owner as the supplier of weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. Everyone in the media, with the possible exception of Lou Dobbs, has joined in the campaign of lies.

Shown here, on a CBS special, is video proof of the lies and disinformation by CBS, US and Mexican authorities. Anderson Cooper and Janet Napolitano are either ignorant or complicit in the myth that M-203s, RPGs and hand grenades are readily available to the American gun consumer. Most intelligent folks, and those without a state sponsored agenda, realize these weapons are usually only available to the military.

This week, Secretary of Homeland Defense, Janet Napolitano, announced a new plan to curb the alleged flow of weapons from the US into Mexico. This program, which will cost the overwhelmed US Taxpayer another 700 million dollars plus, includes machines that employ what is referred to as "virtual strip search." This plan will supposedly slow down the number of guns traveling south from the US to the drug cartels in Mexico. If this program has the same success rate as the government’s efforts at stopping the flow of contraband north into the US, the Mexican drug cartels will have nuclear weapons by the end of April!

While not stated as such, I am sure this will eventually morph into "the war on guns." Funny, is it not, every time our government "declares war" on something, it always increases exponentially! Whether it is poverty, drugs, terrorism or guns, when the state declares war, rapid growth and expansion of that which is the object of that war is inevitable.

Napolitano stated, "70% of the weapons in the hands of the drug cartels are coming from the US." The implication is obvious she is referring to private gun owners. The MSM sucks up this propaganda like a large-mouth bass takes a worm, and regurgitates it to Boobus without ever questioning the truthfulness behind the claim. Neither Mexican, nor US officials, has ever produced an ounce of proof to back up these wild accusations.

Wednesday, on MSNBC, in an interview by Andrea Mitchell, New York Congressional Representative, Nita Lowey stated 97% of the guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels originated in the US. Representative Lowey, in her support for a new Assault Weapons Ban, alleges these firearms are coming from the American gun owner. She is correct in her assertion many of the firearms being used by the cartels are coming from Americans. They are, but, from the American taxpayer, not the American gun owner!

The fact is: the Mexican authorities have refused to release the serial numbers of weapons confiscated from drug cartel members. Releasing the serial numbers would implicate the corrupt governments of the US and Mexico and their involvement in arming the drug cartels.

Considering the above, it is my belief the Mexican drug cartels are procuring a large percentage of weapons from the world’s largest supplier of these weapons: the United States government!

The type of weapons confiscated and the unwillingness of those involved to supply weapon serial numbers is a clear indicator.

Because of the "narco-wars," the US government supplies the Mexican military with arms and training. The Mexican military has trained at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, and the arms budget from the US to Mexico is in the billions.

Drug profits realized from the sale of drugs in the US by Mexico’s violent drug cartels are estimated to be as high as 40 billion dollars per year. With that amount of money, is there any question as to the ability of the cartels to purchase military weapons provided by the United States government from corrupt Mexican government officials and members of their military?

In the mid 1990s, U.S. government statistics revealed at least six billion dollars a year was spent by the cartels in bribes and payoffs to officials in the Mexican government and military.

In February of 1997, the Clinton Administration announced it was certifying the Mexican government as a "full ally" in the war on drugs. Clinton’s Drug Czar, Army General Barry McCaffrey, described Mexican General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, who headed up the Mexican National Institute to Combat Drugs (INCD) as a "man of absolute unquestioned character."(Emphasis added) Shortly after McCaffrey’s statement, Rebollo was arrested for taking bribes from one of the largest drug cartels in Mexico. Rebollo had been present at secret meetings involving the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

When speaking of drug cartels and military weapons, one would be remiss in not covering the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and their decades-long involvement in worldwide drug trafficking. The evidence produced at the Iran Contra hearings proved the CIA was involved with smuggling cocaine in order to fund the Nicaraguan Contra Army. Is there any question they are involved with the Mexican drug cartels and perhaps facilitating their procurement of military weapons, or better yet, trading arms for drugs?

In 2007, then President George W. Bush, with help from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was able to get legislation passed that would provide Mexico with at least 1.4 billion dollars for Mexican military and police forces.

In May of 2008, Kristen Bricker wrote of Plan Mexico, "Plan Mexico will provide resources, equipment, and training to the Mexican government, police, and military. It will not give Mexico liquid funds. The US military, government agencies such as USAID, and US defense contractors such as mercenary firms and weapons manufacturers will receive funding to carry out Plan Mexico. Plan Mexico is yet another bill to line the pockets of the military industrial complex."

Our government is certainly aware of the rampant corruption within the Mexican government and military, yet we continue to provide them with money, military weapons and training, including all of the military weapons mentioned earlier in this article and shown in film clips by the mainstream media as proof positive we need a new Assault Weapons Ban. (AWB)

Our corrupt government, cooperating with Mexico’s equally corrupt government, has embarked on a campaign to deprive American citizens of the means to defend ourselves from tyranny, screening their own involvement in arming violent criminal drug cartels. We can weakly submit, or stand for truth and liberty; the choice is ours.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Obama's Hollow Promise

Despite having promised not to raid medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law, his administration yesterday raided a pot dispensary in San Francisco. On what basis? Alleged state law violations. Specifically, evasion of state sales taxes. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws notes, "The normal process in such cases is for the Board of Equalization to audit the business in question, NOT for federal agents to enter like storm troopers and steal all of the business's inventory."

The Obama policy appears to be whenever a state law is violated, regardless of what the state has to say about it, the feds will continue the raids and continue prosecuting people for violation of federal law. Another hollow promise of change, with the one condition that nothing substantive will actually change, only the words we use to discuss the issues.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

AIG & Friends: Casino Economics

by Todd Steinberg

When you enter a casino, the implicit agreement between the gambler and the house is that whatever money you win is yours and whatever money you lose belongs to the house. Now imagine a scenario where the agreement was that anything you win is yours, but anything you lose will be covered by everyone else in the casino. If everyone in the casino were aware of this policy and hastened to take advantage of the policy forthwith, they would crash the system in a matter of hours because inevitably the gamblers would lose a lot more than what can be covered by the collective net worth of the others.

Now imagine a situation where it was just like a regular casino except that some of the people have the fortunate privilege of keeping all their winnings, but socializing all of their losses. As long as these gamblers are winning, you as a casino-goer might never become aware of the flip side to their deal: that if they began to lose, money would be taken from your pocket to cover their losses. And so it was for a long time, these privileged gamblers never had to ask anyone else to pay for their bad bets since they never really lost a hand.

Then the privileged ones' luck changed. At first they're able to cover some of their losses themselves, and they do this by placing bigger bets hoping that on the next hand they'll win. They lose yet again, and at a certain point they no longer have enough reserves to cover the next bet. Their only choice now is to enact the other side of their predetermined policy: to force everyone in the casino to hand over some money so that these gamblers can keep playing.

At this point, many of the other casino goers are very upset at this deal. After all, they thought everyone was responsible for their own losses, and surely not for the losses of anyone else. Even those who were betting conservatively the whole time now have to give up their profits that were painstakingly made in spite of all the bad bets the other guys were making.

Reluctantly, everyone gives their portion of the money to cover the other people's losses because they have no choice. They can't cash in their chips without paying their share and they aren't allowed to leave the casino either until they make good on the lopsided deal that others made on their behalf.

The privileged gamblers are back in business. However, the policy that enabled the foolhardy gambling to begin with is still in place and in short order the losses again become insurmountable. The dark side of the policy is once again activated and the people are forced to pay for the others' losses a second time. On this occasion, the other gamblers do not have enough money in the present to pay the losses, so the original plan is a bust. The solution is to have a huge loan taken out, to be paid by the other gamblers over the course of a number of years. The rationale is that the new loans will enable the bad debts to be paid and to pave the way for future prosperity.

Unfortunately, by now everyone is a whole lot poorer and very upset at those who have made their lives so miserable. They don't know whether to blame the house, the foolhardy gamblers, or the policy that made it possible. The gamblers are told that if the privileged gamblers' losses aren't addressed, it would doom the whole casino. People bicker and point fingers, but one thing's for sure, they no longer gamble as much and they do whatever they can to hold onto their money.

The casino remains open even in spite of less business and eventually the loans are called in to be repaid, but there is not enough to make good on the debts. At this point no more loans can be created, and no more money can be extracted from the other gamblers, so the only choice left is for the house to create a huge number of new chips to pay back the loans and to put money back in the hands of the gamblers so they can continue doing the same thing they were doing previously.

Everyone reluctantly agrees to this policy since the only other option is for the casino to go bankrupt. However, the new chip creation policy only helps out a few: the ones who lent the money and amazingly, the well-connected, high-rolling gamblers who got everyone in this mess in the first place.

By the time the less-connected gamblers get their chips, the minimum bets at all the tables have become too high for most people in the casino. Even among those who can afford to sit at the table now see that their winnings don't go as far as they used to. Because of all these wealth extractions, loans, and chip creation policies, everyone on the whole is much poorer than they were a few years ago and there wasn't much they could have done anyway since these decisions were being made for them.

What is the solution? At this point, it's anyone's guess. The gamblers might go along with the scheme indefinitely so long as they have some minimal needs met, or the gamblers might storm the house and take over the casino. There are too many variables to adequately know what the future might hold in the short term.

However, if the gamblers could go back in time, they would make sure that there's a sound policy of keeping profits and losses in the hands of the individual who makes and puts the money on the table. They would also ensure that no one ever creates new chips out of thin air since doing so only helps the well-connected and devalues the chips for everyone else.

In short, they would be vigilant in ensuring that everyone would have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail. Nobody would be forced to pay for the mistakes of others and because of this, less mistakes would be made since all gamblers would know that nobody is covering for them should they lose. It is only natural that the people would want to prosper in an environment where everyone is financially responsible for their own actions, and not for the actions of everyone else.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Obama Announces End of United States Government, Anarchy Reigns in USA

President Barack Obama went on national television to announce today that he has officially abolished the United States Government and is sending all Congressmen, bureaucrats, and even his own cabinet home. He personally distributed pink slips to hundreds of federal government workers this morning to commemorate the event.

Mass suicides were reported at Internal Revenue Service buildings across the nation as power-mad pencil pushers realized that they no longer had any power and would be at the mercy of the American People.

DEA and BATFE agents, fearing reprisals from the medical marijuana proponents and gun rights activists, were reported to have hijacked several (former) government vehicles to make a run for the Canadian border.

The military, unsure of what to do next, decided to integrate with their at-home National Guard units and hope that the States could find something for them to do to protect the nation from foreign invasion.

Meanwhile, a man in a ski mask wearing a shirt that says "Anti-Government Wacko" was seen standing on a smoking pile of debris that was once a federal bank building was heard screaming


Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Germany becomes the First Country to admit Clandestine Chemtrails Operations

For all those activists who have been investigating and reporting on clandestine government operations around the world to manipulate our weather patterns, this news from Germany is groundbreaking.

The TV news report states that “the military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed…

“We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.”

“This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements -- although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.”

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Suspicious Deaths of Those Who Knew Too Much Under Bush`s Watch

by Diana Lee

As of January 20, 2009, George W. Bush finally made his exit from the Oval Office, leaving his fingerprints as the U.S. ‘terror’ president who has not only brought the once proud nation to its knees but also opened a Pandora box of plagues to the world - global ‘terror’ fear, Islamophobia, financial doom and incessant wars. He also left a trail of mysterious deaths that appear to be cover-ups for his surreptitious constitutional coup d’état of the United States for eight long, devastating years.

Not surprisingly, the Bush-Cheney administration has covered its tracks of criminal activities by closing files on some major unsolved cases: stolen elections, anthrax, Iraq-related government deceptions and lies, and corporate-related corruptions. As Bush no longer controls the government and its agencies, these suspicious deaths need to be reopened and thoroughly investigated for the sake of truth, justice and accountability.

Some of these untimely death cases were officially ruled as “suicides” and others were tagged as “accidents”. But all victims met their deaths at a time when they were about to reveal damaging secrets of the Bush’s corrupt regime or they stood in Bush’s way to usurp power for fascism over the American society. Although there were many lives extinguished that didn’t get media attention during the ‘torturous reign’ of Bush-Cheney, the compiled list below contains the high-profile cases that expose the Bush gang as ’thieves’, ‘thugs’ and worse still, ‘traitors’ to the United States of America.

Read the rest at this link.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Consulting the Chart on the Economy

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Monday, March 30, 2009

For Liberty Trailer - Let It Not Be Said We Did Nothing

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Fred: La Rubia y La Droga

From Fred

I read with horror that Hillary Clinton, posing as the Secretary of State, has been in Mexico talking with Felipe Calderon, Mexico’s president, about “the problem of drugs.” Horror is the reasonable response whenever an American official is allowed to pass beyond the beltway. Or stay within it. They never know what they are doing. Oh god.

In fairness, I have to concede that Ms. Clinton is well qualified to talk to Calderon, since he speaks…English. Further, I concede that she does have a grasp of things Latin American, engendered by many years in…Arkansas. Aaagh.

May I suggest that the former First Basilisk had no idea where she was or what she was doing? Oh god, oh god. Oh god.

To show that utter futility can, if not be fun, at least serve to pass an idle hour, let me express the common Mexican and indeed South American view of the, oh god, War on Drugs. It goes thusly:

Latin America does not have a drug problem. It has a United States problem. The problem is that Americans want drugs. The US is a huge, voracious, insatiable market for drugs. Americans very much want their brain candy. They will pay whatever they need to pay to get it. All the world knows this.

Why, Mexicans wonder, is America’s drug habit Mexico’s problem? If Americans don’t want drugs, they can stop buying them. Nobody forces anyone to use the stuff.

Ah, the rub is that Washington doesn’t want Americans to have drugs. All right, say Mexicans, that is a problem between the American government and the American people. Let America solve it.

Why, Mexican’s ask—read this sentence carefully—should Mexico tear itself in pieces, lose thousands of dead annyally, and turn into a war zone to solve a problem that America refuses to solve?

Think. Why doesn’t the American government run sting operations at, say, Berkeley and Stanford, and Rice and George Washington U., and put those students caught using drugs in the slam for two years per? How about a sting at your daughter’s high school, with a year in some nasty reformatory, which is to say any reformatory, for those caught? It could be a family sort of thing. You could visit her and hear what fascinating things she had learned about compulsory Lesbian sex.

The reason of course is that any effort to punish large classes of politically influential people would result in a revolution. You can’t jail Harvard. So Washington doesn’t. Instead it expects Mexico to do something about drugs.

Now, on the off-chance that you live in an impermeable bubble, and don’t know who uses drugs, I will tell you. I note that I am not speculating about this. I spent eight years working as a police reporter from Anacostia to South Central, and know whereof I speak.

Blue-collar people use drugs—crack, for example. I’ve spent whole days arresting down-scale beauticians in rattletrap Chevys as they bought the stuff from black dealers in the grubby satellite towns outside Chicago. High rollers in Houston use as much powder as they ski in (and it happens to my certain knowledge on Capitol Hill). White professionals have bags of grass in the garage. So, most likely, do their children: In the suburban high schools of metro Washington, e.g., Yorktown and Washington and Lee, kids have easy access to Mary Jane, acid, shrooms, nitrous, Ecstasy, crystal. Good ol’ boys in Texas make, grow, and use drugs. Country kids in Virginia have a few plants out in the woods. And so on.

Don’t I remember that Hillary’s husband used to smoke chunky interns—marijuana, I meant to say, marijuana—but didn’t inhale?

Which is to say, as Mexicans know, drugs are about as illegal in the US as is the downloading of music. It is punished by very light sentences for first-time users (which of course means first-time caughters). High-school kids get a week of “community service,” perhaps, which they regard as both amusing and a badge of honor. In general, little real effort is made to apprehend respectable white transgressors.

In short, the WOD is a fraud. In America the drug racket is a mildly disreputable business, tightly integrated into the economy, running smoothly, employing countless federal cops, prison guards, ineffectual rehab centers and equally ineffectual psychotherapists, and providing bribes to officials and huge deposits of laundered money to banks. Narcos in the US do not engage in pitched battles with the army because they have no reason to. The government barely inconveniences them.

So why should Mexico fight this war for Washington?

In a column, Pat Buchanan addresses the violence in Mexico, and asks:
“Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America's young or a failed state of 110,000 million on our southern border? Some choice. Some country we've become.”

Some country indeed, on many grounds. And the WOD might be a good idea if it did anything beyond keeping the price of drugs up. But it doesn’t. I suggest two things to Pat:
First, Mexico suffers narco-violence only because Washington expects Mexico to do what Washington won’t. Failed state? Take away the narco wars and Mexico is a reasonably successful upper-third-world nation. If it fails, it will be because we pushed it into failure.

Second, America’s young already have almost unlimited access to drugs. Many students experiment with them. Few become addicts. Why? Because they don’t want to. How is that for simple?

It is common sense (the young actually do have some of it) and not the DEA that prevents addiction. Do you think that few kids become alcoholics because they need an ID to buy booze?

(Wild thought: Maybe we ought to give America’s young credit for not being complete morons. Nah, never fly.)

Mexicans know all of the foregoing. Remember that there is a steady flow of Mexican nationals in both directions across the border. Americans are out of touch with Mexico, but Mexicans are not out of touch with America. They also know, as Americans seem not to, that corruption runs wide and deep north of the Rio Bravo. (A common story: when you cross the border illegally with the coyote, you wait behind a bush until the Border Patrol guy who has been bribed comes on duty.) They know that when narcos can offer bribes running into the millions, American officials will accept them as readily as anyone else. Would you refuse a million inflating green ones to unobserve a truck crossing the border? I would.

A business with that much money isn’t going to be shut down, obviously, which is why fifty years on, the WOD have accomplished exactly nothing. And South America knows it.

The Latin American attitude toward the largely imaginary War on Drugs could be summed up thusly: “Solve your own problems, gringo. We aren’t your mother. Leave us alone.” Fat chance.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Sunday, March 29, 2009

'Simply Submit'

by Vin Suprynowicz

“I just finished reading the article on Excessive Force on page 2B,” wrote in Ron the Former Police Officer, on March the 5th. “Another person was apparently injured in a police confrontation, followed by the usual lawsuit. As a former police detective, I have a solution on how to avoid 99 percent of all injuries, lawsuits, and deaths sustained as a result of a police confrontation,” offers Officer Ron:

“When stopped by an officer, do as he asks. Never run from the police, never fight with the police, never get into a shouting match, don’t try to escape from custody. Simply submit, but try to obtain all the info you can, i.e. why am I being stopped, etc. If you feel the officer is in error, there will be ample opportunity to contest the allegations later.”

That comprises the entirety of Officer Ron’s letter, and advice: “Just submit.”

On March 27, 2006 People magazine published an article that reported what happened to a number of Americans who “just submitted”:

“Heather Southerland had just gotten in her car after an evening visit with a girlfriend in Leesville, La.,” wrote reporter Bill Hewitt in the article, headlined “Phony Cops, Real Victims.”

“As she drove away, a green Ford Bronco pulled close behind her, flashing its lights. Southerland, 24, turned onto a deserted side street. ‘The man got out of his Bronco and said, “Leesville Police Department, undercover narcotics, step out of the car,” ’ she recalls. He ordered her to walk backwards toward him and put her hands on the trunk of her vehicle. She asked to see his badge and he refused. ‘He said I didn’t need to see his badge,’ she says. ‘I knew right then something extremely bad was about to happen.’”

It did. Seconds later, as she tried to flee, the man grabbed her and raped her at knifepoint. Because she “just submitted.”

“Such incidents happen more often than many people imagine,” the magazine reports. And in this “age of the Internet, where badges and uniforms are readily available, it has never been easier to pull off. While no national statistics are kept, earlier this year the Chicago Sun-Times ran a series on fake cops that documented how in the past three years there had been more than 1,000 cases in the Chicago area alone of people posing as police to commit a variety of crimes. …

“On Long Island, Reginald Gousse is now on trial for the 2005 murder of assistant bank branch manager James Gottlieb, 49, who was shot after Gousse, who has pleaded not guilty, allegedly pretended to be a police officer and pulled him over. The mortally wounded Gottlieb told a witness, ‘I stopped because I thought it was a cop.’

So he “just submitted.”

“In Blacksburg, S.C., Charles Connor is accused of going into a convenience store last September in a police-style khaki shirt with a two-way radio and a gun on his hip and telling owner Nick Patel that he was a North Carolina cop. … For 90 minutes he hung out in the store, chatting with Patel until they were alone. Then he demanded all his money. Patel, married with two children, turned over $5,168. Then, police say, Connor, a former corrections officer who has pleaded not guilty, shot Patel in the head. ‘Connor knew enough to convincingly pretend to be a police officer,’ says Cherokee County Sheriff Bill Blanton. …

“Sometimes a moment’s compliance is all the fake cop is looking for,” the People article continues. “According to authorities, last September Luz Heredia, 53, of Melrose Park, Ill., was in a car on her way to her factory job with two coworkers when a man approached and flashed a badge. Moments later he allegedly grabbed Heredia, who had six grandkids, and pulled her from the vehicle, saying, ‘You’re coming with me.’ He forced her into his SUV. Less than two hours later she was found sexually assaulted and beaten; she died five days later. (Jorge Dominguez, 28, has been charged in the crime and has pleaded not guilty.) ‘My mother had her gut instinct,’ says Heredia’s daughter Lina Hernandez. ‘But she didn’t want to go against the law.’”

So she “just submitted.”

Ladies: Ever been advised to drive to a well-lighted area where there are plenty of witnesses before pulling over, when you see those flashing lights in your rear window? Read “Women handcuffed for driving to a well-lit area while being stopped by police.”

And what about when it turns out to be a REAL police officer? Did Las Vegan Ronald Perrin, 32, armed only with a basketball when “badge-heavy” Metro Officer Bruce Gentner emptied his 14-round Glock at him, really “refuse to comply” with some legitimate order after Gentner waited till they were alone on a night-time street to initiate their confrontation back in 1999? We may never know, since the unarmed Mr. Perrin did not survive to testify.

Even though the coroner’s jury voted 6–1 to let Officer Gentner walk, jury foreman Mark LePage said Gentner went too far that April night at Tropicana Avenue and Rainbow Boulevard. “We all came to the conclusion that we couldn’t convict him, but we all had reservations about what had happened.” As long as inquest juries are instructed that a homicide is justifiable providing the officer who kills merely perceived a threat – even if the victim turns out to have been unarmed – then an officer’s use of deadly force will never be found criminally negligent, Mr. LePage continued. “Several jurors voiced their difficulty with the fact that most of the shots came from the rear,” Mr. LePage said. “Everyone had a problem with that. He (Perrin) had his back to the officer. … The way the system is now, the cop always walks.”

How about Orlando Barlow, 28, shot and killed with a .223 rifle by Metro Officer Brian Hartman as Barlow kneeled unarmed in a suburban front yard in 2003? Plenty of witnesses saw Mr. Barlow doing his best to “submit” and “comply” with every order cops shouted at him. How much good did the decision to “submit” do Orlando Barlow, Officer Ron?

Dave Kallas, president of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, later called a press conference to insist the “BDRT” T-shirts donned by members of Metro’s Southwest 11 District to celebrate the Barlow hit (emblazoned with AR-15s like the weapon used that night) stood for “Big Dogs Run Together,” not the rumored “Baby’s Daddy Removal Team.”

You want more, right here in Vegas? Look up Charles Bush, Daniel Mendoza, and Henry Rowe, for starters.

(I loved the 1996 coroner’s inquest for hapless hobo Henry Rowe. Cops initially said chemical tests on Rowe’s clothing as well as the officer’s would prove or disprove Officer George Pease’s assertion that Rowe grabbed Pease’s gun after the officer rousted him in his isolated cardboard shack late at night, whereupon Officer Pease had to slit Rowe’s throat and shoot him in the head – Officer Pease’s third on-duty kill, all conveniently lacking any witnesses. By the time of the inquest, though, Metro had decided not to run the chemical tests, explaining they’d be costly and most likely “inconclusive.” And if you believe that, I’ve got some “furtive movements toward the waistband” that I can sell you at a reasonable price.)

Submit, submit, submit. Die, die, die. And they won’t even let you in the door to the half-empty hearing room if you try to attend one of their supposedly public “coroner’s Inquests.”

Europe’s Jews and other minorities “submitted to lawful orders” from 1934 to 1944. Where did it get them? Dead, and the Swiss insurance companies wouldn’t even pay off their remaining survivors, since the Nazis had somehow neglected to issue proper death certificates!

This used to be a free country. For the first 50 years of the life of this Republic – when things were pretty peaceful, from all reports – we didn’t even HAVE any police forces as we know them today. When was the Constitution amended, Former Officer Ron? When did they take the old part that says we’re to remain “secure in our persons, houses papers, and effects,” free from search and seizure unless a warrant is issued “upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation …” and add to it your new section that reads “Oh yeah, unless someone calling himself a policeman decides to stop you and issue whatever arbitrary orders and commands he can dream up, at which point you have to ‘submit’ or else he can shoot you down like a dog”?

I’ve got my copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in front of me, Officer Ron – you know, the one every “public servant” swears an oath to “protect and defend,” even at the cost of his or her own, precious “officer safety”? And I can’t find that part.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Stimulus and Change

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Here's to you Mr. Jefferson

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

George Galloway speaks to a Zionist

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

The Obama Fraud: Welcome Back to Reality

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: