Common Law and Self-Defense

Interesting discussion about Common Law and Self-Defense by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned, in light of recent evens in Florida.

Anonymous and the Second Amendment

Much has been made in recent times of the cyber-antics of the hacker collective known as Anonymous.  The group has claimed responsibility for data breaches and Distributed Denial of Service attacks on countless religious, corporate, and government servers in the past few years, with 2011 seeing a sharp rise in activity.  This increase in activity can mainly be attributed to the notorious rise of splinter group LulzSec, the publishing of military files and diplomatic cables by watchdog group Wikileaks (and subsequent government responses), and the attempted legislation of internet censorship in the U.S. via SOPA and PIPA, although there are those who believe that the time has simply come.

There have been a plethora of responses to Anonymous and their active resistance tactics against what they perceive (not without cause) as widespread wrongdoing, corruption and censorship in our political and economic systems.  These responses generally range from hero worship to cries of Terrorism, and everywhere in between.

However, the media and the blogosphere have been relatively mum on the topic of what Anonymous (not to mention the social media-driven Arab Spring) has shown us about the power of the Internet, especially as it pertains to the United States' Second Amendment. 

We have already pointed out that there is a large-scale ground war being waged for the soul and future of the Internet.  Now, more than ever, it is important to take a look at what has made this war possible; specifically, how a single father living in a housing project can obtain the power to successfully take on the U.S. Government (and, subsequently, the power to help the U.S. government track and arrest other such individuals).

The Internet is a beast unlike any mankind has seen before.  With a seemingly-infinite amount of information freely available to anybody with a phone or cable line, it is now possible to do just about anything online, from shopping to earning a Master's Degree.  Theoretically, a motivated individual could learn just about anything online; with enough patience (and a skillful choice of Google search terms), one could learn everything a college degree has to offer, and more, for free.  In fact, university sites worldwide have begun posting lesson materials and even offering free courses with open and limitless enrollment.  With this much information available (and currently uncensored) to the average citizen, ignorance and lack of education have become a willful choice, rather than a tragedy of circumstance.

Equally important is the Open Source movement, which has exploded over the past decade and created a vast market of tools and utilities which are free to download, use, modify and distribute.  Such projects are run by a dedicated base of volunteer coders who modify, expand and perfect the software as they see fit, creating customized and powerful tools for almost any use case.  With thousands of such tools emerging from the movement every year, there is an open source alternative to everything.

As any true believer in the Second Amendment will tell you, the right to bear arms is not merely just a tool to ensure citizens have the right to defend themselves against lone criminal aggressors (unless they are outside their house, and as long as they can prove to a court that they made every effort to hide and retreat, and had no choice but to use deadly force).  The Founding Fathers, having just fought a war for freedom against a tyrannical and vastly superior force, wanted to ensure that there would be an everlasting physical deterrent against tyranny and opression (having correctly predicted that the lawful deterrent of the Constitution may not always be strictly adhered to).  Perhaps V said it best from behind the Guy Fawkes mask: "People should not be afraid of their government; Government should be afraid of its people."

Here we are, 236 years later.  There is no civilian militia (nor any foreign power) which can match the technology, training and discipline of the United States Military - but then again, the Second Amendment is not about being superior in might to the government, nor is it about violence or coups.  To me, anyway, the Second Amendment is about reminding the powers-that-be that this country was founded on a Fuck-You-Attitude towards authoritarianism, and that we will not bow to threats against our freedom, be they foreign or domestic in origin.

And that, if nothing else, is what the Anonymous movement has shown.  Through an albeit controversial show of force, Anonymous has proven that with free military-grade encryption and powerful anonymization tools, a little bit of patience and motivation, and a whole lot of talent, the playing field has been effectively leveled by the Internet.  There are no social, educational or financial barriers to what one can achieve on the Internet; all one needs is a connection and a willingness to learn.  The technology and training available to the NSA and the Military are effectively identical to those freely available to citizens online; the discipline is something that must be developed from one's self.

As recent events worldwide have shown, the power of an idea has become increasingly competitive with the power of an armed force.  And on the Internet, Ideas are free.  On the Internet, Ideas are weapons.

On the Internet, Ideas are King.

Elite Squad

Just saw this Brazilian movie, "Elite Squad." An excellent action movie in its own right, this flick has some kind of political message as well, which is kind of uncommon.  Well, I should say it's uncommon because it's not a cheesy message.  It's a "fuck the system" message with a "tough on crime" ingredient to it.  Doesn't make sense?  Heck, I'm really not so sure either.  There's definitely a Nationalistic aspect to it, with a heavily militarized police force at the center stage.  But outside of or even against politics.  You could describe Batman in the same terms (Frank Miller's Batman, of course).  I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't like Extreme Nationalism--which, up there with Socialism, I consider the antithesis of Individualism, the latter The One True Path in my mind--and I am viscerally against the militarization of police forces, but this movie's message confuses the hell out of me, because I like it.  It reveals a thick hypocrisy that we still try to cover up in this country (talking about the old US of A now), with politicians using phony "wars" (on drugs, in this particular case) to dupe citizens into perpetuating their hold on power.  The "Elite Squad" just decided to take that obvious if unwritten mandate to fall like the wrath of God unto the heads of a bunch of douchebags.  And kick some ass and take some names.  And that part I like.  But it makes me guilty about it.  And I dig that too.

Thing of the Week

The Colt Python, a classic .357 Magnum revolver, in manufacture until the late 90s.  Co-star of the AMC TV series "The Walking Dead" as the main character's -- Deputy Rick Grimes -- side arm, the price of a Python in mint condition has been at an all-time high, with some auctions reaching over $2000.  A fine weapon, I can't imagine it not selling out almost instantaneously if Colt ever decided to make it again.  I hope they do.

FAC Files Lawsuit Against Obama Administration

The First Amendment Coalition has filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice demanding that the DOJ and the Obama Administration release a memo detailing the legal justification for the use of "Lethal Targeting" against Al Qaeda cleric and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted and killed in a unilaterally authorized drone strike, along with United States citizen Samir Khan, editor of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine Inspire.  The lawsuit was filed after repeated attempts to obtain a redacted copy of the memo via the Freedom of Information Act were denied.

With fear and public outcry growing over the passage of the 2012 NDAA (and the Obama Administration pinky-promising that they won't abuse the powers it grants), one has to wonder how far of a stretch it would be to see U.S. citizens indefinitely detained by the president, when it has already become an acceptable practice to have them assassinated without a trial (as long as it would be SUPER hard to go get them alive).

Cognitive Dissonance and Conservative Politics in America

Modern liberals in America are not what they used to be in the 19th century--namely, defenders of free markets and individualism, i.e., freedom from government.  Instead, this new(ish) breed believes in an "enlightened" government that is charged with providing for its citizens and with improving on society by the careful application of social engineering.  While pre-Roosevelt liberals generally believed in the rule of law and saw the importance of decentralization--and of the Constitution as a means to attain such goals--modern liberals would struggle to understand how a two-centuries-old booklet of a document could try to interpose itself between citizens and such lofty goals as those made possible by government-sponsored charity.  Any reasonable person will recognize the central planning efforts proposed by liberals as socialism, but to dare suggest it these days is to be viewed as bitter, name-calling ignoramuses.  But I digress; the title of this post is not "Cognitive Dissonance and Liberal Politics…"

What is Conservatism?

Conservatism as a label denotes a desire to prevent change.  Quite meaningless a descriptor, really.  In practice it generally means a few things:

• A strong desire to impose their views of tradition on others (see drug war and opposition to same-sex marriage, to name two issues).
• A strong belief in individual rights, as long as said rights are not used to consume drugs, have gay sex or to allow an unsanctioned religion to build a YMCA equivalent anywhere near Ground Zero.
• Government should be allowed great leeway in searching for terrorists at home, since good people have nothing to hide--except when it comes to TSA pat downs, which are plainly evil.
• A strong desire to curb government spending, as long as said spending does not affect free medical care for seniors, or the military and security budgets.

And so on.  The list above could very well be seen as a symptom of psychosis--at a social scale.  Modern liberals are bad, but at least not as clearly psychotic in their form of pathological stupidity.

Pathologically Unconstitutional

Modern conservatism's breakdown with reality has been clear for everyone to see in the many GOP Primary debates.  All candidates have a platform mostly consisting of a minimum set of planks:

• Reducing the size of the federal governement.
• Reducing taxes.
• Promoting economic growth.
• A constitutional approach to government (the fact that this is a campaign platform as opposed to getting you jail time for governing in any other way is disheartening in and of itself).

Things get incoherent when you look at the other planks of some of the GOP candidates.  Take Romney on the Constitution, for example.  From his website:

"Mitt Romney’s view of the Constitution is straightforward: its words have meaning. The founding generation adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government according to enduring principles. The job of the judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to elected representatives." [Emphasis mine; correct understanding of the constitution would cause that to read "the issues to the states."]

But on immigration Romney's main proposal is the use of a so called E-Verify system, by which employers will check prospective employees' identities and immigration status.  This means that legal immigrants will be given some form of centrally maintained ID card, containing, among other info, biometric data.  Illegal immigrants will not have such cards and therefore be unable to find legal jobs.  The quite obvious problem with this approach is that citizens will also need to have such cards, otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish illegal immigrants from citizens--this is not really brought up by Romney during debates, but, perhaps more surprisingly, by any of his opponents either.  Meanwhile, the federal government's power to issue federal IDs is nowhere to be found in the powers enumerated by the Constitution.  Incidentally, Gingrich is another supporter of these biometric-based federal ID cards.

The subject of constitutionalism is a rich one.  Romney's, Santorum's and Gingrich's positions on Iran are to use military force if they build or are perceived to attempt to build nuclear weapons.  Again, the problem is obvious:  The President cannot declare wars, only Congress can do so.  That simple fact seems to escape most of the candidates.

Most reproductive law rhetoric spewed by the candidates--which includes even the prohibition of certain types of contraceptives--also fall well outside of the scope of the constitution, except for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which can reasonably be argued on constitutional grounds.

And then there is the War on Drugs.

These are people that, should any of them win the election, will have to swear an oath of office that states, as per Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I believe three of the GOP nominees would be at serious risk of perjury if they were to take that oath.

Coherence Wars

Reducing the size of the federal budget is another mine field of ideological inconsistencies for most of the GOP candidates.  For instance, the yearly expenditures of the U.S. Government break down as such (for 2011):

• Medicare & Medicaid: 24% or $835 B
• Social Security: 20% or $725 B
• Defense and Security Spending: 26% or $929 B*
• Debt interest: 6% or $227 B
• All other spending: 23% or $922 B

* Note that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded by separately handled appropriations bills, and do not figure in the numbers above.

World's top military spenders in 2010.  Source: Wikipedia.

Defense and security spending are the thickest slice of the budget, and by extension a natural candidate for spending cuts consideration.  The United States military expenditures represent 43% of the world's combined military budget.  China is at a distant second place with 7.3% of the world's budget.  We overspend the next 23 countries (21 of which enjoy very friendly relations with us) in the world's hierarchy of military budgets.  It should be easy to reduce our military expenditures by half and still enjoy the peace of mind of "only" overspending the next 5 countries in that list (three of which are strong allies).

And yet all but one of the GOP candidates vocally and proudly state that not a single, solitary dime will be cut from defense spending.  (Incidentally, the role of world police is also nowhere to be found in the list of enumerated powers.)

The GOP answer to budget reduction**?  Platitudes such as Made in America, bring the jobs back home, get the illegals out, impose tariffs on China, and other proposals that seem to be tailored to have little effect at best to catastrophic effects at worst.  They seem to be content in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

**I should say, 3/4 of the GOP's answer.

The Culture Wars and Reason's No Man's Land

I make no secret about favoring Ron Paul for this election cycle (I'll presume to go as far as saying that the same applies to my editorial colleague in this blog).  The Congressman has consistently upheld his principled belief in the rule of law and his defense of the Constitution.  He is the only candidate to put forward a clear, concise, measurable proposal for reducing the federal debt and the presence of government in our lives.

Sadly, in the political environment we find ourselves, populism has taken the lead in ideas, and we the people are engaged in a cultural loud mouth competition where the impact of politics and central government is continuously amplified.  Conservatism is reduced to seeking moral affirmation at the detriment of the rule of law.  "Liberals" are so ideologically lost and self-conflicted that they cannot even comprehend the principles behind their own social-economic policies, and have instead opted out of critical thinking altogether.  The end result of this stupidity arms race is that nothing will likely change after this election cycle, and politics will continue to be an intelligent life's no man's land.

References

http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues
http://mittromney.com/issues
http://www.newt.org/answers
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-shows-pitfalls-romney-proposed-national-e-verify-142419836.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

The Individualist's Dilemma

If I fall, they will look to me and say with pity, "Look, there he fell, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands;"

If I stand, they will look to me and say with reproach, "Look, there he stands, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands;"

And likewise, if I rise, they will look to me and say with admiration, "Look, there he goes, without the comfort of our guidance, nor the strength of our hands."