I Support the Rule of Law

I Support the Rule of Law

Conspiracy Theorist

by Mark Luedtke

publication date: evergreen

You can’t turn on talk radio without somebody dishonestly declaring they support the rule of law. Every time a police officer kills a peaceful individual, government’s apologists start shouting from the rooftops that they support the rule of law. Maybe they don’t know what the rule of law means, but I doubt it. I think they’re lying.

Part of the problem is people have redefined the term over the centuries to make it confusing. The Free Dictionary states: “The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts. In one context the term means rule according to law. No individual can be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or suffer criminal punishment except in strict accordance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context the term means rule under law. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context the term means rule according to a higher law. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems.”

Although ambiguous itself, only the last definition make sense. An exaggerated example illustrates this point: if the government passed a law saying every firstborn child must be killed, nobody would believe that law was legitimate. Nobody would believe it was consistent with the rule of law. That’s because that law violates the rights of its victims. It empowers some to legally commit crimes against others. The law is a law of aggression.

This principle extends to all laws. All laws of aggression are illegitimate and violate the rule of law. Understanding this leads to a simple, unambiguous definition of the rule of law: all laws must apply equally to every person. This is the only definition of the rule of law that makes sense. Nobody can be allowed to steal. Nobody can be allowed to threaten peaceful people. Assault and murder are illegal for everybody. The only aggression allowed would be in defense of property, self or others.

Any law that empowers some to victimize others violates the rule of law. But every government in the world violates the rule of law. The rule of law has never existed in the United States. The vaunted Constitution violates the rule of law.

The fundamental property of modern states is they fund themselves through armed robbery. Governments pass laws legalizing armed robbery from all the people by government agents. They euphemistically call this armed robbery taxation. Pay your taxes or you will be attacked by armed men, robbed, kidnapped or killed. When done by organizations other than the government, people immediately recognize this is illegitimate, but because we’ve been brainwashed by government schools and government-controlled media for generations, most people don’t recognize it’s equally illegitimate when done by government, which is the supreme criminal organization in its geographical area.

The rule of law follows from the non-aggression principle which states nobody is allowed to aggress against the property of another. Property rights follow from self-ownership. Because your body naturally responds only to you, it’s self-evident you own yourself. It follows that any good you produce belongs to you. Any good you trade for belongs to you. You can claim ownership of any unclaimed property by homesteading it. You can consume your property, invest it or save it for future use. You can give your property away. You can form any voluntary associations or contracts you like and refuse any you don’t.

But under the rule of law, nobody may steal your property or force you to do something with it against your will. Government as we know it - the aggressive, thieving state - is incompatible with the rule of law.

Note that if we enjoyed the rule of law, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner and so many others would be alive today, or at least their killers would be punished. Like all human endeavors, justice under the rule of law would not be perfect, but because only the inherently corrupt state can create massive, systematic violence and miscarriages of justice, it would be superior to what we have today.

The rule of law provides a consistent framework for resolving disputes. Because the state creates systematic conflict and violence by claiming rights to the property of others, constantly changing the rules, and becoming ever more aggressive against the people it preys upon, a society based on the non-aggression principle and the rule of law would enjoy less conflict and violence, greater justice, and therefore greater productivity and well-being for everybody.

So the next time you hear some talking head proclaim he or she supports the rule of law, check if he isn’t just apologizing for government aggression and violence. Maybe you’ll see that person in a new light.

I support the rule of law. That means I reject the state’s systematic aggression, theft and violence. If we all supported the rule of law, we’d be much better off.

White Victims Matter Too

White Victims Matter Too

Conspiracy Theorist

by Mark Luedtke

publication date: 121614

On January 18, 2014, a Fairfield, Ohio cop killed a young, unarmed man named Caleb Surface. Nobody protested. Nobody rioted. No media or political agitators flew to Fairfield to instigate trouble. Nobody cared because Surface was white, not black.

That’s the norm. Fewer than one in four people killed by police are black, but you’d never know it by reading a newspaper, watching the news or listening to an agitator or politician. That’s because our rulers would lose everything if white people woke up and recognized they were in as much danger of being killed by police as blacks. As long as white people can be convinced only blacks have to worry about being killed by unaccountable, corrupt, socialist police, our rulers’ system of theft and violence is secure.

There’s an old saying that if they get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. Divide and conquer is the motive behind the lie that cops only target blacks. As long as people buy that lie, nobody has to answer why we allow cops target everybody.

The Dayton Daily News recently published an example of this propaganda masquerading as news. The story begins with what should be terrifying news for everybody: “The number of people killed by police has increased by a third in recent years, even as violent crime has trended downward and the number of officers assaulted or killed in the line of duty has dropped.”

So much for the claim that police are killing people to protect themselves. The spread of legalized concealed carry has reduced violent crime significantly, but cops are killing more people than ever. Note that this official number published by the FBI is known to be a gross undercount because police are not required to report people they kill to the FBI.

But the rest of the article is about cops killing black people, not cops killing everybody and hiding the statistics. The headline even reads: “Race a Factor in Police Shootings”. The DDN ignores the white victims because our rulers, whom The DDN serves - it’s owned by Cox Media, one of government’s corporate agents - don’t want white people to be scared. They want to divide blacks and whites and fool both into believing only blacks are at risk.

And they’ve been horrifically successful. Race agitators like Al Sharpton are establishment tools. They and anybody who falls for this propaganda are helping cops get away with murder.

Will Grigg quotes the investigating officer in Ferguson as he explains how the system is designed to enable cops to get away with murder: “‘Any time I’m involved in an officer-involved shooting, be it a fatal one or non-fatal, it is always during my initial investigation listed as an assault on law enforcement,’ explained the St. Louis County Police Detective who inaugurated the investigation of the Michael Brown shooting. ‘Officer Wilson … was the victim of the assault we were investigating.’”

Notice he doesn’t mention race. By design, the system switches the victim and the assailant, blaming the real victim who is dead and can’t refute lies told about him by his killer. The immediate corruption of the crime scene and the grand jury was well documented in Ferguson, but it happens everywhere. When investigating police shootings, all cops follow this same, corrupt model regardless of the race, gender, age or anything else of the victim. With the government investigating itself, the result can only be corrupt.

The problem isn’t race. It’s the job of coercive government enforcer attracts psychopaths and trains cops to be psychopaths. The recent epidemic of cops killing people carrying toy weapons proves this point. John Crawford III was shot dead in Walmart in Beavercreek while talking on the phone and holding a toy rifle. Darrien Hunt was shot dead by Utah police while carrying a toy sword like you would find at a carnival. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez was shot dead by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies for carrying a replica AK-47. A twelve-year-old boy was shot dead by a Cleveland police officer for carrying a toy pistol.

A common thread in all these shootings, besides the toys, is the victims didn’t threaten the police, yet the police killed them anyway. Another common thread is the cops all say they followed their training. That means they’re being systematically trained to kill non-threatening people carrying toy guns.

Cops are taught in training class if they take the time to determine if a gun is real or not, they could be killed, so they are taught to shoot first, cover up the evidence, and the corrupt system will protect them. They are taught because one time out of a thousand, the gun might be real and the person carrying it might shoot at them, they should kill everybody they encounter carrying a weapon or toy. That’s psychopathic behavior. There’s no empathy.

We pay for psychopathic training and for them to kill us because our rulers divide and conquer us. In order to stop police killings, white victims have to matter as much as black victims.

Originally published in the Dayton City Paper.

To Ticket or Not to Ticket

The people hate red light and speeding cameras, but our rulers love them. Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras claims, “Since 1991, there have been a total of 35 election contests in Arizona, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Washington. With few exceptions, automated ticketing has failed by as much as 86 percent. One city did embrace the use of cameras after uniformed police officers were dispatched to go door-to-door to "encourage" citizens to keep the ticketing system in place.” If you really thought we had a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” the red light camera issue should disabuse you of that mistake.

As if reading from a script, Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl communicated our rulers’ perspective to The Dayton Daily News. “‘The purpose of using red light and speed enforcement cameras is to prevent accidents and save lives,’ Biehl said. ‘The very presence of the cameras has been proven to change people’s dangerous driving habits. Since the red light cameras were installed in 2003, we have seen a noticeable reduction in light-running accidents at intersections where the cameras are in place, and a similar reduction in accidents citywide. We expect to see further reductions.’”

Even if Biehl was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which he’s not, his argument would still be illegitimate. It presupposes that mundane adults - those who don’t work for government - are children who must be controlled by morally and intellectually superior rulers. This is obviously untrue. People who work for the government have no moral or intellectual superiority over people who don’t. Adults are not children who must be looked after by a paternalistic government for their own good.

Even if Biehl’s claim was true, he fails to mention the trade-offs which the people overwhelmingly reject. The DDN reports, “The number of speeding tickets issued in Dayton increased nearly 1,400 percent to 58,325 since the city added speed cameras to some of its busiest streets two years ago. A Dayton Daily News investigation found at a rate of 152 a day, or more than six per hour, the city’s 14 traffic cameras issued 55,676 speeding tickets in 2012.” Clearly the people do not find Biehl’s supposed benefit worth this outrageous cost.

Furthermore, Biehl is not telling anywhere near the whole truth. A number of independent studies show red light cameras increase accidents and risk to safety, contrary to Biehl’s claim.

Biehl also fails to mention the cameras open the door to significant corruption. Since the people receiving the tickets have no recourse in a criminal court to challenge the evidence against them, there’s no way to know if the camera actually caught the person speeding or running a red light. Many victims claim they didn’t break the law. Many districts shortened yellow lights in order to catch more people.

But the elephant in the room Biehl fails to address is the financial motive behind the cameras. The DDN discovered, “[Dayton] records show speed camera citations generated $2.38 million between April and December 2012.” That’s a lot of other people’s money stolen using these cameras. If everybody paid, that number would have jumped to $4.52 million. Tickets in the region cost car owners $5.6 million in 2012. Al Capone would consider this racket dirty. That’s why a Hamilton County judge banned the cameras. A Florida legislator called them a tax on poor people. That’s why most of Dayton’s cameras are located in poor neighborhoods. There are none around the University of Dayton, Miami Valley Hospital or downtown. Rulers don’t steal money from their cronies; they steal it from others and give it to them.

A suburb of Cleveland called Maple Heights illustrates stealing money, not safety, is the motive behind the cameras. The mayor of Maple Heights told the Associated Press, “‘[Opponents of the cameras] really didn't win anything,’ Lansky said. ‘They bankrupted the city is what they did.’” The oppressed people of Maple Heights can only hope.

Voters also banned the cameras in Cleveland, cutting $5 million from their rulers’ stolen haul. That’s $5 million their rulers can’t use to oppress them, so that’s a double victory. Cleveland’s rulers will have to make do with the millions more they steal in other ways.

All Ohioans may soon breathe a sigh of relief since the Ohio Senate recently passed a bill that would require all tickets to be issued by a police officer. As commonsensical as that sounds, it’s going to take an act of Congress, well, the legislature, to make it reality.

But the legislature isn’t doing this because it’s the right thing to do. They’re doing it because 65 percent of the money collected goes to an out-of-state manufacturer. If this ban passes, some crony will begin producing red light cameras in Ohio and get that ban overturned. Then we’ll be right back where we are today but with no hope for a legislative remedy.

Predictable Injustice in Beavercreek

Before assigning blame for the shooting of John Crawford in Beavercreek Walmart, we must acknowledge the fundamental fact of the situation: Crawford didn’t threaten anybody. Not shoppers. Not police. He had neither the ability nor the inclination. He was carrying a toy rifle in one hand while talking on a phone in the other when Beavercreek police shot him dead. The failure of this non-threatening man to drop his toy gun as illegally ordered cannot justify murdering him.

How government enforcers killed Crawford and covered it up from the beginning illustrates why it’s more accurate to call our justice system an injustice system.

It started with a man calling 911. I watched the Walmart surveillance video synced with the 911 call, and the discrepancies between what the caller reports, what the police reported, and what’s seen on the video are outrageous. The caller states Crawford is waving a rifle around, loading it, and pointing it at people including children. None of that happened. The only people near Crawford, a mother with two children shopping near Crawford seemed unconcerned, and Crawford ignored them. It’s also striking the caller, although shopping with his disabled wife, never seemed threatened. He calmly watched Crawford while setting him up to be killed.

The video showed no problem whatsoever until police, from off-camera, shot Crawford out of the blue. Crawford threatened nobody. After shooting Crawford, cops incited a panic, stampeding everybody out of the store even though Crawford had been neutralized, apparently killing Angela Williams as a result. This began the cover-up.

Ohio Attorney General DeWine continued the cover-up by withholding this video from the public. Had the video benefitted government’s killer, DeWine would have published it far and wide. It would have run on TV every day.

We can only speculate about the grand jury because grand juries are secret to protect the government, but there’s a common saying that prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. That illustrates the tremendous, manipulative power prosecutors have over grand juries based on what evidence they present, what they don’t, and how they present it. Maybe a new saying should explain prosecutors can prevent murderers from being indicted too.

The Beavercreek Police Department even admitted wrong-doing, but they won’t see it that way. The Dayton Daily News reports their press release stated in part, “Based on the information the responding officers had and Mr. Crawford's failure to comply with the responding officers orders, the officers did what they were trained to do to protect the public.” It’s universally illegitimate to use training or orders as an active defense for murder or any aggression. It was illegitimate when the Nazis tried it at Nuremberg. It’s illegitimate now.

It’s also terrifying that Beavercreek trains officers to kill non-threatening people carrying toy guns.

Imagine if you had killed Crawford in the same circumstance. Imagine your wife, shopping at Walmart with your child, called to say a man was carrying a rifle and pointing it at people. Being a good husband, you would have told her to get out of Walmart ASAP then gone there to ensure she got away. But imagine she didn’t leave, so you confronted Crawford while he talked on the phone and carried a toy gun, and shot him dead. Whether you had told him to drop his gun or not, you’d be on your way to prison, and rightfully so. Police, who are trained with firearms and have a license to kill, should be held to at least the same standard as civilians.

But laws are for serfs, not rulers or their enforcers.

Many have claimed race motivated this shooting. Baloney. That distraction from the root problem of coercive policing benefits the killers. These cops would have shot anybody in this situation regardless of race, gender or age. Cops are equal opportunity killers, trigger-happy, because they get rewarded for killing. The killer is immediately rewarded with praise from peers and a paid vacation, called a suspension, but a rose is still a rose by any other name. Eventually, the killer gets promotions and pay raises for his cowardly act. Firing, let alone prosecution, is unheard of.

Rulers grant enforcers a license to kill and demand serfs die without resistance. This has nothing to do with race. It’s the inevitable product of coercive government, funded by armed robbery and enforced by threatening all the people with guns, all the time.

The biggest part of cover-ups is usually lack of investigation, in this case of the 911 caller. Why did he call 911 when nobody else seemed concerned? Was he just obeying government’s abominable, divisive and deadly “see something, say something” promotion? Why did he say Crawford was pointing the rifle at people when that wasn’t true? If he thought Crawford was a threat, why didn’t he and his wife leave the store? Why didn’t 911 operators advise him to leave the store and notify Walmart security to evacuate the store? Why didn’t cops verify the caller’s claims before shooting? His misinformation cannot justify murder.

The families of the victims got no justice here. I hope they find it elsewhere.

Government Does Not Work Us

Arguably the most successful lie rulers have brainwashed the people into believing is government works for us. People frequently say we have to remind government agents they work for us. They say we pay their salaries. Police cars proclaim “To Protect and Serve”.

But this is demonstrably false. The only way one can work for another is if he does so voluntarily. Taxes aren’t voluntary. The government extracts them from us at the point of its gun. If you don’t pay, armed men storm your house, shoot your dog, and stick guns in your face and in the faces of everybody you live with. If you survive the assault, they’ll lock you in a cage and steal your money in an inherently corrupt, socialist court run by the same brigands stealing your money.

Our rulers no more work for us than slave-masters worked for slaves. Your civics teacher lied.

Police don’t protect and serve us. They protect and serve our rulers. For example, if you want to peacefully buy raw milk, the police won’t protect you while you do so. They will attack you for doing so because our rulers might lose a couple dollars if you buy healthy, raw milk from a local farmer instead of buying dead, industrial milk, shipped halfway across the country, from a giant food corporation.

Some people claim we are a nation of laws, ruled by the rule of law, so cops have to attack people for performing peaceful but illegal activities. This is false too. The rule of law means the law applies equally to everybody. This has never been true in the US. It can never be true when government enforcers are allowed to commit crimes like stealing money assaulting peaceful people. Government corrupted law to legalize its acts of aggression. Like all socialist systems, the US has a two-tiered set of laws, one for serfs and one for rulers. For example, if a mom with a gun permit from Pennsylvania carries her weapon into New Jersey, she is aggressively prosecuted. Enforcers who do the same are not.

As one former cop admits in an email, police are first and foremost uniformed tax collectors. “The amount of officers dedicated strictly to revenue generating would shock most people. Most of my reports were after the crime was committed that went nowhere,” he wrote. “I would laugh when people would ask if we were looking for their car, property, missing loved one or the person that just assaulted or robbed them. We had no time to do these investigations and was as you stated simply for insurance purposes. [sic] Only high crimes such as serious assault, murder and rape are investigated by the detective bureau or prosecuted by a district attorney.”

The second priority of enforcers is to protect rulers from the people. That’s why the NSA and police forces spy on every American. That’s why there’s surveillance cameras on every corner except where our rulers live. That’s why police violently shut down protests.

The third function of enforcers is to provide the illusion of legitimacy for government. That’s why they capture and convict somebody, whether it’s the right person or not, whenever a serious crime is committed, but they laugh when you ask them to recover your stolen goods.

One of the easiest ways for police to generate revenue is to troll for young black men under the guise of fighting crime, shake them down, then charge them with selling drugs. Whether the charge is true or not doesn’t matter because it’s easy to convince a white jury, as nearly all are, to convict young black men. This is why cops charge black men with drug crimes at outrageously higher rates than whites even though blacks and whites do drugs at about the same rate. If cops trolled for young white men, there’d be an uproar. When they troll for young black men, they’re congratulated for fighting crime, and their budgets increase. The systematic aggression of the war on drugs, along with socialist education, minimum wage aggression, and interventionist economic policies, is perfect for oppressing and persecuting blacks.

Ubiquitous police aggression is the context for the killing of a young, unarmed black man in Ferguson, Missouri, the killing of a young black man carrying a toy gun in Walmart in Beavercreek, and the killing of all young, unarmed black men by cops. But the legalized, systematic aggression of cops against all serfs, regardless of race, is the root problem. The racial aspect is a symptom. Cops exhibit the rapist’s mentality: submit to their aggression or die, and the most successful are rewarded with promotions.

The biggest mistake blacks have made in resisting police brutality is mistaking race as the primary factor. It alienates the majority of the population and ignores the root problem. But it makes race agitators like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson rich, so it continues.

Cops legally kill over 400 Americans a year. Only 96 are blacks killed by white officers. To stop the carnage, we must recognize the root cause is the systematic aggression inherent in socialist policing.

Governments Are Packed with Perverts

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently told The Guardian reporters that NSA agents pass around naked pictures of people they spy on like you. WebProNews provides the full quote:

“The reality of working in the intelligence community is that you see things that are deeply troubling – all the time. And it’s not just one person, it’s many of them.

“You’ve got young enlisted guys, 18 to 22 years old, they’ve suddenly been thrust into a position of extraordinary responsibility where they now have access to all of your private records. Now, in the course of their daily work, they stumble across something that is completely unrelated to their work in any sort of necessary sense.

“For example, an intimate nude photo of someone in a sexually compromising situation but they’re extremely attractive. So what do they do? They turn around in their chair and they show their coworker. And their coworker says ‘oh hey, that’s great – send that to Bill down the way.’

“And then Bill sends it to George, and George sends it to Tom, and sooner or later this person’s whole life has been seen by all of these other people.

“It’s never reported, nobody ever knows about it because the auditing of these systems is incredibly weak. The fact that your private images, records of your private life, records of your intimate moments, have been taken from your private communications from the intended recipient and given to the government without any specific authorization, without any specific need, is itself a violation of your rights.”

Generally being a pro-government propagandist organ, The Guardian calls this claim startling, but there’s nothing startling about it. If we had a dime for every time a politician or bureaucrat is caught using government’s power of coercion for sex, they would have to pay us money instead of stealing ours. It’s not surprising that people who are attracted to using government’s power of coercion over others to advance their personal interests, i.e. everybody in government, do it not only to advance their financial interests but their sexual interests as well. This is the real reason police departments like Dayton’s push so hard for spy cameras in every window and drones in every backyard.

The affinity for prostitutes by US troops and Secret Service agents has been documented to be nearly insatiable, but hiring prostitutes isn’t the problem. The use of coercion by government agents to get their sexual jollies damages their victims.

For example, 30 strippers have filed a lawsuit against San Diego police for abusing their power to license strippers. The Los Angeles Times documents, “The strippers were ‘nearly nude’ when their pictures were taken while officers made ‘arrogant and demeaning remarks’ and intimidated the strippers to keep them from leaving, the lawsuit alleges.”

As bad as this sounds, the response from the police makes it worse. The Times continues “Taking photographs of the employees, including of distinctive tattoos, is a routine part of the inspection process, [police spokesman] Mayer added. Inspections are meant to deter the employees from engaging in illegal acts.

“‘The San Diego code mandates we make these inspections,’ Mayer said. ‘This is not a criminal matter, this is a regulatory matter.’”

The police contend this sexual abuse is legal, and they have a case. It remains to be seen how strong of a case. The Times continues, “[The lawyer for the strippers] said that while the permit process does allow such inspections, police went overboard, detaining the dancers for more than an hour against their will ‘without probable cause’ and making them pose in various positions.”

This highlights the perverted conflicts government creates. In a free society nobody could force these women to pose for photographs against their will. But because the government claims the power of coercion, it legalizes sexual abuse, and the perverted enforcers it hires to carry out the abuse go beyond the law to satisfy their own perverse desires.

The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is another government bureaucracy that legally sexually assaults victims, and their legalized crimes invite more of the same. CBS reports, “A San Francisco man suspected of having one too many drinks is accused of posing as a Transportation Security Administration agent and groped [sic] two unsuspecting women, both foreigners, in a private booth for security pat downs.”

What’s the difference who employs the molesters or if the victims are foreigners? The women are victims of molestation regardless. The TSA is a haven for molesters because it allows them to get their jollies legally, and this guy just short-circuited the hiring process. This incident shows TSA has nothing to do with security, only oppression. Agents, probably drunk themselves, can’t protect travelers from a guy in their midst, let alone a determined terrorist. TSA agents have never stopped a terrorist attack, and they constantly fail to detect weapons during tests, but they molest travelers with glee.

It’s sad how people promote government power out of fear from sexual assailants and other criminals, but they’re empowering criminals to commit their crimes without consequence as government agents.

Summary Execution for Tax Evader

There are two and only two ways one can obtain the property of another. The first is through voluntary means. You can either exchange something for the property or the owner of the property can give it to you. The second is theft. If the theft includes the threat of violence backed by violence - coercion - it’s armed robbery. Taxes, because they carry the threat of violence backed by violence, are armed robbery.

New York City’s legalized and uniformed armed robbers - the police - recently summarily executed a man for not paying taxes. CrimeFileNews.com tells the story. “Selling cigarettes on the street cost a man his life. Think about it for a moment. Trying to make a meager living in a miserable economy by selling a legal product deserves death now in New York. That’s precisely what happened to an obviously overweight (350 lbs.) and unhealthy man last week. A squad of cops investigating this tax transgression approached Eric Garner. Garner actually begged the cops to leave him alone. Soon Garner began to shun the cops and resist being handcuffed and the cops piled on him.  All too quickly, Garner was dead.”

Some might claim the victim deserved it because he feebly resisted. But resisting armed robbery is heroic behavior, if sometimes a mistake. What this report doesn’t mention is one policeman put Garner in an illegal choke hold. Garner was trying to protect himself.

“This was not about anything more than the attempted evasion of an outrageous tax on a legal product that millions consume in America. Our greedy politicians expand their power and the government monster by overtaxing anything they can. We all know that this was about money rather than evil, violence or simple public safety.”

Besides proving the obvious - that taxes are armed robbery - this also illustrates that every supposed crime in America carries the death penalty. Jay walking? The state’s enforcers might kill you for that. Run a red light? They might kill you for that too. This is the inevitable consequence of empowering an organization - the state - to have a monopoly on violence and the power to legalize crimes committed by its agents.

The murderers may have had another motive. Police reportedly had harassed Garner for years. While they were harassing others for petty pseudo-crimes in order to legally steal their money, a fight broke out. The police did nothing, but Garner intervened and stopped the fight. That made him a target for government predators. When police began harassing Garner again, they claim Garner stated, “I’m tired of it. It stops today.”

William Norman Grigg quotes one police officer blaming the victim, “‘Anytime a person says “I’m tired of it, it stops today,” that will almost always end with the use of force,’ insisted one contributor to an LEO-exclusive forum. ‘He made that decision, not the police. The Police must effect the arrest and rise above any resistance...’” That attitude suggests this was premeditated murder from the moment Garner expressed his exasperation with being harassed by cops.

This attitude that anybody who says they don’t want to be harassed by policemen must be physically assaulted, subdued and even murdered is also an inevitable consequence of empowering an organization to legally commit crimes against people. The most violent, sadistic people in the country are attracted to the job of legally attacking others so they can get their jollies legally beating and killing people. Most people we make cops would be the worst criminals in a free society. For example, cops are three times more likely to commit murder, not counting the legalized murder they get away with on the job, than concealed carry permit holders. But in Bizzaro World, ruled by government violence, they become legalized violence-dealers, beating and killing people without consequence, and the ones who do it best rise to the top.

Apologists for choking the victim make this clear. “Because the victim reportedly didn’t suffer significant damage to his throat and trachea, the illegal restraint wasn’t a ‘true’ chokehold, or so the apologists insist,” Grigg writes. “Under NYPD guidelines in place since 1993, this isn’t relevant: The policy explicitly and categorically forbids the use of any restraint involving pressure against the neck or throat.” The policy is a sham, as is the law. Grigg notes, “If [the murder] statute were applied equitably, as it almost certainly will not be, [the officer who choked Garner] and his accomplices would be prosecuted for murder.”

Murray Rothbard wrote in “The Anatomy of the State”, “Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.” The brazen murder of Eric Garner by state enforcers in daylight in front of witnesses and on camera is another example proving more elaboration is necessary.

America Has Gone to the Police Dogs

The topic of dangerous dogs has been in the news quite a bit lately, but the news rarely covers the most dangerous dogs of all: police dogs. The German shepherd was a ubiquitous symbol of the Nazi police state, so much so German shepherds were stigmatized for decades after WWII. Now they’ve become ubiquitous tools of the US police state. Cops understand that threatening serfs with large dogs invokes a primal terror, so they systematically use police dogs to terrorize Americans.

Not satisfied with inflicting terror, The Telegraph reports one way police make police dogs more dangerous, “AMERICAN police dogs are being equipped with a new weapon in the fight against crime: titanium false teeth designed to improve their bite - and their grip - on anyone trying to escape the law.” Titanium has a high strength-to-density ratio and is highly resistant to corrosion. Because of its high melting point, it’s also hard to work with, but nothing is too good or too expensive for US police when it comes to terrorizing Americans.

And this story gets worse. “‘Before [a police dog] had these fitted, he was hesitant to bite,’ said Tim Ellis, a sheriff's department deputy who has worked with dogs in Polk County, 40 miles south of Orlando, Florida, for the past five years,’ the paper continued. “‘Both these teeth were damaged and it was interfering with his work. We had to do something to maintain his biting proficiency and getting the titanium teeth fitted seemed the best solution.’” In normal society, this would be considered animal cruelty, but in the twisted world of the US police state, the more damage government enforcers and their attack dogs can inflict on their victims, the better.

It’s funny to see police make excuses for the dangerous dogs they create. CBS tells the story of escaped police dogs in Denver. “The dogs are highly trained, but the sheriff’s office says they are not at all killers,” reports CBS. That’s reassuring. “They worry that if approached the wrong way by someone the dogs could react aggressively, making finding them a priority for their office.” Nevermind. Apparently they are killers, buf if the dogs kill somebody, it’s the victim’s fault for approaching them the wrong way. It has nothing to do with owners training them to attack and their negligence in caring for them. Michael Vick went to prison for training dogs to fight other dogs, but when our rulers train them to attack people, we’re supposed to bow down and thank them.

Comparing how government and its propagandists treat government dogs to how they treat people and their dogs illustrates the sickness of our society. Last July, the Dayton Daily News ran a story on the death of a Bellbrook Fire Department dog which died of cancer. It didn’t run a story when my dog died of cancer.

Last June police arrested Florida linebacker Antonio Morrison for barking back at a police dog after the dog had barked at him. He was arrested “for interfering with a police canine”.

William Norman Grigg describes a police attack in Aurora, Colorado. “Cell phone video of the police assault shows a wall of officers in riot gear directing ‘non-lethal’ fire at a group of unarmed and terrified civilians — including several small children, who were shielded by a man who appeared to be their father,” Grigg wrote. “Another officer unleashed a police dog, which immediately attacked a stroller containing an infant. A bystander who interposed himself — and was mauled by the dog for doing so — probably saved the child’s life.” Titanium teeth make it easier to kill babies in strollers.

And police may be the biggest threat to your dog’s life. A Google search for “police kill dog” returns 51,500,000 hits. A DDN search for the same string returns 319 hits. If you think there are checks and balances limiting police killing of dogs, you’re wrong. The DDN reveals, “There have been 44 Dayton Police Department internal investigations of officers discharging firearms at dogs since 2008, according to a review of police records. Officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in all cases.” Of course they were. Police investigations of themselves are always a sham. It’s like a mafia enforcer investigating himself. In 2010 an Oakwood cop shot dead a dog on a tether instead of backing up out of reach like a normal person, the only firearm discharge by an Oakwood cop in 25 years. Needless to say, Oakwood police cleared him of any wrongdoing. If you had done the same, you would have been prosecuted.

And you can’t trust police reports. In 2008, an Oklahoma cop killed a dog, claiming he feared for his life. Unfortunately for the cop, the canicide was caught on video. Police subsequently tried to bribe the owner to keep her from showing the video. She refused, so you can see the cop killing her dog at theagitator.com.

Denver’s three missing police dogs are worth $100,000. Yours are only good for target practice.

There’s no defense against America’s supreme predators.