Rod Tuason, Praetorian

Meet Detective Rod Tuason. Rod works for the East Palo Alto Police Department.

Unfortunately for Detective Tuason, Facebook knows no loyalty:

"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement...2 weeks off!!!"

EDIT: Tuason's Facebook page has since been removed, but not forgotten.

Frankly, it's difficult to think of how this comment could be construed as anything but callous thuggery; no doubt this is what Scalia had in mind when he mentioned the "new professionalism" in Hudson v. Michigan. The most disturbing aspect of this, however, is the cavalier attitude regarding the willful murder of someone exercising their rights under the law, the paid vacation after the fact, followed by a cursory review which will likely find "no evidence of wrong-doing."

Hopefully, once the city realizes the liability posed by allowing him to remain on the force, Defective Tuason will be bounced out on his rear faster than a pack of dogs on a one-legged cat. The truth of the situation is that officers of the law are supposedly held to a higher level of responsibility and restraint in word and action, and this comment was demonstrative of neither, but in all ways more befitting a soldier of a totalitarian regime in a Third-World nation.

Tuason then opens a fresh can of worms:

"Haha thats when you go attend one of their meetings and laugh at them cuz they can only dream to have a ccw.."

This highlights the need for a model akin to Vermont: unlicensed concealed-carry. If the police are not obligated to respond, serve, or protect, then immediately forbid the bearing of arms anywhere beyond one's home, who can then provide means for their own self-defense? Of course, this is the core fallacy of the gun-control movement: criminals are generally not inclined to respect the law, and will go about their business armed, regardless of restrictions.

Indeed, if creatures such as Tuason are gate-keepers of our means of defending ourselves, we are truly in dire straits. Ideally, the situation would not have to be remedied via incorporation (McDonald v. Chicago), but the pretense of adhering to some form of limited constitutional republic has all but been swept away.

Marriage-Material

Rukhsana Kauser took an axe, gave the goblin forty whacks...

An Indian farmer’s daughter disarmed a terrorist leader who broke into her home, attacked him with an axe and shot him dead with his own gun.

Rukhsana Kausar, 21, was with her parents and brother in Jammu and Kashmir when three gunmen, believed to be Pakistani militants, forced their way in and demanded food and beds for the night...

His daughter was hiding under a bed when she heard him crying as the gunmen thrashed him with sticks. According to police, she ran towards her father’s attacker and struck him with an axe. As he collapsed, she snatched his AK47 and shot him dead.

She also shot and wounded another militant as he made his escape.

I sincerely hope that she kept the AK-47 as a trophy (fair game; you keep what you kill) and that the other villagers have taken note of the example set by Ms. Kausar. I suspect that following this incident (were she so inclined), she would have her pick of bridegrooms, all things being equal.

As Ms. Kausar discovered, it follows that only reasonable people may be reasoned with; thieves-in-the-night subscribe to not reason, but force, and must be met in kind.

Did they ever really have it?

More excellence from A Softer World.

Marriage, the Church, and the State

After further hashing-out some thoughts trapped in my head following a post at Vox Popoli, the subsequent fast-and-furious commentary by the Dread Ilk, and a related story regarding the ongoing failure of marriage in the United Kingdom at Elusive Wapiti (with additional examination at Code-Monkey Ramblings), I stumbled into an insightful op-ed piece at the New York Times, of all places, that had a surprisingly libertarian bent to it. (Broken clocks, nes pa?)

In particular, the op-ed confirms a previously-held opinion of mine: marriage determines the pecking-order of "rights" in the eyes of the State, and if one (or two, or many) want a reservation at the teat of the taxpayer, then one must adhere to the State's prevailing opinion of marriage. And so, fundamentally, marriage becomes a vehicle for convenience and comfortable living in this post-modern dystopia, and thus a mechanism for control.

What brought my attention to the op-ed, however, was a salient point revealed in ensuing discussion regarding the fuster-cluck of modern marriage: the Church refuses to stand up for the rights of its male congregation in the arena of family-law. I'm not suggesting the establishment of an organization of Legal Templars (however interesting the idea sounds), but the movement to reclaim marriage as the sole jurisdiction of the Church must be made in order to strengthen itself at the expense of the State, which has steadily usurped power to dictate restrictions according to its own satisfaction and aims. This alone should underline the danger in attempting to follow in the footsteps of the Social Gospelers in their attempts to unravel our civil-liberties, but if we have learned anything in our history, it is that we constantly demonstrate an ability to promptly forget (or determinedly ignore) our mistakes.

Incidentally, this is the primary reason I've not been to a brick-and-mortar church in years: my last visit to a "Christian" service with my then-girlfriend was so inclusive in scope that it was outright apostasy, and in hindsight, I should have ended the relationship then and there (she was employed by the clergy). Fortunately, it ended for other reasons some time later, and I thank the Almighty that it did.

To believe is one thing, and to not believe is another, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining when it comes to my responsibility to enslave myself to the State via a secularly-focused wife under the color of Scripture, because I won't have it.

Whiskey in the Jar

An unfortunate end to a notable character:

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Famed Appalachian moonshiner Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton, whose incorrigible bootlegging ways were as out of step with modern times as his hillbilly beard and overalls, took his own life rather than go to prison for making white lightning, his widow says.

"He couldn't go to prison. His mind would just not accept it. ... So credit the federal government for my husband being dead, I really do," Pam Sutton told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday from the couple's home in the Parrottsville community, about 50 miles east of Knoxville.

I am sad that it came to this, and I pray that his soul may find solace in the days to come.

Rest in peace, Popcorn, and to Hell with the Revenuers.

A design towards Absolute Despotism

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. - Claire Wolfe

To say that I am violently angry regarding the following is an understatement without parallel. The level of ruinous intent, the magnitude of the usurpation of liberty is likewise without parallel, and we must answer it.

Putting aside for the moment that centralized large-scale food-processing in this country is frequently worse on every level for all organisms involved than domestic small-scale production, this bill is, bar none, the most expansive, intrusive, irresponsible, tyrannical and in all other ways absolutist piece of putridity that I've ever had the displeasure to read. Here is the operative core of HR 875, which applies without exception to every American in possession of edible goods:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS:

In this Act:

(5) CATEGORY 1 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 1 food establishment' means a food establishment (other than a seafood processing establishment) that slaughters, for the purpose of producing food, animals that are not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or poultry that are not subject to inspection under the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

(6) CATEGORY 2 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 2 food establishment' means a seafood processing establishment or other food establishment (other than a category 1 establishment) not subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Egg Products Inspection Act, that processes raw seafood or other raw animal products, whether fresh or frozen, or other products that the Administrator determines by regulation to pose a significant risk of hazardous contamination.

(7) CATEGORY 3 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 3 food establishment' means a food establishment (other than a category 1 or category 2 establishment) that processes cooked, pasteurized, or otherwise ready-to-eat seafood or other animal products, fresh produce in ready-to-eat raw form, or other products that pose a risk of hazardous contamination.

(8) CATEGORY 4 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 4 food establishment' means a food establishment that processes all other categories of food products not described in paragraphs (5) through (7).

(9) CATEGORY 5 FOOD ESTABLISHMENT- The term `category 5 food establishment' means a food establishment that stores, holds, or transports food products prior to delivery for retail sale.

(13) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT - (A) IN GENERAL- The term `food establishment' means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.

(Italic-emphasis added.)

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, over?

Take a little while to read the whole bill; it's important, and it's nearly impossible to succinctly describe the horrific amount of bureaucracy proposed or trangressions defined.

Collectively (and I'm loathe to use that term), we're in a bit of a bind with our elected representatives ignoring their responsibilities as our official representatives, instead regarding their office as license to demand military escort and misappropriate funding for personal interests that was ear-marked for inappropriate spending elsewhere. This, however, takes the cake and everything used to make it:

The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), with 39 co-sponsor, all Democrats. It gets more interesting to find out that DeLauro is married to Stanley Greenberg, who counts Monsanto among his corporate clients. It is also is an interesting coincidence that large corporations are much better equipped to comply with the onerous requirements and paperwork this bill dumps on “Food Production Facilities” then the lowly local farmer or backyard gardener.

I can see the headlines now: "Local man arrested, charged with growing foodstuffs with intent to consume."

I understand that this bill is still in committee, and that alone is of no import, but as HR 875 has 39 co-sponsors is an indicator that the we are leaving the "awkward stage". The very idea that this is acceptable legislation makes my blood boil in my veins, and there has been nary a falsetto squeak from the mainstream-media regarding the submission of this bill or the barely-concealed nature of the relationship of the sponsor to the beneficiaries.

It is fortunate that things cannot remain this way for long, and that God willing, we will collapse under our own weight and perhaps restore a form of government more suitable to protecting the natural rights of free men; any other course will perpetuate a State devoted to the destruction of everything it touches.

A Declaration of Sovereignty

Author's Note: The following was inspired and encouraged through the Survival Podcast.

It is said that those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it; how often of late have we boasted regarding our intellectual prowess, having harnessed the power of the atom, explored the skies and the depths of the oceans. Today, even the stars themselves are within our reach. The foundations of life are now ours to construct, and yet, we have proven unable to master the one thing that makes us worthy of such fearful power, a deficit in even a rudimentary command of something that has eluded our grasp since the very beginning: ourselves.

Not so long ago, our forefathers in a brief, shining moment, recognized that in order to secure even a tenuous hold on liberty, the inexorable progression to empower a State over men must be so restrained, so utterly bound that as long as free men were guarded against it, it would not prevail against them:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Throughout the history of our nation, ever have we hailed the cause of liberty as the paragon of virtues; it graces our currency and our monuments, testaments to the ideals on which the foundation for these United States were built.

Liberty: the very word conjures the visage of a proud, radiant woman in the prime of her youth; serene and fearless, resolute and implacable.

Yet, even though the monuments stand and the coins still trade hands, Liberty has suffered since her triumph against our Fathers' oppressors; her hair is unkempt, her radiance has faded, her pride has been wounded by the excesses of a People that value the fruits of her labors rather than Liberty herself. We enjoyed peace and prosperity, but it did not endure without her blessing. Vainly, we turned to peace and prosperity at any cost, but while Liberty had given us these gifts freely, we choose instead to reap the peace of tyranny and the prosperity of war.

Liberty has rightly fled from us, and we have justly deserved it.

Having read the words of our forefathers some time ago in my youth, I grew to recognize that Liberty's blessing was one that our nation could not live without; Life would become Slavery, and the pursuit of happiness would become the pursuit of the grave. Such an idea was forever-more a revolutionary one, and without constant vigilance such princely gifts would surely fade into obscurity.

Furthermore, I have come to realize that such a time is upon us: despite the warnings of our ancestors, from the Monongahela Valley to Appomattox, from the Trail of Tears to the World Wars, the warnings have sounded thunderously on the anvil where our fetters were forged, and we have ignored them. Indeed, when not aligned with liberty's cause, even our best intentions have often given our captors the very tools to forge those chains, and we cheered with every hammer-fall. Enough have surrendered their very souls to a procession of tyrants that they have despoiled the futures of all our children, ruined the legacy of our elders, and profaned the works of our generations.

Enough.

Enough was a sufficient number to elect us to slavery, and yet, enough is also sufficient to secede from such slavery and once again seek Liberty's blessings, to turn from tyranny and its ways so that our land may be healed and our vitality restored.

Whereas, our government has become destructive to life, liberty and property in the pursuit of power, and that this has exceeded the limitations of both light and transient causes over the course of our history, but instead constitutes a long train of abuses and usurpations; resolved, that it is our right, our duty and sacred responsibility to throw off such a Government and establish a means of governance that binds itself to the protection and preservation of our inalienable rights.

I hereby withdraw my consent to be governed by such a tyranny forever-more, in whatever form it may take, wherever it may be, to work peaceably against the continuation of that tyranny and defend the Natural Rights to my life, liberty and property with any and all means necessary. I ask for nothing that that is not of my own Labor, and I recognize no sovereign over my Rights except my divine Creator; I will live free or die in the attempt.

As once our forefathers swore, now do I swear: With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, to this I pledge my Life, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor.