This Advice Could Save Your Life and Preserve Your Liberty

Eric Garner

The fact that police can get away with killing an individual who presented no threat to anyone with the whole incident caught on camera is quite disturbing. A grand jury decided not to indict an NYPD officer who used a choke-hold banned by his own department which resulted in the death of Eric Garner. Unlike the incident in Ferguson, which contained conflicting testimony and forensics that support Darren Wilson’s version of the event, this event in New York was caught on video from at least two different camera angles (and is available on YouTube for the whole world to see).

This seems pretty cut-and-dry, at least for an indictment. So how is it that almost any accused individual brought before a grand jury is indicted unless the accused individual happens to wear a government issued costume? Are grand juries really that biased toward the police? After reading a few dozen comments on threads responding to the grand jury decision, I’m afraid the answer is yes (if you want to lose all hope for humanity, read the comment section to any article of consequence). I reach this conclusion because these are the sort of people who serve on juries and decide that it’s perfectly okay for the police to kill someone if the suspect had any criminal record of any kind, resisted in any way, or even “disrespected” the police on the scene.

Democrats: If It Wasn’t for Double Standards…

Double Standards

Several recent news stories brought to mind the old joke about liberal Democrats, that if it weren’t for double standards they would have no standards at all. Sometimes the hypocrisy is enough to stupefy any reasonable person. For your reading pleasure, I offer the following examples…

In his November 20 speech to the nation regarding his “executive amnesty” actions, Obama said, “Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable  – especially those who may be dangerous.” The hypocrisy of this statement coming from that man is glaring. Obama declares we are a nation of laws as a precursor to explaining how he is about to continue the violations of his oath of office by expanding the scope of his non-enforcement criteria, and beyond that, actually rewarding the lawbreakers.

America is indeed a nation of immigrants, yet Obama is not declaring amnesty for immigrants, he is declaring amnesty for millions of illegal aliens whose first actions in relation to America were violations of our immigration laws. He has for more than half a decade failed to faithfully enforce those laws, declaring entire categories of illegals exempt from prosecution and deportation under the law. He now seeks to reward them with legalization and work permits.

Rand Paul is Right: Excessive taxation and enforcement leads to government violence

Eric Garner

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

— George Washington

The words of the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army of the Revolutionary War and the first President of the Untied States ring true in the New York City borough of Staten Island this week, as a grand jury decided not to indict the officer who killed Eric Garner during an altercation in July stemming from the illegal sale of loose cigarettes. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy ruled Garner’s death a homicide as a direct result of the officer’s action. That is the official report.

One of the striking differences between the killing of Eric Garner and the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson — both by law enforcement officials — is that the entire altercation in New York was caught on camera.

But why did it happen? Why were police dispatched in the first place?

Senator Rand Paul, in an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, hit the nail on the head:

Big money is betting on Hillary Clinton in 2016

Hillary Clinton

You know, for all the whining and complaining Democrats do over “big money” in politics, they sure do love to cash those checks when donors write them. In fact, during the 2014 election cycle, Democrats pretty much stayed competitive with Republicans overall, but in hotly-contested Senate races like North Carolina and Virginia, the Democrats far-and-away outspent the Republicans.

Even The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart took notice of the Democrats’ love of campaign money during this cycle.

So it’s really not surprising when billionaires like Warren Buffett write $25,000 checks to Democratic political action committees. According to Bloomberg Politics writer Lisa Lerer:

Eric Garner’s death shows exactly what’s wrong with the American legal system

.

At first glance, it’s yet another example of a law enforcement officer being cleared of charges for what was quite obviously an unjustified and unnecessary civilian death. But the story of Eric Garner’s homicide exposes so much more of what ails our legal and criminal justice systems.

Garner’s heinous alleged crime that was so deserving of police action, violent arrest, and ultimately death was…selling loose cigarettes out of their original packaging. In the allegedly free market capitalist society of Staten Island, New York, America, this is a misdemeanor offense, for which Garner had several charges already pending at the time of his suffocating death.

In New York, cigarettes are taxed and regulated so highly that they can cost more than $12 per pack. This insane bureaucratic scheme has inevitably created the black market that Garner was participating in - selling cigarettes out of their packs, avoiding the confiscatory taxes altogether, and pocketing the pure profits. Garner was no angel, but he was an entrepreneur, and in Dr Martin Luther King, Jr’s view entirely justified in not following the oppressive New York cigarette laws:

Ted Cruz is dominating Facebook, Twitter

Ted Cruz

Facebook and Twitter revealed that “Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz together accounted for 40 percent of the discussion on Facebook and nearly half — 47 percent — of mentions on Twitter among 10 top presidential possibilities in the past three months” though neither of them were on the ballot during the November election, according to POLITICO this morning.

From the report:

Of the 27 million Facebook posts, comments and content likes related to the potential White House candidates between Aug. 22 and Nov. 22, Clinton and Cruz each were mentioned in 20 percent of the posts, according to Facebook’s data scientists. Clinton topped Cruz though in the number of people talking about her with 2.3 million people making 5.6 million interactions, while Cruz had 1.8 million users referencing him in 5.6 million interactions. (POLITICO provided the list of contenders to Facebook and Twitter.)

Of the 15.9 million mentions of candidates’ names or Twitter handles between Sept. 1 and Dec. 1, Cruz snagged 4.6 million mentions, or 29 percent, while Clinton garnered 2.9 million mentions, or 18 percent.

A former digital director for President Obama’s 2012 campaign noted, “Imperfect as it is, [Facebook] is probably the biggest trove of data of what actual human beings outside of Washington, D.C., are talking about day to day and that makes it intrinsically important, and these platforms are actually important for reaching people and motivating them.”

Cops are stealing your stuff for profit, and D.C. is the latest jurisdiction to try to put a stop to it

Police Man Stealing

Over the past few months, civil asset forfeiture has made national headlines.

Thanks to hard work by folks at the Heritage FoundationWashington Post, and journalists like Radley Balko, this corrupt police practice has been brought to the forefront of the debate on how the government erodes our civil liberties.

Thankfully for us, some politicians have taken notice and decided to make some positive changes.

A few weeks ago, the D.C. City Council passed a measure that limits law enforcement’s incentive to engage in civil asset forfeiture. They have informed the police department that forfeiture money will now be directed to the city’s general fund.

A recent Reuters article about the measure highlighted the fact that 90 percent of the time, forfeitures occur without actually charging an individual for a crime.

UPS changes policy for pregnant employees without government force

pregnant

The US Supreme Court is going to consider whether UPS violated the law when they refused to make accommodations for a woman with a doctor’s note to request lighter lifting requirements during her pregnancy.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. The Act covers discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and any of the medical conditions related to childbirth. Employers are even required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion – which would lead one to believe that employers would be required to provide disability and sick leave for women who experience any complications during their pregnancy that do not allow them to work. It could also mean that women who normally are required to lift heavy objects be given either a lighter work load or leave.

Many people think companies should make special accommodations for pregnant women. After all, children are our future and we all have a mother. But what if our children run the companies, or our mothers? The discussion of whether or not something is good or whether companies should do certain things for pregnant women does not take into account the fact that the bosses could be pregnant women themselves.

The Decline of the Modern Democrat Party is a Study in the Quest for Absolute Power

Democrat Presidents

In an interesting piece in National Journal, Charlie Cook makes the case that Democrats, rather ironically given their tendency to forgo personal responsibility in favor of the much less guilt-inducing finger point, have only themsleves to blame for their current popular decline.

There are many reasons for this decline in support for Democrats among certain groups. But an argument can be made that it is because Democrats have subordinated their traditional focus on helping lower- and working-class Americans move up the economic ladder in favor of other noble priorities, such as health care, the environment, and civil rights. Whether these were the right or wrong priorities is totally subjective, but they have come at a cost. Sen. Chuck Schumer recently committed the classic case of a political gaffe, once defined by Michael Kinsley as “when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” The Democratic Left went crazy when Schumer suggested that the early focus on health care reform in 2009 and 2010, when he says Democrats should have been concentrating on economic growth and job creation, had cost them greatly (something that I have written about for over five years).

Cook believes that the modern Democrat party was born of FDR’s New Deal when the focus was helping people find work and healing the economy following the dark age of the Great Depression. He even draws a parallel between Democrat policies and the 2008 recession, including the implementation of TARP; and the Obama administration’s “rescuing [of] the automobile industry”.

Candor or Cynicism: How to be a Politician

JFK and Nikita Khrushchev

Who won, who lost?

In 1961, at the height of the cold war, the new American president John F. Kennedy met in private with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Kennedy was young and inexperienced in politics, having been elected president as a freshman senator. Khrushchev was an old hand who had risen to power under Stalin. Kennedy had an idealistic streak. Khrushchev was pragmatic and calculating - though himself a reformer. Kennedy was head of the government of a country whose people valued free enterprise - a country where large sections of the economy and personal life of the citizens were out the boundaries of government control. Khrushchev was the head of a virtual slave state, where every part of a citizen’s life was subject to the dictates of the political class. To Khrushchev, Kennedy was a potential threat, the head of the most powerful nation on earth, a man he hoped to neutralize and frighten. To Kennedy, Khrushchev was a man with whom he believed he could reason. It was Kennedy who pushed for the meeting.

 


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.