United Liberty

This week, I caught a story on the Atlanta news that immediately drew my attention.  A state Representative, MY state Representative, will introduce a bill during the next legislative session that requires every suspect arrested of a felony to submit to a DNA sample.  Without careful examination, along with a very friendly news report about the bill, this does not strike many everyday citizens as a “bad thing,” as seen in the first comment made about the story.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that my use of 140 or fewer characters could result in seeing the inside of a jail cell.  For most users, use of Twitter will not result in a blemished criminal record.  For those who would not know a “tweet” from a “twestival,” Twitter is a micro-blogging service that has been the subject of a lot of attention in the last 2 years, from tech-addicted geeks (like me) to the politically obsessed (again, like me) to popular culture (and, so long as it has nothing to do with reality TV, I’m into it).  For some, however, relaying police location information publicly available via scanning equipment to fellow anarchists protesting the G-20 economic summit or refusing to “tweet” upon commanded has led, in my opinion, to some questionable arrests for two men in New York.

Last Sunday the Washington Post ran an op-ed from Maggie Mahar, health care fellow for the left-wing think tank The Century Foundation.  Her concern?  That eventually a conservative Republican administration running a government health insurance option or, worse, a single-payer system, might shut off access to abortion, end-of-life care, birth control, or fertility treatments.

Mahar has, perhaps unwittingly, revealed the problem with having government run anything.  Depending on government for anything means depending on whomever is running that government.  Administrations, Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress (though not often enough), and budget priorities change.  Too many people think only of the here and now when considering the greater implications of policies, but they should be thinking longer-term.

Before ceding any power to government (especially the federal government), just ask yourself one question:  Would I trust my greatest political enemy with this power?  There are some exceptions to this rule (only government can provide national security, raise a military, etc.), but consider longer-term implications to any policy being proposed.  If you don’t trust Democrats with the power to use surveillance on the American people, then don’t give that power to a Republican administration and Congress.  Likewise, if you don’t trust Republicans to run health care to your liking, don’t give a Democrat administration and Congress the power to run your health care.

Me?  This is why I don’t trust government with, well, any of it.  In the words of John Galt, leave me the hell alone!

Did that title catch you off guard?  When I read that those words came from U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, I was surprised as well.

Last week, I was party to a political conversation with several others that included the subject of the death penalty and stricter mandatory sentencing for first offense felonies.  When I was among the few dissenters as those issues made their way through our conversation, some of the others questioned why I was “being soft on crime.”  After explaining that I think that there are far too many instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct in investigations and trials where new evidence, recanted testimony, or the introduction of DNA evidence exonerates an innocent man or women, I was no longer seen as “soft on crime.”  I am sure that my explanation did not sway a complete shift in the positions of the others conversing, they now have another perspective on the American criminal justice system.

This story further solidifies my stance that today’s justice system is one that seems to have a growing trend of police and prosecutors closing cases and padding statistics rather than ensuring the person jailed is the right person.  In a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Council Bluffs, Iowa prosecutors contend that their misconduct, which includes knowingly withholding evidence that pointed to a different (and white) suspect and relying on a known “liar and perjurer” in a case against two young black men over thirty years ago, should be immune from civil liability.  The official position of these Iowa prosecutors, backed by the federal government and other prosecutors nationwide, is that citizens have no expectation not to be framed by them.

The matter of torture has been discussed over the past several years in connection with its use as a “tool” in the “Global War on Terror” or the “Overseas Contingency Operation” as it has now been called. Dick Cheney has been recently making rounds in an attempt to salvage some credibility and to fuel the partisan fire.

Every year the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, AL hosts a conference for scholars of the Austrian tradition to come together and share essays and ideas.  This year’s conference was loaded with big names and reputable authors among the Libertarian and generally liberty-minded.

World Net Daily is reporting that a North Carolina judge has ordered that three homeschooled children must start attending public school in the fall, despite the fact that the children test well above grade level and appear to be well-adjusted socially.

The parents are going through a divorce, and though the children have been homeschooled for the past four years and, according to the judge, “thrived” in that setting, the judge has ruled in accordance with the wishes of the father, who believes that it’s time for the children to return to the public school system.

The only thing missing from Fred’s shooting range in North Carolina is John William’s score from The Patriot.  You’ve got the rag-tag assortment of American everymen, you’ve got the red coat targets, and you’ll even feel a little of the same sense of urgency the American militiamen must’ve felt in the mid-1770’s.

Spending a weekend at an “Appleseed” rifleman school is not only a wise investment of money and time, it’s a whole lot of fun!  Hosted by the Revolutionary War Veteran’s Association (RWVA), the Appleseed program is acutely in touch with the importance marksmanship can have on history, as they refer to April 19, 1775 (the day of the “shot heard ‘round the world”) as the day “marksmanship met history, and heritage was born.”

Though news of this sort cannot be considered unusual any longer, I still find it insufferable and mildly shocking.  The likelihood of a British citizen having their personal home computer hacked by government authorities, secretly and without a warrant, has increased.  Even more infuriating, this intrusion may be at the behest of a foreign nation, thanks to a recent plan adopted by the EU.

Since the hacking may proceed if an officer believes there is sufficient reason to believe it would help prevent or detect a serious crime, the obvious question is, who decides what is considered “sufficient reason” and what is to prevent abuse of these over-reaching powers?  If there is truly sufficient evidence, why wouldn’t a judge simply grant a warrant?  This would at least grant some oversight.

As a gun-owner and someone who has escaped injury due to private gun ownership at least three times, I pay attention to the voting records of candidates regarding the 2nd Amendment.

I recently wrote about the NRA’s disappointing endorsement of Senator John McCain, in spite of his clear record of being an enemy of the right’s of gun-owners.  A much more logical choice would have been 3rd party candidates Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, as an endorsement of Barack Obama would have been equally unthinkable.

Obama has claimed to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but his voting record indicates otherwise.

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director, Richard Pearson, has this to say about Senator Obama-