Government is Enforcing Ideology and Extortion with Violence

I need it for my Juice Box!

The Plastic Straw Ban: Enforced With Violence

  07/30/2018

The latest trend in banning plastic stuff is the nationwide trend toward eliminating plastic straws from restaurants. A commonly-given justification for the ban is the fact that there’s a lot of plastic garbage floating around in the ocean. Of course, this rationale seems a bit odd for some locations. In Fort Collins, Colorado, for example — which is about a thousand miles from any ocean — locals feel the need to “do their part” by convincing local restaurateurs to ban the offending objects.

One can already see that this will be inconvenient for toddlers and their parents, and for the physically disabled, but with private firms choosing whether or not to use straws, it’s not really an issue that requires a strong opinion.

On the other hand, when it comes to government-sponsored bans on straws, things are considerably different.

This is because at the heart of every government law, rule, and regulation is the fact that violence must ultimately be employed to enforce those laws. Indeed, Santa Barbara, California has announced a new ban on plastic straws that brings sizable punishments, if violated:

Violating Santa Barbara’s plastic straw ban could land you in jail for up to 6 months and a fine up to $1,000 per violation.

However, the City says it won’t actually punish anyone that severely if they break the rule.

And how do we know the state won’t punish people accordingly? Well, we have nothing but the promise of its spokesperson. After all,

municipal code does state a violation could land the provider in jail for up to 6 months and lead to a fine up to $1,000; however, there are no plans to actually enforce that penalty. Instead, the city will do education and outreach in order to get providers to comply.

In other words, the actual statute makes it clear that any violators are subject to large fines and jail time for each infraction. That means passing out 5 straws could lead to years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

In the future, will judges and city prosecutors refrain from applying these penalties because some city employee said they won’t back in a 2018 news story? Don’t bet your livelihood on it.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/plastic-straw-ban-enforced-violence

Ex-United Nations Man Turned Democrat: “We Have To Regulate Every Aspect Of People’s Lives”

DANIEL GREENFIELD  

The full quote apparently ran…

In explaining his reasons for supporting a ban on plastic straws, Councilman Jason Dominguez, who represents District 1 on the city’s Eastside, uttered these words: “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”

Every. Aspect. Of. People’s Lives.

Remember when the left pretended that it wanted to get government out of the bedroom… only to fully occupy it with tanks and barbed wire?

Oplinger said he believes that Dominguez didn’t intend the comment to sound like he supports massive government overreach. Anyone who truly felt that way, Oplinger said, probably shouldn’t be an elected official.

Read More: https://freedomoutpost.com/ex-united-nations-man-turned-democrat-we-have-to-regulate-every-aspect-of-peoples-lives/

 

How the Federal Government Broke from the Constitution to Grow Into a Global Tyranny

bird-of-prey

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here

January 28, 2014

Nineteenth-century America was the closest thing to capitalism—a system in which government is limited to protecting individual rights—that has ever existed. There was no welfare state, no central bank, no fiat money, no deficit spending to speak of, no income tax for most of the century, and no federal regulatory agencies or antitrust laws until the end of the century. Consequently, total (federal, state, and local) government spending averaged a mere 3.26 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).1 The Constitution’s protection of individual rights and limitation on the power of government gave rise to an economy in which individuals were free to pursue their own interests, to start new businesses, and to create as much wealth as their ability and ambition allowed. This near laissez-faire politico-economic system led to the freest, most innovative, and wealthiest nation in history.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, however, capitalism and freedom have been undermined by an explosion in the size and power of government: Total government spending has increased from 6.61 percent of GDP in 1907 to a projected 45.19 percent of GDP in 2009;2 the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value due to the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies; top marginal income tax rates have been as high as 94 percent; entitlement programs now constitute more than half of the federal budget; and businesses are hampered and hog-tied by more than eighty thousand pages of regulations in the Federal Register.

What happened? How did America shift from a predominantly free-market economy to a heavily regulated mixed economy; from capitalism to welfare state; from limited government to big government? This article will survey the progression of laws, acts, programs, and interventions that brought America to its present state—and show their economic impact. Let us begin our survey by taking a closer look at the state of the country in the 19th century.

America’s Former Free Market

The Constitution established the political framework necessary for a free market. It provided for the protection of private property (the Fifth Amendment) including intellectual property (Article I, Section 8), the enforcement of private contracts (Article 1, Section 10), and the establishment of sound (gold or silver)3 money (Article I, Sections 8 and 10). It prohibited the states from erecting trade barriers (Article I, Section 9), thereby establishing the whole nation as one large free-trade zone. It permitted direct taxes such as the income tax only if apportioned among the states on the basis of population (Article 1, Sections 2 and 9), which made them very difficult to levy.4 Finally, it specifically enumerated and therefore limited Congress’s powers (Article I, Section 8), severely constraining the government’s power to intervene in the marketplace.

Federal regulatory agencies dictating how goods could be produced and traded did not exist. Rather than being forced to accept the questionable judgments of agencies such as the FDA, FTC, and USDA, participants in the marketplace were governed by the free-market principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). As historian Larry Schweikart points out:

merchants stood ready to provide customers with as much information as they desired. . . . In contrast to the modern view of consumers as incompetent to judge the quality or safety of a product, caveat emptor treated consumers with respect, assuming that a person could spot shoddy workmanship. Along with caveat emptor went clear laws permitting suits for damage incurred by flawed goods.5

To be sure, 19th-century America was not a fully free market. Besides the temporary suspension of the gold standard and the income tax levied during the Civil War, the major exceptions to the free market in the 19th century were tariffs, national banking, and subsidies for “internal improvements” such as canals and railroads. These exceptions, however, were limited in scope and were accompanied by considerable debate about whether they should exist at all. Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln supported such interventions; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and John Tyler generally opposed them. These interventions (except for tariffs) were, as Jefferson, Jackson, and Tyler pointed out, unconstitutional. But history shows that they were also impractical. Tariffs were initially implemented, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1789, as a source of revenue—the main source in the 19th century—for the federal government. Pressure from northern manufacturers, however, to implement tariffs for purposes of protection led to the “Tariff of Abominations” (1828), which was scaled back by 1833 due to heavy opposition from the South. Tariff rates then remained relatively low—about 15 percent—until the Civil War. By 1864, average tariff rates had risen to 47.09 percent for protectionist reasons and remained elevated for the remainder of the century.6

As to national banking, the Second Bank of the United States’ charter expired in 1836, thereby paving the way for the free banking era—which lasted until a national bank was reinstituted during the Civil War. By virtually every measure of bank health, this free banking era was the soundest in American history. In terms of capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, profitability, and prudent management, national banking proved to be inferior to free banking.7

Read More: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/rise-of-american-big-government/

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT: The Mystery That Will Not Die…

The MYSTERY surrounding “The Philadelphia Experiment” simply WILL NOT go away. What happened in 1943 in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard on October 28, 1943? Could the government be hiding SCIENCE from us? NAW…say it ain’t so!

Google Records Being Used by Police

This case might not be as bad as some, but important to know about…

Google Says Repeat: 2 + 2 = 5

Why The Police Are Quietly Turning To Google To Find Criminals | Zero Hedge

Why The Police Are Quietly Turning To Google To Find Criminals | Zero Hedge

…few people really understand how much information they’re surrendering to Google and Facebook, and law enforcement agencies are taking advantage of this ignorance…

As North Carolina TV station WRAL points out in a recent expose, Law enforcement are becoming more aggressive in requesting data gleaned from individuals’ cellphones when they’re investigating major crimes like murder, rape and arson – even when these requests are unjustifiably broad-based by the standards of applying for search warrants.

In one controversial technique that’s increasingly being employed in these types of investigations, police draw a perimeter around the area where a crime – like a murder, for example – occurred. They then apply (and typically receive approval) for a search warrant to collect the data from all smart phones that crossed into the perimeter around the time that the crime allegedly occurred.

Read More: www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-18/why-police-are-quietly-turning-google-find-criminals

Governments: Taking Your Rights and then Selling Them Back to You

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

occupational licensing is governmental theft
The Regulated States of America: Occupational Licensing Gone Wild

The United States is far from the land of the free these days. The governments in state capitols and Washington DC have confiscated our rights and are selling them back to us. American culture has shifted in a frightening way that has expanded the number of professions and industries that now require an occupational license to legally provide a service or start a business. This stifles business creation in many states and disproportionally affects low and middle income individuals the most.

Governments have overreached yet again in requiring a license to perform work that is not in the realm of public safety for consumers. Sandefur stated how it started and what it has become today, “Okay, yeah you gotta get licensing to do something that might be really risky to public health and safety and we accept little by little and eventually we have this growing trend where people are not allowed to work or start a business at all without first getting government permission.” Our insistence on government telling us what to do has hopefully peaked, but recent examples around the country might suggest otherwise.

Over the last 50 years, Sandefur pointed out, 1 in 20 Americans were required to get permission from the government to work by obtaining a license. This included obvious professions in the medical or educational fields. However, today, this number has exploded to 1 in 5 Americans being required to obtain an occupational license, essentially a permission slip from the government, to do their job. Other figures peg the number at closer to 1 in 4.

Is there any reason to believe this grotesque trajectory won’t continue?

Incredibly, over half of all jobs that require licenses are only required in one state. Examples include graphic designers, audio engineers, and travel agents. Consequences of not obtaining permission from the government to work include massive fines and even jail time. This government intervention in the economy restricts liberty and confiscates our freedom to make a living. Many people do not have the money to go to school, so they try to start a business and provide a service, only to run into the pointed gun of government telling them they can’t unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money to get the “proper training.”

Even more disturbing is the fact that when one challenges these licensing laws, they are guilty until proven innocent. Prospective entrepreneurs have to show the government why they should be free to work without permission from the government, but there is no burden of proof for the government to prove why the occupation should be licensed in the first place.

One atrocious example is requiring a license to blow dry hair. To get this permission, one must spend $15,000 in schooling and put in 1,000 hours to be “trained.” This training includes things like perming and drying hair, activities not performed when you are merely blow drying hair.

Read More: http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/the-regulated-states-of-america-occupational-licensing-gone-wild/

 

Media and CDC Buried Survey: Americans Use Guns Defensively 2.4mx Per Year

general Washington urging the troops forward to secure the right to keep and bear outdated rifles

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck’s controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is “to advocate or promote gun control.” (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck’s results. But Kleck didn’t know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

Kleck’s new paper—”What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?“**—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Read More: http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

Taking the Rights of Law-Abiding U.S. Citizens Does Not Lower the Rates of Murder

The citizens of the United Kingdom do not have the right of gun ownership and London has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world but has still surpassed New York City’s murder numbers due to knife attacks. 


Average Death Rate by What

After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City’s homicide rate for the first time.

“No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife,” Khan tweeted. “Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”

There have been more than 50 homicides in London so far in 2018, and much of the violence is tied to gangs.

Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York — which has a population roughly the same size as London — has seen a steady decline in violent crime.

There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided to USA TODAY by London’s Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department.

Read More:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/

4 Years Ago, Hundreds Of Protesters Proved That Armed Americans Can Take On The US Gov’t—And Win

Bundy Standoff Battle Over Bunkerville NV April 2014

In April 2014, hundreds of armed protesters gathered at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada to take a stand against the federal government.

While there are a number of arguments that are used by gun control advocates, one of the most common is that individuals do not need high-powered firearms because they will not stand a chance in a war against the federal government. However, four years ago, a group of armed men and women did come together to form a militia, as referenced in the Second Amendment, and they successfully stood up to the government agencies that were infringing upon their rights.

On April 5, 2014, an ongoing land dispute between cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and the United States Bureau of Land Management hit its peak when the agency and federal law enforcement began seizing cattle owned by Bundy that they claimed were trespassing on “federally-owned” land.

The dispute first began in 1993 when Bundy refused to pay for a cattle grazing permit to use the land near his ranch in Clark County, Nevada, after the BLM claimed that he must reduce the side of his herd to 150 and that the size of land where his cattle were allowed to graze would be severely restricted. Bundy argued that the federal government does not have the authority to own large amounts of land, which launched a legal battle that continued for the next two decades.

As the Tenth Amendment Center reported, the federal government claims to own 81 percent of the land in the state of Nevada and “On the land they manage, the feds are threatening to evict tenants who refuse to pay outrageous fees.” As a result, Bundy was “the last of a dying breed, the only holdout who hasn’t been driven off land in Clark County in recent years, land his family has utilized and improved for nearly a century.”

In addition to seizing cattle, the government also began conducting heavy surveillance around the Bundy Ranch. On April 8, Cliven Bundy and his wife, Carol, told the Washington Free Beacon that more than 200 agents from the BLM and FBI were stationed around the property, armed with “automatic weapons, sniper rifles, top communication, top surveillance equipment, lots of vehicles,” as helicopters circled overhead and agents blocked the nearby roads.

“The battle’s been going on for 20 years,” Cliven Bundy said. “What’s happened the last two weeks, the United States government, the bureaus are getting this army together and they’re going to get their job done and they’re going to prove two things. They’re going to prove they can do it, and they’re gonna prove that they have unlimited power and that they control the policing power over this public land. That’s what they’re trying to prove.”

The Bundys’ son, Dave, was arrested by federal agents for filming them near his father’s land and cited with misdemeanor counts of refusing to disperse and resisting arrest on April 6.

Lead investigator Larry Wooten revealed in December 2017 that officers involved in the arrest “bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face.” A memo from Wooten referenced a pattern of “far-reaching misconduct, recklessness and unrestrained antipathy toward the family.”

As the news spread and the public began to learn of the increasing presence of federal agents on the land, and the hundreds of cattle that were being held captive, men and women from across the United States converged on the Bundy Ranch to protest the BLM.

On April 12, hundreds of armed protestors participated in a standoff at the mouth of Gold Butte, the location where the cattle were seized. Dozens of militiamen also protested on a nearby highway overpass, causing traffic to stall for miles.

As BLM agents began to warn that they were armed with tear gas and were prepared to use it on the protesters, Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts announced that Cliven Bundy’s nearly 400 cattle would be returned within the next hour, in an effort to de-escalate the situation.

Following the standoff, Cliven Bundy continued to let his cattle graze on federal land without a permit. Although he and his sons were charged with a total of 15 counts of criminal conspiracy and other violations, all of their charges were finally dropped in December 2017.

Read More: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/four-years-ago-hundreds-armed-protesters/

BLM vs Cliven Bundy Timeline
BLM vs Cliven Bundy Timeline

The Framers of the Constitution Ended Slavery

How The Constitution Brought Slavery To An End

The framers of The Constitution needed to compromise to create our country, but they didn’t like slavery and didn’t want it to last. That’s why they cooked up a Constitution that wouldn’t allow it to last much longer.Jefferson

How The Constitution Brought Slavery To An End

The Founding Fathers’ understanding of equality and the way they structured our government enabled abolitionists to abolish slavery and hold the union together. 
Despite a bitter Civil War, Lincoln was able to hold the Union together because of the way the Constitution was drafted and structured our federal government.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/04/constitution-helped-bring-slavery-to-an-end/

The True Catastrophe of Guns in America has Nothing to do with Legal Owners or White Males

Gun Control is Racist Against Law Abiding Whites

There are some people who believe the #NeverAgain movement is getting too much mainstream attention  compared to BLM.

After all, African Americans make up 47% of crime victims in a country where they are ~15% of the population. 91% of those victims were killed by another African American.

Yet, because 17 people were tragically killed in a school shooting the media and left-wing is again pushing for  weapons bans against law-abiding citizens, when in Chicago there were 286 shootings and 78 slayings through the first two months of 2018.

white men with guns americas biggest terrorists
That’s strange, since the majority of gun offenders are not white men with guns.

Because the entire media has thrown away facts, we can understand that this is part of an agenda to disarm law-abiding citizens, not stop gun murder.

Don’t follow these links unless you want a dose of mental carcinogens…
It’s time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say –  Washington Post
Florida Republican congressman calls for ban on assault weapon sales, other measures – CNN
GUN RIGHTS: FORMER U.S. SERVICEMAN CALLS FOR BAN ON SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS – NewsWeek
House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons – Washington Examiner
Pa. senator calls for ban on 150 semi-automatic gun models – ABC 27
Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons – The Hill

It’s not a ban, and it’s not the answer to mass shootings

“This is the worst kind of gun control. Any measure that preserves the ability of criminals to access guns while restricting the access of law-abiding Americans is a measure that fundamentally impairs the very purpose of the Second Amendment. For the law-abiding, the existing stock of tens (hundreds?) of millions of weapons and magazines would instantly become more expensive. Yet with the slightest premeditation, a criminal could easily circumvent the ban. It’s a simple matter, in fact, to make your own high-capacity magazine.

Moreover, it’s sheer speculation that a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce mass shootings, reduce gun suicides, or reduce overall gun violence. Rifles are rarely used in “normal” gun crimes (blunt objects and fists kill more people), and you don’t need an AR-15 to kill yourself (rifle suicides are rare). And as ample, grim experience shows, you don’t need an AR-15 to commit a horrific mass killing. America’s worst school shooting — the Virginia Tech massacre — was committed with handguns, and the list of deadly handgun shootings is long and sad.

Mass shooters are among the most committed criminals in the entire United States. They often fantasize about their attacks for years and plan them for months. They can find an AR-15. Yet an AR-15 isn’t an indispensable weapon for a spree killer. They have options.”

Read More: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-ban-not-answer-mass-shootings/