Thursday, July 27, 2017

MSM Continues To Promote Idea of Microchipping Humans


Source: nola.com

The original story is "Wisconsin tech firm to implant RFID microchips in employees". I found the story on a local news site that I occasionally browse for material. The story itself is innocuous. The program is voluntary and allows participants to purchase snacks from vending machines, access offices without key cards, and operate the copier. However, the idea behind the story has been excessively promoted by the mainstream over the past few years. ABC did a similar segment on a Swedish company voluntarily microchipping their employees in April. In June, the UK Independent published a piece on a Swedish commuter train that offered customers the option to replace their tickete with an implanted microchip. In May of 2016, an NBC affiliate ran a story on a San Francisco mother who microchipped her teenage daughter with special needs. Of course, the story also promoted the idea of microchipping children in general and predicted they would become as common as bar codes in the future. In 2014, Fox News promoted the idea of microchipping U.S. citizens to identify them at security checkpoints, allow them to buy groceries without carrying a wallet, and find captured soldiers and journalists in war zones. In September of last year, The Dr. Oz Show did a 2 minute piece promoting the idea of using microchips to store medical data, identify people at the hospital, buy groceries, and even open the front door to your house, calling it the next big technological break through even though it has been implanted in pets for the past few decades. This isn't necessarily something nefarious, but it does make me wonder why the idea of microchipping people like animals is so enticing and if the federal government is behind this effort to make it more popular.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

State of Oregon Takes Kids From Parents For Low IQ Scores


Source: The Oregonian

Amy Fabbrini and Eric Ziegler lost custody of both of their sons. The Department of Human Services placed Fabbrini's first son, Christopher, in foster care four years ago. They took her second son, who was born this February, straight from the hospital. While the state found no evidence of abuse or neglect, a psychological evaluation of the couple revealed that Fabbrini has an IQ of 72 and Ziegler has an IQ of 66. Thus, the state used their lack of intelligence as the sole grounds for deeming them unfit to be parents. Amy Fabbrini's father, Raymond Fabbrini, prompted the state to take custody of Amy's first son Christopher. The report relays that she had a falling out with her father who urged her to put Christopher up for adoption and said among other things that she doesn't have the instincts to be a mother and was a lazy child that didn't do nothing. Her father currently has custody of twin girls she bore in a previous marriage before she met Ziegler. Since the couple lost custody of their newborn, they have taken classes on parenting, first aid, CPR and nutrition through WIC, MountainStar, and Healthy Families of the High Desert to no avail. They are currently only allowed supervised visits to their sons.

It doesn't make sense to assign as much weight to IQ as the state has. People with average or above average IQs can still have disorders that impair their judgment as parents to the point where they aren't able to sufficiently provide for and protect their children. It is not the best measurement of how well a person can raise a child by a long shot. A high IQ doesn't make one capable of being a parent and a low IQ doesn't make one incapable of being a parent. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the average IQ is 70 yet no one is advocating to take away their children despite the squalor they live in, but these facts are immaterial. The principle of the matter is that all citizens are afforded the same rights under the constitution regardless of intelligence or any other heritable characteristic. The 14th amendment stipulates that every citizen of each state must not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process and should be given equal protection of the laws. Fabbrini and Ziegler should first be proven neglectful and incompetent as parents before having their children taken from them, just as any other couple would be treated by the state. State law stipulates, among other things, that the case workers make an effort to reunite the family and that a magistrate conduct a permanency hearing to determine if the children can return home and plan for such an occasion. None of this was done.

From what I have seen in the video, their intellectual disabilities seem mild at worst. Perhaps assistance from a social worker would prove a better solution then breaking up the family.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Government Micromanagement of Renters' Lives

Source: Institute for Justice

In another blow to the fourth amendment, the Minnesota supreme court decided that probable cause isn't a necessary condition to obtain a search warrant for rental property in Wiebsick v. Golden Valley. The ruling allows city inspectors to continue using administrative warrants to search rental properties without probable cause or even suspicion of any illegal activity or code violations, and takes away tenants' and landlords' 4th amendment protection against arbitrary searches of their property. The government reserves the right, at all times, to come and go as they please, scrutinizing the even the most trivial details of their homes including how well they scrubbed the toilet and whether they keep the dishwasher loaded. This is really the heart of the matter; once you remove a civil liberty the potential for abuse of authority multiplies indefinitely. The beauracratic power trip, like a cocaine addiction, knows no end. When the city can regulate how often you clean your home and do dishes you have no private life; you might as well live in a glass house. The control freaks want to manage every aspect of their lives, and not for their own good or health or for the value of the landlord's property. The only people with a vested interest in the tenants' own good and health are the tenants themselves. Likewise, the only person with a vested interest in maintaining the landlord's property is the landlord. A government's only vested interest is revenue generation to stuff their bloated salaries and collect their bloated pensions at the conclusion of their unproductive, parasitic careers; anything else is secondary. This won't end until people stop treating politicians and bureaucrats like angels sent from on high and recognize them for the sociopathic scumbags they are.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Government Thugs Steal Man's Property After He Falls On Hard Times

Source: Pacific Legal Foundation

Henderson Hodgens inherited a farm from his parents and worked as a bus driver. After a work related injury kept him off the job for a year he was unable to pay the property taxes on his farm. In response, Van Buren County took his farm and sold it for $47,900 to collect $5,900 in back taxes. Rather than simply keeping the amount needed to pay off the tax debt the county also pocketed the profits. Under the Michigan General Property Tax Act, the state and local governments are allowed to sell their residents' property for delinquent taxes and keep proceeds in excess of the tax debt. Hodgens wasn't the only resident not given leinicey when facing financial troubles. The Wayside Church Youth camp ran into the same problem when they couldn't cough up $16,500. Van Buren County sold their property for $180,000 and kept the profits as well. Hodgens has since moved to a trailer park in California.

The saying don't kick a man when he's down is most suitable here. The principle of beneficence would stipulate that they give leinicey to people who are unable to pay. Ability to pay should be the first thing considered for any tax. Property taxes fail to account for the fact that a lot of people who own property are cash poor. For all of the problems inherent in personal income taxes they at least don't tax people for what they don't have and follow the ability to pay principle. The county also violated the takings clause of the 5th amendment by keeping proceeds in excess of what the property owners were liable to pay. No compensation is pretty far removed from just compensation, and even had they refunded the profits to the owners it would still not excuse them from selling the property without allowing them the opportunity to
challenge the decision in court. This affront to basic ethics and civil liberties demonstrates that the county operates much like the mafia who expects you to pay them their protection fee even in bad times.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Conservation Is a Pretext For Genocide (part 2)


Source: Survival International

The Wildlife Conservation Society is forcing Bayak Pygmies out of their historical hunting grounds to establish a national park. WCS is using the cover of anti-poaching laws and environmental awareness to force a traditional society out of their homeland at gun point. In the Congo Republic,they are using the same tactics WWF used in Cameroon and other West African countries. WCS is paying armed guards to terrorize and torture the Bayak for subsistence hunting under the false pretense of preventing poaching. At the same time, they have partnered with and allowed logging companies to cut down the forests killing far greater numbers of animals than what Bayak do to simply feed themselves.

UN Convention 1021 defines genocide as (a) Killing members of the group;
 (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
 (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 and (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Wildlife Conservation Society is complicit in (b) funding guards to maim and shoot the Bayak and (c) have made it more difficult for them to find food. The tribal peoples are not ivory hunters looking to make massive profits from tusks; they are simply exercising their natural right to preserve their own lives in accordance with the law of equal liberty. We in the civilized world put much greater constraints on the environment and kill far greater numbers of animals than any traditional society; we simply have the convience of remaining ignorant of our impact. For instance, If you use any products that contain palm oil, and the vast majority of people do, you are complicit in the destruction of rain forest habitats from South America to southeast Asia.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

First Pillar of Restorative Justice


The first pillar is 'inclusion of all parties, which have been affected by a crime, to resolve
the crime.'

Inclusion seeks the full participation of all parties affected, and it is accomplished by:
     
  1. Inviting all interested parties to participate
  2. Expecting the parties to pursue their own interests
  3. Being flexible enough to accept new approaches relevant to the particular situation.

One of the problems that the current criminal justice system suffers is that it excludes
the victim’s legal interest.There are several methods that can be utilized to include the victim in the restorative
justice process.

Keep victims informed about the services and rights they may expect, and the statusof their particular case in the punitive justice process. They should be informed ofvictim compensation, victim services, 
the steps of the criminal prosecution and the victim's rights during the proceedings.


Allow the victim to offer testimony about the physical, mental, emotional, social, and/or
economic harm caused by the crime during the sentencing phase, as well as comment on what sentence the offender should receive.


Give the victim the legal right to pursue restitution during the criminal proceedings.


Allow the victim to consult with the prosecutor and initiate action independent of the prosecutor.


The victim should also be included in other stages of the criminal justice process such
as:
  • Investigation
  • Arraignment through pre-sentencing
  • Plea-bargaining
  • Sentencing
  • Post sentencing
restorativejustice.org

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Child Brides In The U.S.




Sources: NPR, Unchained and Pew Research

It may come as a surprise to most people that child marriage still exists in a first world country like our own. 167,000 children (defined as persons under 18 years of age) married in 38 states between 2000 and 2010. Unchained could not gather data on 12 states, but estimated the number to be around 250,000 over that decade for all 50 states. As of 2014, 57,800 minors between the ages of 15 and 17 were married according to Pew Research. While child marriage is not common in the U.S., at least not as common as it is in Pakistan where 1/5 of girls marry under the age of 18, neither is pedophila or rape, but it is still a problem. 77% of these marriages (128,590) took place between female minors and adult men. Some marry under the age of consent (16 in most states) to husbands old enough to be convicted of statutory rape if they have sex with them. The number of child marriages has subsided year by year but so has the number of total marriages. Over the same decade, the number of marriages per year dropped from 2,315,000 in 2000 to 2,096,000 in 2010. Most states have set the minimum marriage age at 18, but allow persons younger than 18 to marry with parental consent and/or judicial approval. To put this into context, people under the age of 18 are not allowed to smoke, drink, sign contracts, file suit in their own name, or vote but they are allowed to marry, a decision more permanent and monumental then any of those enumerated. It wouldn't be asking much to demand that state legislatures across the country eliminate the exceptions and make 18 the absolute minimum age for marriage. Making 18 the absolute minimum age would reduce the incidence of parents coercing their daughters into marriage and adult men sexually abusing adolescent girls. Even if there are adolescents mature enough to marry at 17, it wouldn't hurt for them to wait a year, as they are expected to do for other privileges reserved for adults.

Last month, NPR featured a story about a woman who was raped by a member of her church and forced to marry her rapist at the age of 11 in 1971. The details of her story shock the conscience with unimaginable horrors allowed by the state of Florida and every other state in the union to this day.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Third Circuit Decision: Recording Police Is Protected By First Amendment

Some good news for a change


Source: ACLU

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided in Richard Fields v. City of Philadelphia, that recording police officers engaged in their official duties is protected by the first amendment. This makes the third circuit the 6th appellate court to rule in favor of freedom of the press when it comes to recording police and overturns the District Court's decision that recording the police is not protected by the first amendment unless the bystander explicitly gives his purpose for recording the police and presents an objection to their activity. The Philadelphia Police department recognized that recording police activity was protected by the first amendment as far back as 2011. The department published a memorandum advising officers not to retaliate against civilian bystanders recording their activity 6 years ago. And again in 2012 they published a directive that repeated this point. Yet in 2013, Richard Fields was illegally arrested and searched for taking a photo of police clearing out a house party. The problem clearly lies with the officers' egos, not the department's policies or the constitution. Hopefully, the other seven courts of appeal will follow suit and put and end to their power trip.

Monday, July 10, 2017

What No One Brings Up In The Pipeline Debates

Or at least no one in the mainstream. There the contention seems to be between the environment and jobs. What most people pass over is property rights, which are gradually being suppressed by multi-national corporations and governments at every level. In Pennsylvania, a new pipeline battle between landowners and SUNOCO, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, has arisen. The contention is over the Mariner East II Pipeline: a 350 mile natural gas pipeline running west to east from the Marcellus shale formation in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook refinery near the Delaware border. Landowners victimized by the company have voiced their grievances before the commonwealth court to no avail. The company's 'right' to rob private citizen's of their property in furtherance of their own profit, for a use that the landowners themselves will have no chance to benefit from, has been upheld as a legitimate use of eminent domain.

Ralph and Doris Blume are farmers in Newville, Pennsylvania who will lose some of their land to SUNOCO for the pipeline easement. Aside from removing trees, the company also plans to destroy their hay shed, which sits on the pipeline's projected path. The fact that one business may be allowed to rob another business of part of its capital by court order just shows how much our republic has been perverted by lobbyists and their lackeys in office. The Gerharts' land in Union Township is under a similar threat from SUNOCO although they have resisted the court ordered robbery by setting up camp and inviting protestors to occupy the projected pipeline route, which is about 200 feet from their house. They have even been arrested for trespassing on their own property.

The company claims that most landowners sold their land 'voluntarily', which is clearly a lie. If it was voluntary, landowners would have the choice not to give up their land for the pipeline easement; either way they have to sell and they don't get to negotiate compensation. The most likely explanation is that these landowners knew they couldn't win in court. The company was given the power eminent domain under the specious pretext that they would provide a public utility; of course, this like their earlier claim is also false. At least some of the natural gas liquids transported through the pipeline will be shipped to Europe through the Marcus Hook refinery, which is in fact a port on the Delaware river that eventually flows into the Atlantic ocean. A company spokesman claimed the pipeline would transport ethane to the power generation facility in Cambria County that is slated to be operational by 2019. However, that facility is the CPV Fairview Energy Center, which is a primarily methane facility that will receive gas from the Spectra/TETCO pipeline owned by a completely different company. Even if their claim to provide a 'public utility' wasn't a lie, it still wouldn't stand to reason that they should be allowed to use eminent domain in counties that won't even receive the service they are providing. The Gerharts live in Huntingdon county, Ralph and Doris Blume live in Cumberland county, and most landowners along the route also don't live in Cambria county and neither do their neighbors. At least when the state uses eminent domain to build a road or an actual utility company uses it to put in power lines the people within that county, including the landowners, receive the benefit of that service.

Providing a public utility isn't even requisite to use eminent domain anyway. Ever since the Kelo decision, the vague appeal to 'economic development' is all a corporation needs to take property from private citizens, even if they don't actually produce anything afterwards. The weakening of property rights is a dangerous habit that if carried to its fullest extent will lead to the decline of civilization itself, which it is fundamental too on par with language and culture. The founding fathers recognized this fact and so enshrined property right protections into the Constitution. As a matter of fact, four out of the ten amendments that make up the bill of rights deal with property rights (I,III,IV, and V amendments).

Friday, July 7, 2017

Why Is Our Criminal Justice System Defective?

Our criminal justice system is based on the retributive justice paradigm, which focuses on punishing those who violate the law. However, this paradigm does not address or account for all of the damaged caused by crime. It also does not effectively discourage crime, as is evident by high incarceration rates and recidivism; all of this is exacerbated by the immoral 'war on drugs' and other imaginary crimes. Evidence of its obsolescence is obvious to anyone who isn't willfully ignorant.

U.S. has the highest incarceration rate

and high recidivism

The restorative justice paradigm, by contrast, focuses on repairing the damage caused by crime and accounts for not only the harm inflicted upon the victim, but also the harm inflicted upon the victim's family, other people affected by the crime, and the community as a whole. Unlike retributive justice, restorative justice necessitates redress for victims and amends by offenders. The final goal of restorative justice is the reintegration of the victim and the offender (if he/she committed a non-violent crime) into their community, which would reduce recidivism.

What is restorative justice?

I know I did a story contrasting restorative justice with our current paradigm, retributive justice, but I never really defined what it is besides its ultimate goal. So here is what I consider to be the 5 theses of restorative justice.

5 theses of restorative justice

1. Crime causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. Justice requires repairing that harm.

2. The people most affected by the crime should be allowed to participate in its resolution.

3. By committing the crime, the offender creates an obligation to the victim, the community, and the state.

4. When the offender meets that obligation, they are taking responsibility for their actions, and begin to understand and value their relationship with other people, the community, and the state.

5. The responsibility of the government is to maintain order and peace in the community.

Here is a more in-depth contrast between restorative justice and retributive justice

http://www.cscsb.org/restorative_justice/retribution_vs_restoration.html

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

The Greatest Enemy Is The One Within


I don't watch much TV, but there is one show in particular that catches my attention. I started watching Walking Dead back in 2012 and got through the first three seasons of it, but forgot about the show by the time season four came around. In 2016, I stumbled upon a Youtube clip from season six and recalled my previous interest in the show. When I stopped watching the show five years ago the main antagonist was a man who called himself the governor. The latest antagonist is Negan. What makes Negan stand apart from all of the previous villains (e.g. the governor, terminus, the wolves etc.) is his use of psychological manipulation to exploit people for his own personal gain. His sociopathy is much more subtle than that of previous villains. One of his most profound manipulations is that he persuades his men to say 'I am Negan.' It's a short and pithy statement that expresses more than what is revealed by those three words. They are saying, in effect, that their interests are the same as his interests. What pains him pains them, and what pleases him also pleases them. They live and die for his sake. What Negan does to his men is reminiscent of what the federal government does on a massive scale. In school, children are taught, from an early age, to pledge allegiance to the flag (a symbol for the federal government). Though at first none of them understand what they are reciting, it eventually takes its grip on them. They are taught that they live in a democracy (though this is imperatively false); they are taught that they are the government. In short, they are taught to identify with a group of sociopaths that exploit their labor and emotions for personal gain. When they become adults, they are robbed of their liberty and property and receive only false promises in return. The criminals in Washington, like any good protection racket, obfuscates this fact by waging wars for seemingly nobel causes on specious pretexts. The war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on every conceivable social ill reinforces the collectivist mentality pounded into their heads since elementary school: 'we are the government.' By this logic we also spy on ourselves, rob ourselves, assault ourselves, and force ourselves into involuntary servitude. By Negan's logic he has died several deaths and betrayed himself. Neither statement 'I am Negan' or 'we are the government' is meant to be factual; it is meant to entice submission.