How Yankees twist the mind of the human being

Worry for the future when a kid (or a grown-up) has to think twice before responding appropriately to a threat to his person or propterty. There are innumerable examples of this type of BS in the MSM these days, the result of 20 years of politically correct indoctrination.  


Anyone who reads this blog knows I equate political correctness originating with liberal/progressives with Yankeeism.


This is how it is in Bean-town, via Drudge:

verbatim repost


BOSTON (CBS) – A 7-year-old boy is being investigated by his South Boston elementary school for possible sexual harassment after kicking another boy in the crotch.


The first grader’s mother, Tasha Lynch, says she was shocked by the school’s decision.


“He’s 7 years old. He doesn’t know anything about sexual harassment,” she said.


Lynch’s son, Mark Curran, said the boy that he kicked had been bullying him on the school bus ride home from Tynan Elementary last week.


“He just all of a sudden came up to him, choked him. He wanted to take his gloves, and my son said, ‘I couldn’t breathe, so I kicked him in the testicles,’” said his mother.


Lynch described a phone call she received from the school explaining that the case will be treated like sexual harassment, due to what it considers inappropriate touching.


“‘Your son kicked a little boy in the testicles. We call that sexual harassment,’” Lynch said the school told her.


She said she’s been asked to attend a disciplinary hearing at the school Monday.


A Boston Public Schools spokesperson said officials are investigating, but won’t comment further, since it’s a private matter.


Lynch wants an apology and better supervision on the school bus to prevent such fights among students.


“He couldn’t breathe. He was trying to defend himself,” she said. “I don’t find that sexual harassment. I find that defending himself.”

Sexual harassment points

Progressives, never fear!  


A few years in a political re-education camp (you know, an American University) is just the thing that this seven year old needs to come around.

Rand Paul on the recent National Defense Authorization Act S.1867

Editorial from Washington Times:


Verbatim:

James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.” Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”


During war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. During the Civil War, the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed. Fortunately, those actions were reversed after the war.


The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome, given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.


My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the 2012 defense authorization bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.


Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely - without due process or trial - suspected al Qaeda sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.


I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely suspected of a crime. We are talking about American citizens.


If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay. This should be alarming to everyone because it puts every single American citizen at risk.


There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will by the hands of a too-powerful state: our Constitution and the checks it puts on government power. Should we err and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists will have won.


Detaining citizens without a court trial is un-American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” emergency law authorizing indefinite preventive detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.


Recently, Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, saying, “Where the government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”


He concluded, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive.”


Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.


As Ben Franklin wisely warned, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security. If we do, we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?


Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”


Some say that to prevent another Sept. 11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.


But Sept. 11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. The attacks did not succeed because al Qaeda was so formidable, but because of human error. The Department of Defense withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied - the warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of a laptop with information that might have prevented Sept. 11.


These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.


We should not have to sacrifice our liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our Constitution, were written so that it didn’t matter who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our Constitution allows for that. This bill does not.


Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky.

Jury Nullification: Threat to tyranny; ultimate trump card of the People against unjust laws

Today, the Federal government is sovereign over the States. The State and Local governments over the People. 


The Order of Sovereignty set by the American Revolution has flipped upside down.


And so the State will come down hard on any threat to it's sovereignty.  Any idea that might make the Sheeple "uppish" (uppish: Proud; arrogant; assuming; putting on airs of superiority.).  


Take a look at the Enemy of the State:

Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.


Then, last year, federal prosecutors had Mr. Heicklen indicted, charging that his activity violated the law against jury tampering. Lawyers assisting him have sought dismissal of the case on First Amendment grounds.


But now prosecutors are offering their first detailed explanation for why they charged Mr. Heicklen, arguing in a brief that his “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”


“His speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” prosecutors wrote.


This is an example of what is not protected by the First Amendment:


...“I’m not telling you to find anybody not guilty,” she quoted Mr. Heicklen telling the agent in a secretly recorded conversation.


“But,” he added, “if there is a law you think is wrong then you should do that.”

Whoa.  What unmitigated gall Mr Heicklen has!


And, of course:

Mr. Heicklen, who could face a six-month sentence if convicted, has asked for a jury trial. Ms. Mermelstein, opposing that demand, cited as one reason Mr. Heicklen’s ardent stance that juries should nullify. He would probably “urge a jury to do so in a case against him,” she wrote.


Well, duh.


New York Times article


-------------------------------------------
Learn more here:


Fully Informed Jury Association

International Society for Individual Liberty History of Jury Nullification

"Most transparent administration in history": Seals records on Brian Terry's murder, related to Operation Gunwalker

From 2009 post on whitehouse.gov:


Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government.

Please excuse me while I LMFAO:

--------------------------

Verbatim:

And to think that Attorney General Eric Holder is getting testy about congressional calls for his resignation. After all, the Justice Department has nothing to hide, right?


The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.


This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.


The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to the Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.


Link to the Weekly Standard

I am Paddy McCoy ;-)

Paddy McCoy, an elderly Irish farmer, received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions stating that they suspected he was not paying his employees the statutory minimum wage, and they would send an inspector to interview them.

On the appointed day, the inspector turned up.
"Tell me about your staff," he asked Paddy.

"Well," said Paddy, "there's the farm hand, I pay him £240 a week, and he has a free cottage.

Then there's the housekeeper. She gets £190 a week, along with free board and lodging.

There's also the half-wit. He works a 16 hour day, does 90% of the work, earns about £25 a week along with a bottle of whisky - and, as a special treat, occasionally gets to sleep with my wife."
"That's disgraceful" said the inspector, "I need to interview the half-wit."

"That'll be me then," said Paddy.

The Economist: High risk for disintegration of the Euro within weeks

The crisis in the euro area is turning into a panic and dragging the zone into recession. The risk that the currency disintegrates within weeks is alarmingly high

FIRST Greece; then Ireland and Portugal; then Italy and Spain. Month by month, the crisis in the euro area has crept from the vulnerable periphery of the currency zone towards its core, helped by denial, misdiagnosis and procrastination by the euro-zone’s policymakers. Recently Belgian and French government bonds have been in the financial markets’ bad books. Investors are even sniffy about German bonds: an auction of ten-year Bunds on November 23rd shifted only €3.6 billion-worth ($4.8 billion) of the €6 billion-worth on offer.


Worse, there are signs that the euro zone’s economy is heading for recession, if it is not there already. Industrial orders in the euro zone fell by 6.4% in September, the steepest decline since the dark days of December 2008. A closely watched index of euro-zone sentiment, based on surveys of purchasing managers in manufacturing and services, is also signalling contraction, with a reading of 47.2: anything below 50 suggests activity is shrinking. The European Commission’s index of consumer confidence fell in November for the fifth month in a row.


Now an even bigger calamity is looking likelier. The intensifying financial pressure raises the chances of a disorderly default by a government, a run of retail deposits on banks short of cash, or a revolt against austerity that would mark the start of the break-up of the euro zone.


Link to the rest


Perhaps the Eurozone hacks should've read von Mises...

Ron Paul: Monetary freedom and the gold standard

Update on Iceland: Laissez faire approach = faster recovery

I had previously  (here and here) pointed to Iceland's approach to their debt crisis as an example of what the Austrian School of Economics (see Mises.org) recommends: Do nothing.  


In Iceland, the government let insolvent banks fail, people lost jobs, there was a liquidation of bad investments, ... BUT then there was a rapid recovery.
  Contrast that with the European and American approach: keep sapping the economic strength (i.e. looting) of the productive sector of their constituents, and move that money around, print money, obfuscate, etc. 


Kick the can down the road, let it be someone else's problem.


----------------------


The OECD has come very close to predicting a depression for Europe unless EU leaders conjure up a lender-of-last resort very quickly, and somehow manage to make the world believe that the EFSF bail-out fund really exists.


Even if disaster is avoided, the eurozone growth forecast is dreadful. Italy, Portugal, Greece will all contract through 2012, while Spain, France, Netherlands, and Germany will bounce along the bottom.


Unemployment will reach 18.5pc in Greece, 22.9pc in Spain, 14.1pc in Ireland, 13.8pc in Portugal.


Yet Iceland stands out, with 2.4pc growth and unemployment tumbling to 6.1. Well, well.



Ambrose Evans Pritchard at the Telegraph

Uh-oh, .gov wants to cross a red line...OFFICIAL de jure repeal of posse commitatus, and establishment of police state powers---Next week

From the ACLU


The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.


The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.


-----------------------------


From: globalresearch.ca


As many Americans know, for over a decade there have been dozens of pieces of legislation and executive orders that have chipped away at the US Constitution, specifically at its Bill of Rights.


The “war on terror” was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.


This was the design all along.


The intention was always to immobilize the American public with a police-state control grid, now backed by the regular military, so that the process of economic extraction and political subjection could be completed.


The NDAA for 2012 represents a significant step, on the part of the government, towards a “final takedown.”



----------------------
This absolutely crosses a red line for me, if enacted.


Please re-read this post for my analysis.

State Sovereignty: America's [First and] Final Solution to Tyranny

At the end of this article is a copy of the proposed state sovereignty amendment that Ron and Donnie Kennedy are promoting as the final solution to federal abuse. They believe that anything less will only continue the course of federal supremacy and the ultimate destruction of real American liberty. I sadly agree with them.


Just following Congress, the 2012 presidential campaign and the inability of citizens to influence government policy makes it clear to every American how broken the US political system has become. A few powerful interests run the entire show and the American people are being forced down a dark road to economic destruction. History shows us that Washington is immune to conventional national political action under the present system. What can freedom loving Americans do?


...There is only one effective, democratic and peaceful tool left to Americans to defend their liberties and restore the original republic of our founding fathers. It is the right of state sovereignty and nullification, so effectively explained by Tom Woods in his book Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. http://www.tomwoods.com/books/nullification


Many other freedom advocates have proposed nullification and state sovereignty, including the Kennedy Brothers who have developed a State Sovereignty Amendment strategy that should be launched in all 50 states. Although the elites ruling our nation have total control over the federal government and the two-party system nationally, they have neglected to extend this top-down control to the state level. This is because over the last 50 years states have become mere powerless appendages of Washington without influence – and this is an opportunity for the Freedom movement.

Read the rest at The Daily Bell


Proposed State Sovereignty Amendment to the Constitution at the end of the article.