The Feds Want Parents to be Terrorism Recruiters

by Will

Liberty Minute for April 24 2014

Parents have a duty to monitor the attitudes and enthusiasms of their children, and report them to law enforcement if they display symptoms of incipient extremism. This is the view of Lisa Monaco, Barack Obama’s Security and Counterterrorism adviser.

 In an address to Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Monaco suggested that “sudden personality changes” in children, including a “confrontational” attitude, might betoken terrorist tendencies. Monaco lamented that “The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals, so we need to do more to help communities understand the warning signs, and then work together to intervene before an incident can occur.”

 In the case of teenage Somali immigrant Mohamed Mohamoud, the father did exactly as Monaco recommended: He called the FBI when the 19-year-old began expressing militant attitudes. Rather than working to defuse the youngster’s militancy, the FBI abetted it, luring him into a scripted plot to bomb a Christmas ceremony in Portland.

In addition to being informants, the Feds want parents to act as terrorism recruiters, identifying troubled young people – usually boys – who can be fed into the FBI’s Homeland Security Theater apparatus.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 

Defense of Property is Domestic Terrorism?

by Will

LibertyMinute April 23 2014

Defenders of the federal crackdown on Cliven Bundy’s ranch pretend that the theft of his cattle is both a legal and reasonable response to trespassing. From a constitutional perspective the Feds have no authority to claim that land, so the term “trespass” better describes Federal behavior on those grazing lands.

It’s worth recalling how the Feds have responded to cattle trespass on private land. In 2011, North Dakotafarmer Rodney Brossart seized cattle that had trespassed on his land and damaged his property. Under applicable range law, the owner of the cattle committed a class B misdemeanor, and Brossart was entitled to seize the animals as security until he had received redress.

However, the Nelson County Sheriff, Kelly Janke, refused to act according to the law. Instead, he dispatched deputies to Brossart’s home, where the farmer was assaulted, tasered, and abducted at gunpoint. The following day, the US Department of Homeland Security deployed two drones to overfly the Brossart property to aid a SWAT team sent to seize the farmer’s adult sons.

Brossart was acquitted of cattle theft, but found guilty of “terrorizing” law enforcement officers.

Whether inNevada or North Dakota, the Feds insist that defense of one’s property is a form of domestic terrorism.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.

Federal Rustling is Routine in Nevada

by Will

Liberty Minute April 22 2014

The family of Cliven Bundy achieved world-wide publicity when they and their supporters forced the BLM to relinquish several hundred head of cattle that had been confiscated after Bundy had refused to pay grazing fees to the federal government.

Bundy doesn’t object to paying fees, but he insists that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own those lands – and under a strict application of both the Constitution and Nevada’s statehood enabling act, Bundy is unassailably correct.

The seizure of the Bundy family’s cattle was not the first act of government-licensed rustling carried out by the BLM. In 2001, BLM hired contractors to steal the cattle of fellow Nevada ranchers Ben Colvin and Jack Vogt under very similar circumstances. The BLM and Forest Service likewise pilfered cows belonging to Wayne Hage. Last year, a federal judge ruled that those agencies had conducted a criminal conspiracy against Hage and recommended that their administrators face criminal prosecution.

In one of the most heartless cases of this kind, the BLM rustled livestock belonging to two elderly Shoshone sisters who were on land their ancestors had worked for centuries.

The Bundys were not the first to confront federally licensed cattle rustlers. They are, however, the first to fight back.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 

"Combatant Children"

by Will

Liberty Minute April 21 2014


It is difficult, if not impossible, for the mind of man to conjure a more depraved expression than “Combatant children.” That obscenity is inscribed on a plaque found on a monument just north of Preston, Idaho, which serves as a memorial to the victims of the Bear River Massacre.


The plaque, which was written in 1922, claims that the US Army attack on a Shoshone village in January 1863 was justified to punish “Indians guilty of hostile attacks on emigrants and settlers,” and that it resulted in the death of up to 300 Indians, “including about 90 combatant women and children.”


No evidence was ever produced that the victims of the massacre included the Indians who had actually participated in raids against settlers. Those raids, furthermore, were carried out because the government had failed to deliver provisions that had been promised in exchange for access to land. Many of the Indians had been reduced to near-starvation by the time Col. PE Connor staged the pre-dawn assault on the village.


Most importantly, it is perverse beyond expression to describe children slaughtered in their own home as “combatants” – unless we assume that's how we should describe anybody who happens to die at the hands of US government employees.


Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.

How a Non-Accomplice Was Sent to Prison for Life

by Will

Liberty Minute April 18 2014

Ryan Holle never sold drugs, never stole anything, and certainly never killed anybody. He was asleep in his apartment when a friend to whom he had lent his car did all of those things. No evidence was ever provided that Holle – who had lent his car to the same friend on several previous occasions – knew what his friend had planned to do, let alone that he had any role in those crimes. Yet Holle was arrested and offered a plea bargain that would have resulted in a ten-year prison term.

Convinced that he had not committed a crime, Holle contested the charge in court. Acting with the vindictiveness that typifies his profession, the prosecutor charged him with first-degree murder  under Florida’s felony murder statute. A jury convicted him of that offense, and Holle was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole. He has served eleven years of that sentence.

Under the principle of collective guilt used to convict Holle, a citizen whose car is stolen and then used in a crime could be considered an accomplice. All that is necessary is a suitable case and a sufficiently depraved prosecutor.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.


Next Time a Cop Tazes an Innocent Person, Shoot Him

by Will

Liberty Minute April 17 2014

Arizona resident Jefferson Duncan was walking by an apartment complex in Phoenix when he and a friend named Jonathan Parker were approached by two off-duty police officers who had been hired as security guards. Despite the fact that it was early in the evening and neither Duncan nor Parker was suspected of a crime, the police – who were in uniform -- accosted them.

Parker ran, and Duncan would up in an altercation with one of the officers. The officer claimed that Parker seized control of his Taser and used it on him, leaving the officer briefly incapacitated. The officer claims that when he recovered he drew his firearm and shot Parker, killing him before he could use the Taser against him again.

Leaving aside for now the question of why off-duty police officers would be wearing uniforms while working as private security guards, this incident illustrates again that Tasers are not non-lethal weapons. That is, they are not regarded as such when private citizens use them, or threaten to use them, against police, who are allowed to respond with deadly force.

What this should mean is that when police make aggressive – and therefore unlawful – use of Tasers, citizens are legally entitled to use lethal force in self-defense.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.


Adding Words, Subtracting Rights

by Will

LibertyMinute April 16 2014

 Where the U.S. Constitution is concerned, rights can be subtracted through addition – in this case, by adding five words to the Second Amendment.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a long-time opponent of the right to armed self-defense, insists that gun rights supporters misrepresent the clear intention of the Framers by saying that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Stevens also insists that the same Framers somehow neglected to make that intention clear in the plain language of that amendment.

Thus he suggests that the phrase, “when serving in the Militia” should be added to the Second Amendment, which would then read: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

In this way, Stevens says, government would be able to enact measures “designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.” It would also create a state monopoly on firearms ownership that is the necessary precursor to mass slaughter carried out by government officials.

Not even a sophist as accomplished as Stevens can plausibly argue that the Framers intended to equip the government with the means to commit genocide. 


Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 

Bullies Don't Accept Defeat Gracefully

by Will

LibertyMinute April 15 201


When the ATF attacked the Branch Davidians outsideWacoin February 1993, the expectation was a quick and painless victory over an eccentric religious sect and a public relations boost for the scandal-plagued agency. This is why the assault was code-named “Showtime.” Rather than allowing themselves to be slaughtered and dragged off in chains, however, the Davidians defended themselves, forcing the ATF to retreat. This led to an escalation by the FBI, which laid siege for 51 days before the final assault that left of scores of Davidians dead from fire, asphyxiation, and gunfire.


In 1973, a band of Sioux activists at Wounded Knee held off the FBI and theUSmilitary for 71 days, demanding redress of tribal corruption and investigation of unsolved murders. The planned assault was cancelled and the Feds were unable to convict the Indian activists of charges in court. But they eventually retaliated by carrying out a campaign of low-intensity warfare that left several innocent people dead.


Like any bully, the Regime inWashingtonchooses its battles carefully, generally avoiding fights with opponents capable of fighting back. But it will not accept defeat when clearly in the wrong. This is somethingNevadarancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters should remember.


Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.

The Western States Revolt Begins

by Will

Liberty Minute April 14 2014

After a week-long standoff in the southern Nevada desert, the BLM announced that it would return cattle that had been confiscated from rancher Cliven Bundy. Mr. Bundy, whose family has operated cattle ranches in southeastern Nevada since the 1870s, insists that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own grazing lands in Clark County. For more than 20 years Bundy has refused to pay fees to the BLM, maintaining that the agency had usurped county and state authority.

Whatever else can be said about Bundy’s business practices, his constitutional analysis is unassailable.  Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifies and limits the purposes for which the federal government can acquire public land. There is no grant of power for Washington to claim vast expanses of territory within the western states. In spite of this, the federal government owns roughly half of the aggregate acreage in the 11 coterminous western states.

Since the 1990s, federal regulatory agencies like the BLM have been driving ranchers, loggers, miners, and other entrepreneurs from so-called “public” lands in the name of protecting the habitat of threatened species. Cliven Bundy is the only rancher in his part of Nevada to stand up to the federal land grab. And his struggle isn’t over.

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 

Imposing Involuntary Servitude in the name of "Tolerance"

by Will

Liberty Minute April 11


Elane Huguenin, a wedding photographer from New Mexico, was arraigned before that state’s “human rights” soviet for politely declining to provide her services to a lesbian couple planning a “commitment ceremony.”

The couple had no difficulty finding another photographer willing to accept payment for that service. Thanks to their punitive impulses – and the totalitarian “public accommodations” law in that state – they were able to use money extracted from Huguenin in the form of fines in order to pay for their photographs.

In declining the couple’s business, Elane Huguenin did not injure or defraud anybody. The same is true of Antonio Darden, a gay hairdresser from Santa Fe who earned nation-wide publicity a couple of years ago when he announced that he would not accept business from New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez because she is an opponent of same-sex marriage.

Both Huguenin and Darden sought to exercise their property rights by declining proposed business transactions. Only Darden was permitted to do so, because he – unlike Huguenin – belongs to a “specially protected” class, one that can compel others to provide services to them.

The US Supreme Court has declined Hugeunin’s appeal, tacitly ratifying involuntary servitude in the name of “tolerance.” 

Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. 

<< 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 177 >>