LibertyMinute October 30, 2013

Zubair Rehman was walking home from school when he heard a loud buzzing noise followed by the percussive thunderclap of an explosion that left him stunned and momentarily sightless. When he recovered, the middle-school-aged boy came to the horrible realization that his grandmother, Bibi, had been blown to pieces by a drone-fired missile.

Bibi, who was preparing a family meal, was the only one killed in the attack. Nine others were wounded. None of them was a suspected terrorist. Her son Rafiq, Zubair?s father, was at a local market when the killing occurred. Village children ran to tell him that his mother had been killed. When he begged to see his mother?s face one last time, he was told that there was nothing left to see.

Rafiq and Zubair were brought from their home in North Waziristanon October 29 to testify in a congressional briefing sponsored by Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson. They have demanded to know why theUS government killed an innocent mother and grandmother, along with thousands of other Pakistanis, in an undeclared war on their country.

Since only five members of Congress bothered to attend the briefing, and the Obama administration refuses to discuss the drone-killing program in detail, that question remains unanswered.

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

Liberty Minute October 29 2013

As a police firearms instructor, Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff Erick Gelhaus would frequently tell his students: ?Today is the day you may need to kill someone in order to go home.? During a forum discussion Gelhaus addressed the question of whether lethal force can be used against someone who brandishes a BB gun, emphasizing that the most important consideration is whether the shooter was ?in fear of death or serious bodily injury.?

Gelhaus proved himself willing to follow his own advice when he shot and killed 13-year-old Andy Lopez, who was carrying an airsoft BB gun modeled after an AK-47 rifle.

Lopez was walking on a sidewalk en route to a friend?s house after school. Ten seconds after the boy was spotted by Gelhaus and a trainee officer, he was dead. Gelhaus had ordered Lopez to ?drop the gun?; as the 13-year-old turned in response to the voice, Gelhaus fired seven shots into his back.

A police investigator explained that Gelhaus ?was fearful that he was going to be shot.? This despite the fact that the airsoft rifle was much smaller than an actual AK-47, and was easily identifiable as a toy replica by people who, unlike Gelhaus, aren?t certified firearms experts.

Making ?officer safety? the highest priority means that innocent people will die.

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

Liberty Minute October 28 2013

Any encounter with a strange dog can leave a person unsettled. This is true of postal carriers, private delivery and service personnel, and police officers. But only cops consider themselves entitled to shoot dogs on sight.

Police in Boise shot and killed a dog named Kita on October 20. The officers claimed that the dog threatened them. The dog?s owner, Gabrielle Stropkai, said that the officers shot it in the back of the head. Eyewitness Bryan Adams said that the dog barked a couple of times and didn?t jump at the officers. The encounter lasted no more than five seconds.

Significantly, Kita was nursing six two-week-old puppies at the time she was shot. According to Stropkai, the Boise Police Department told her they wouldn?t even bother to investigate the actions of its officers, because the reflexive destruction of her dog is within department policy.

We never hear or read about people who provide useful services being ?forced? to defend themselves against supposedly aggressive dogs by killing them. Yet police do this every day.

The critical variable is NOT the behavior of the dog, but the sense of impunity granted to police officers. They don't shoot dogs because they have to, but because they can.

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

Liberty Minute October 25 2013

How would Americans react if police from Mexico or Canada were given permission to detain and interrogate US citizens ? and were exempt from American law in doing so?

Were this to happen, the air would be rent with indignant ? and entirely justified ? protests over the affront to our national independence and what remains of our constitutional institutions. It is quite likely that some Americans confronted by foreign police would reject their supposed authority, ignore their demands, and perhaps even mount forceful resistance to them. Again, this would be both understandable, and commendable.

This is why American patriots should understand, and commend, the outrage of Canadian patriots over a border initiative in which American law enforcement officers would exercise enforcement authority and enjoy exemption from Canadian law.

Were these roles reversed, American conservatives would lead the chorus of denunciation. However, in Canada, those opposite is true. Sean Casey, a Liberal Party Member of Canada?s Parliament, points out that the country?s conservatives describe this imposition as the necessary price of increased trade with the US.  Casey insists that Canadians don?t ?want American police operating and carrying guns in Canada. It?s just not right.?

This is something all patriots should understand.

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

Liberty Minute October 24 2013

Public outrage over the name of the Washington, D.C. NFL franchise is infinitesimal. Indeed, only the most sophisticated instruments known to applied physics could measure it. Yet the establishment media insists that calling an NFL team the ?Redskins? is an intolerable affront to American Indians. The individual propelling that narrative is a casino mogul named Ray Halbritter, who calls himself the Chairman of the New York Oneida Nation.

As it happens, Halbritter is not even a member of the tribe he presumes to lead. He was installed by the federal government as tribal ruler over the objections of its legitimate ruling Council, which had rejected him. With the help of federal funds, Halbritter built the Turning Stone Casino and a string of tax-exempt enterprises. He also pursued a land claim that continues to imperil the property rights of tens of thousands of New York State residents.

In 1999, this correspondent traveled to upstate New York to report on Mr. Halbritter?s empire. Despite the lucrative casino proceeds, most Oneidas were living in destitution while Halbritter?s cronies reveled in wealth and luxury. Some of his political rivals, including the elderly, were harassed and abused by tribal police.

Halbritter isn?t merely a politically correct opportunist; he is something akin to a Third World dictator.

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

Liberty Minute October 23 2013

 Since 2006, tens of thousands of Mexican citizens have died as a result of a full-scale civil war between drug cartels and the government. Much of the murderous mayhem has been funded and encouraged by Washington, which has provided military and intelligence aid to Mexico.

None of this has reduced the amount of narcotics flowing into the United States across the southern border. In fact, by making drug trafficking riskier, Mexico?s narcotics war has increased the profitability of smuggling, thereby creating even greater incentives for violent criminals to establish themselves in the market. Exactly the same thing happened a century ago during the exercise in cultural derangement called alcohol prohibition.

The municipal government of Mexico City recognizes the lethal illogic of drug prohibition. This is why they are considering several measures that would decriminalize marijuana consumption in the city.

Assemblyman Vidal Llerenas, who is sponsoring the legislation, observes: ?The war against drugs is a failure?. We cannot hope for a drug-free world. But we can hope to limit the damage and take the profits away from organized crime.?

Mexico City is the largest city in North America. It is to be hoped that the rationality that has broken out there will become an epidemic.

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

Liberty Minute October 22 2013

The police department in Puyallup, Washington has a practice and custom of ordering female DUI suspects to undress completely in a room subject to video surveillance. This isn?t a security measure, since the women had already been patted down for weapons. And the procedure is carried out even when the women aren?t being booked on charges.

One of the women forced to disrobe ? a married mother of two -- recalls being told that she had ?to take everything off. Underwear, too. ? I said, `It?s just underwear. What can I do in my underwear???

Seattle Attorney James Egan explains that he became aware of this practice a few years ago when he began reviewing evidence in DUI cases. Public record requests for surveillance videos indicated that this degrading and unnecessary procedure was commonplace.

The irony, Egan points out, is that the women subject to this mistreatment are ?suspected of misdemeanors and taken to a facility where officers are committing felonies.?

Attorney Julie Kays, who is assisting Egan in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the victims, points out: ?If this were any other person and had occurred outside the jail, we would call these people peeping Toms.?

Unfortunately, law enforcement long ago became essentially lawless.

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

Liberty Minute October 21 2013

After Congress enacted Obamacare, a legal challenge was filed that wound up before the Supreme Court. In his ruling upholding Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts effectively re-wrote the legislation by defining the individual mandate as a tax, rather than a penalty.

The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to modify legislation, yet Obamacare partisans didn?t object to that usurpation of Congressional authority.

Last July, Barack Obama issued an executive decree waiving employer mandates under the Obamacare measure until 2015 ? that is, until after the mid-term congressional elections. Obama blithely said that this was ?a tweak that doesn?t go to the essence of the law,? but the Constitution does not give the president the authority to modify legislation.

This was an impeachable usurpation of power ? yet Obamacare partisans did not object to Obama?s unabashed defiance of a law he had signed.

The recently ended budget impasse was supposedly provoked by congressional Republicans who wanted to delay full implementation of Obamacare. The House of Representatives, unlike the president or Supreme Court, has plenary authority to modify or defund Obamacare. This time, however, the president?s partisans are calling for the House Republican leadership to be arrested for seditious treason.

This demand splendidly illustrates the truth of the axiom: Scratch a ?progressive,? find a fascist.

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

Liberty Minute October 18 2013

Videographer Gavin Seim was recording a traffic stop in Boise when Officer Lori Sperry approached him and ordered him to move. Seim was at least twenty-five yards away from the traffic stop, and he had done nothing to interfere or to threaten the officer. Nonetheless, Sperry aggressively confronted him, demanding to see his hands. At one point she actually tried to pull his hands from his pockets ? an act which Seim, in a complaint with the department, correctly identified as an act of criminal battery.

In an interview with Boise?s ABC affiliate, a lawyer named Joe Filicetti ? who was identified only as an attorney ? insisted that Sperry?s conduct was proper, and that she could have arrested Seim for not complying with her demands.

What the news report failed to mention is that Mr. Filicetti is an attorney with the Fraternal Order of Police. As a union lawyer, Filicetti?s job is not to provide an objective view of the law, but rather to defend the interests of officers accused of misconduct.

If Sperry had arrested Seim, she would have violated Idaho Code Section 18-706, under which an "unnecessary assault by an officer? is crime punishable by a year in prison and a $5,000 fine. But we shouldn?t expect a police union attorney to admit this.

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

Liberty Minute October 17 2013

As young people enter the anonymous and immersive world of social media, too many of them indulge in abusive behavior commonly called ?cyber-bullying.? Others fall prey to manipulation by adult predators posing as adolescents. Some of those so-called cyber-stalkers may be in uniform.

Meridian, Idaho School Resource Officer David Gomez has publicly admitted to making fake profiles on various social media accounts and ?friending? Middle School students. In a TV interview, Officer Gomez described telling students that he was the 16-year-old they friended that that they?re ?lucky it?s Officer Gomez and not a cyber-predator.?

If any other adult admitted to this conduct, he could face prosecution. Whatever his intentions, Gomez?s actions arguably violate Title 18, Section 3001 of the Idaho State Code, which designates ?false personation? as a crime punishable by two years of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.

We shouldn?t forget the case of Vallivue High School Resource Officer Reuben Delgadillo, a sexual predator who attended specialized training about the vulnerabilities of youth. He then used that knowledge, and his position, to target ? and eventually to molest -- a troubled boy named Brennan Nicholson.

Predators in uniform are easily the most dangerous kind ? both on-line, and elsewhere.

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