Anthony Martin’s Weblog

A blog about some guy. 
Tags


Filed under

Resistance

 
September 14, 2009

Suspicionless Checkpoint, Addendum

Lieutenant Stephen D’anjou says that the suspicionless checkpoint (covered previously) was announced to the Daily Breeze on September 2nd.  Again, I find no mention on the Daily Breeze website, so we still have an effective Internet blackout of this information.

The Lieutenant  believes it was also posted on Torrance Police Department website, but he said the website program never published it.  An honest mistake.  I've seen first hand that this can be a common mistake in any web publishing environment.

But there's something else I'd like to point out.  See if you can tell the difference between the two announcements.  One announcement was for the 11th, the other was for June 19th.

(download)
(download)

The information published about June 19th, 2009 listed the intersection as well as the time.  But the information published about September 11th, 2009 does not list the intersection.

It's already beyond recognition of what it was originally.  They're just going to keep tweaking and modifying this.

If you still don't understand why this is bad, please review my previous article on the subject.  Also consider an article called "Bloodsuckers in Blue" on Lew Rockewell's web site.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Liberty   Local   Memory Hole   Resistance   Rule of Law   Torrance  

Comments [0]

September 12, 2009

Last Night's Suspicionless Checkpoint

Last night, I observed a suspicionless checkpoint on Artesia going eastbound toward Van Ness.  All eastbound traffic was being stopped.  A lot of cars were being towed.

I contacted Torrance Police Department to inquire as to why these activities were not announced ahead of time.  The initial response from Lieutenant Stephen D’anjou (via Blackberry) was that the press release was sent out last week.

I believe Lieutenant D’anjou is mistaken.  I checked the Torrance PD web site and no such press release was listed on their press release page.  Maybe a press release was sent out but just not posted on the web page.  The local paper would have gotten a copy if that's the case.

But this is not the case from what I can tell.  Daily Breeze (the local newspaper in Torrance) has announcements for other such activity in the past, but not the one regarding last night.  Was it announced only in hard copies of the newspaper?  Is this an Internet blackout?

Yet indeed, here is a view of the actual suspicionless checkpoint from the corner of Artesia and Van Ness, looking back to the west:

(download)

This is a shot of the parking lot next to the activity:

(download)

Torrance Police Department believes the "DUI" checkpoint is a proven effective method for increased awareness of the dangers of impaired driving.

In the past, by publicizing these enforcement and education efforts, Torrance Police Department believes motorists can be deterred from drinking and driving.

Typically, funding for these kinds of operations is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

But last night, they broke from their previous motivation and imposed the suspicionless checkpoint without even prior notice.

Whatever your belief of the effectiveness of these suspicionless checkpoint, know this.  It is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution to demand evidence of a crime without probable cause.  The suspicionless checkpoint, by definition, lacks probable cause.

It is much easier to introduce an intrusive measure by watering down the most intrusive aspects.  It is harder to be against suspicionless checkpoints when they are announced ahead of time.  But is easy to just stop announcing them once they become commonplace.

We are no longer on our way to a police state.  We live in a police state now.  It's only going to get worse.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Liberty   Local   Memory Hole   Resistance   Rule of Law   Torrance   Video  

Comments [0]

June 30, 2009

My Thoughts on Cap & Trade

First, let me clarify that big oil companies are fans of Cap & Trade and lower profits as long as it effects the whole industry equally.  If oil company A has to lose 30%, A would want to make sure oil company B loses 30% as well.

The problem is that oil company C can't afford to lose 30% of its profits, so it'll go out of business or be bailed out (of course, bailouts would be very likely if A and B took out default swap insurance policies on C going under, who itself netted out swaps on A and B going under, obviously).

Another problem is it raises the bar for oil company D to enter the market.  So, yes, big oil likes Cap & Trade because it makes competition scarce.  All big energy providers want Cap & Trade so they can "stabilize" their market.  But really, "stabilization" is code for what I call "a fettered market."

So are you willing to act in defiance of Cap & Trade?  Clearly, since the system doesn't work, we should work outside the system.  If the market is regulated, we need an unregulated alternative.  The advantage we have is that we don't have to worry if it's "green" or not.

As an example, one way to do this would be to buy a whole-house electrical generator that can run on multiple types of fuels (not very green sounding, which is good).  My grandfather installed one of these in his previous residence, and it was pretty cool.  I believe it could be configured to run on gasoline, propane, and natural gas.  The natural gas option meant he could theoretically run it indefinitely.

Obviously, this would require a change in life style.  Merely installing a generator isn't a silver bullet.  But if the economics work out, it could be a smart move.

My grandfather got this generator because the place he lived would have frequent power failures in the winter.  He wasn't thinking of political defiance.  Nonetheless, having a way to go off grid or partially off grid would create competition for the electric company who is itself (voluntarily) hindered by Cap & Trade.  In addition, the ability to run on propane also opens the possibility for "alternative" methods of trade.

For most, it could come down to a mere matter of economics.  Is it really more cost effective to produce your kilowatt hour for yourself or allow the regular fettered market to do under heavy tax.  If the cold hard numbers are the only thing anyone looks at, it may or may not be enough to justify the act.  But it might be good to also go one step beyond the math and looking at this alternatives as a form of defiance.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Agora   Best Of   Economic   Political   Resistance  

Comments [0]

June 24, 2009

I say it's no longer a free country, so stop saying it is.

Everything we do is governed even though we're supposed to be the "land of the free." We are not free. We haven't been for quite a while. No, having the right to vote does not make anyone free. Having free speech doesn't either. Those things are nice to have. But if voting was really effective, they would have banned it long ago.

If you have the choice to vote for a pile of crap on the right and a pile of crap on the left, guess what? That's not freedom. If you have the right to voice your opinion but you can't act upon it, that's not freedom either.

But even free speech is being eroded. Just search for "first amendment" on YouTube. I first started doing that in 2007 and I was shocked even back then and it's only getting worse.

What kind of tolerance should we have for the loss of freedom? Is it alright to lose 1%? 2%? What percentage are you willing to lose? 50%? I think any amount of freedom anyone is willing to lose is proof of forfeiture of all freedom.

Think of it this way. How much of your child are you willing to lose?  1%? 2%? Is that a finger or a toe of your baby? If you are willing to part with a piece of your own flesh and blood, you don't love them.  You don't deserve them at all.

How do you feel when a cop is driving right behind you? Do you feel safe? Be honest, it's anxiety. That anxiety is what just a little lack of freedom feels like. Our government is good at one thing. It's good at trying to show people how to keep from feeling anxiety as long as they obey. That's not freedom either.

A person in a free society would only feel anxiety from protectors if he or she has harmed another person. But you and I feel anxiety from law enforcement even without harming another person. This is because we know laws no longer require a personal victim. Since laws allow society to be victims, we are all guilty. In a free society, cops only bother criminals who harm people, not society.

This is because society cannot be a victim. Only people can be victims. A victim or advocate of the victim must be able to face the one being accused. A victim should be a party that can be sued if a false accusation is made. Society cannot be a victim because no one can put society on trail. Since it can't work both ways, it can't work.

Fifty percent of your wage is taken by taxation, if you count all forms of taxation. And the price of everything is at least twice what it would be if corporations didn't have all their tax breaks (aka corporate welfare). Economically, we are nowhere near freedom.

Can you eat a peanut-butter sandwich without breaking some law? Somewhere? Guess what, you can't. There is a law against eating peanut-butter sandwiches, but you never knew it. You would actually have to research this in order to know when and where it is appropriate.

Here's another example. Can you eat oranges in your bathtub without breaking some law somewhere? Nope. It's illegal somewhere. But where?

These are silly examples, I know. However, a serious approach to deal with this is for law abiding citizens who try to proactively avoid breaking the law. They think they can just get a permit to eat their peanut-butter sandwiches or oranges in their bathtub. Great idea, right? If there's a law, surly they wouldn't issue a permit.

But if you have to ask for a permit, that's just like asking for permission. In a free society, nobody asks for permission. In a free society, you have responsibility for your actions and deal with the ramifications without needing law to guide anyone. We can no longer do this, therefore, we are no longer free.

The exception in a free society to asking for permission is when you're on private property. But private property is a total fiction today if government can tell you not to smoke on private property. If they really have jurisdiction on private property, then that's just proof it's not private property.

The truth is, unlike most of the world and most of history, we are as free as we want to be, here in the US. Apparently we just don't want to be free because when freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom. Most people want to be law abiding, so there goes that. But there are unjust laws. In fact, most laws are unjust by their very framing.

So just ignore your rights and they'll go away.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Best Of   Economic   Liberty   Political   Rant   Resistance  

Comments [2]

June 10, 2009

Sam Kicked Out of Jail #fsp #tlot #tvot #tcot #freekeene #liberty

Have you ever heard of anyone being kicked out of jail?  I have.  Sam Dodson of Keene, NH was kicked out of jail yesterday.  Here are the details from Ridley Report:



Here is Sam's victory call, right after he got kicked out:

Hello free staters! This is SamIam and the jail has just thrown me out. The forced me to agree to PR terms that I’m already in violation of, I told them I did not understand.  That I did not agree to them. I did not sign them. I requested my attorney who’s going to be here in 10 minutes. And they pushed me out the door, in the orange close. I guess I get to keep them. And gave me all my stuff. I was escorted out. They would not explain anything or put anything in writing. They were told just to release me and so I’m out of jail. Thank you guys for everybody who’s helped me, sent letters, cards, emails, done all the things you had to do to support me along the way and  I’m looking forward to getting back to life and challenging a lot of this in court. Thank you, glad to be out, looking forward to talking all soon. Goodbye.

PR stands for "Persona Recognizance."  When Sam said he was already in violation of the PR terms, he was referring to the fact that the terms required that he not own fire-arms, for example.  He could not agree to the terms because it would immediately result in his violating the terms upon agreement.  He was unable to magically disown the guns he owned by agreeing to the terms, therefore, it would have been a violation.

The officials in the prison could not get him to sign the agreement so they read it to him and asked if he understood.  Sam told them he did not understand, so he did not agree to the terms.

I've heard of release terms like this.  Some require that the prisoner "agrees to obey all of the laws."  How can anyone agree to that, especially someone who was originally in jail for civil disobedience?  Sam risked being held longer if he didn't agree to the terms.  Instead, they just kicked him out.

WOW!  Way to stand your ground, Sam!  If you'd like to read more of my writings about Sam, click here.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Liberty   Resistance  

Comments [0]

June 3, 2009

My Thoughts on the Tased Granny

First, let me start off with an analogy.  Here's the setup:

Once there was an old man who lived alone on his private property in a remote part of the town.  Usually, he would just sit on his back porch, polishing his favorite shotgun.

Then one day, a little girl of about 5 years old happened upon the property.  She was picking flowers had wondered in, oblivious to the property line.

The old man decided he wanted to enforce his property, so he took the appropriate actions to get the little girl to leave.

First, he put his shotgun away.  Then he walked over to the little girl and politely but firmly asked her to leave.

The little girl ignored him.

What level of force is appropriate for the old man to force the little girl to get off his property?

Is there any point where it is appropriate for the old man to lay hands on the little girl?

I would say the old man is basically stuck.  If the little girl continues to ignore him, there is nothing he can do.  There is no level of force he himself can personally use on the little girl.  He might be justified in yelling at her, but that's probably about it.  Maybe he could get his big dog to bark at her, as long as he is able to keep the dog on a leash.  But at no point is the old man justified in inflicting pain or bodily harm on the little girl.

Perhaps if the little girl was really a ninja disguised in a dress, maybe the old man would be justified, but that's not the analogy.  The intent of the analogy is to illustrate that there is no path imaginable that could lead to a justification for inflicting pain or bodily harm on the little girl.

So here is a video that shows that we are living in a police state:



I bet that "dash-cam" will never surface.  It doesn't have to.  There is no path imaginable that could lead to a justification for inflicting pain or bodily harm on the granny.  There is no mention of weapons, only profanity.  Profanity alone qualifies as "being combative" "violence" to the police, which is asinine.  But even if she threw her dentures at the officer, there is still no reason for the officer to use the taser.

So remember, these thugs will lash out at you with their pain sticks if you don't comply.  If anyone is ever successful in non-compliance, this will undermine the entire system, so there are no exceptions.  You are lucky they are only pain sticks, you worm!

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Analogy   Political   Resistance  

Comments [1]

April 30, 2009

Failure to Obey

More than two weeks ago, Sam Dodson of Keene, New Hampshire was arrested for filming in a court lobby.  Apparently, there was a standing order that said no recording was allowed in the lobby.

If it was just that, he might have been let go within hours, but instead, he was jailed for withholding name.  I think being indefinitely detained for remaining silent is completely tyrannical.  They know who he is.  Mr. Dodson failed to obey.

It boils down to that Dodson has been identified, but until he is the one that tells them "yep that's me" they're going to continue to hold him indefinitely.

Let me show you information about another equally tyrannical arrest that occurred 54 years earlier in Montgomery, Alabama.


Both Dodson and Parks failed to obey a "lawful" order.  They were both arrested over matters of obedience.  Police have nothing better to do than follow orders by judges with a cavities instead of a brains.

Here are more details, if you're interested.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   History   Liberty   Political   Resistance  

Comments [1]

April 15, 2009

Ministry of Slow Compliance

I have decided to start a new activist group called the Ministry of Slow Compliance (on Facebook).  Officially starting with the 2008 tax year, I have implemented this plan to begin slow compliance.  In case you weren't aware, in the event that you are not able to file your income tax return by April 15th, both the IRS and states allow you to extend your filing deadline by six months.  Keep in mind, an extension to file is not an extension to pay.  Penalties, including fines and interest, may be assessed for a payment made after April 15th. To request an extension to file, submit Form 4868 to the IRS by April 15, 2009.

Here in California, state taxes are extended six months automagically if returns are not filed by April 15th.

Fun fact: On this day in 1944, Donald Duck made $2,501.  Today, that would be around $30,000.  As result, he owed $13 in 1944, which is about $150 today.  Donald Duck was paying a tax of about 1/2 of 1 percent in 1944, check it out!

Get the Flash Playerto see this player.
(download)


Mr. Duck's income tax was about one silver dollar each month, which would be one ounce of silver.  Today, it comes to about the same number of ounces, only now we would have to pay in gold.

Isn't it interesting Donald Duck faced World War II with a lower population and less percentage in taxes?  Yet today, with a population explosion and 50 times the taxes, we have a longer war fighting against far fewer men in caves wearing sandals holding AK-47's.

Whether or not taxes really were voluntary then, 1/2 of 1 percent is tiny, compliance wouldn't have been a big deal (though still morally wrong).  Taxes are clearly more oppressive and compliance is certainly not perceived as voluntary at all anymore.  The only form of protest most of us have left is slow compliance.

If you haven't figured it out, the Ministry of Slow Compliance is just an approach to elaborate procrastination.  But if you procrastinate, you may as well do it correctly, using the proper forms.

The name is inspired by George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.  This book depicts four ministries called the Ministries of Truth, Love, Plenty, and Peace.  The name of all four of these ministries are actually misnomers because they actually do the exact opposite.

My ministry is a misnomer as well.  Compliance is not the goal.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Political   Resistance  

Comments [2]

February 23, 2009

February School Site Council

The information here is gathered under the best of my ability and understanding. If I have anything wrong, I am willing to listen to correction. Part of the problem is due to the inability for people to fathom some of the facts. But that's not the whole problem. I feel like it's better to dive in and make mistakes than to sit idle and hope everything works out.
 
Today I cast my first "nay" vote as a member of School Site Council of my son's school. I opposed the principal in her attempt to amend the school plan to include clarification on one of the goals. The exact goal isn't important. What's important is that this is goal was mandated by state and federal law which I oppose.
 
In clarifying the goal, the way I understand it, the principal is hoping to justify expenditures so that the school may qualify for a particular category of spending which I oppose.
 
My opposition didn't amount to much. I was the only "nay" vote and the action item passed as amended. But my "nay" vote carries with it the desired implication, "Ye shall go no further." Sure, they out number me. But I do not give consent. Obviously they may go as far as they want, but not with my approval.
 
I have a fundamental disagreement with the lack of local control the school is able to make. This lack of control means the school is barred from certain activities it might otherwise decide to take. To me, the whole system is broken and it's time to put on the breaks.  This latest budget crisis just drives the point further.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Economic   Local   Political   Resistance   Torrance  

Comments [5]

February 20, 2009

New Hampshire, The Free State

One star shines brighter The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Liberty   Political   Resistance  

Comments [0]