Recently I have been having some politically incorrect thoughts, among other kinds of thoughts, and I will share them here.
To begin, I think that George Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter, not murder, in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
Some people believe that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been charged with anything, as his shooting supposedly was in “self-defense.” But in my view, if Zimmerman initiated the act of stalking and provoking Martin, then Zimmerman is responsible for the ultimate consequences of his choice to stalk and threaten Martin, especially when Martin was not acting suspiciously.
I know, a lot of people disagree with me on that, especially many conservatives. Many conservatives don’t believe in personal responsibility, and they disagree with my belief that individuals should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Perhaps Zimmerman should have instead considered buying one of those private drones for surveillance, if he felt that the unfamiliar Martin seemed suspicious. That way, Zimmerman wouldn’t be physically stalking Martin, and would have avoided being a threatening presence and the ultimate confrontation could have been prevented.
Now, now. Don’t get upset. There is nothing wrong with using privately-owned surveillance drones for one’s own private property or for a “gated community.”
And there would then be nothing wrong with private counter-surveillance drones if need be.
But being a police-wannabe or a government agent-wannabe as Zimmerman apparently is, nevertheless stalking people is just not a good idea.
But when Zimmerman is found “not guilty,” there will be race riots (regardless of Zimmerman’s Hispanic heritage).
This is because of collectivism, of course. If one white guy is perceived to be guilty of murdering a black guy, then all white people have his guilt, just as, in the minds of many, all white people have the guilt of the slaveholders in the past.
But, as the individualist Ron Paul has pointed out, those people who can only think in terms of racial groups are racists.
And Fred Reed noted, despite what the white-dominated U.S. Congress and state governments have done for black Americans, with the ending of segregation, with State-controlled charity and affirmative action, “Whitey” is still responsible for the severe problems which black people continue to endure.
Obviously not all people of color think those things. But those who have that kind of mentality do not appear able to see themselves as racists.
Sadly, many of the central planners’ collectivistic programs to benefit black Americans have gone against such intended beneficiaries, and against their liberty. So, the “antidote to racism is liberty,” as Dr. Paul put it.
But when the economic collapse and “civil unrest” occur, as a result of the collectivists’ central planning run amok, and the EBT cards and ATMs stop working and there are food shortages, well, perhaps you might want to consider getting out of the city ahead of time, that’s all (especially if you are white).
Speaking of “Whitey,” the trial of Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger is still ongoing, and it’s really a barrel of laughs. Last week, for example, one witness was asked to identify Bulger. So, as described by the Boston Herald’s Laurel Sweet on Howie Carr’s radio show, the witness looked around the courtroom like he was on To Tell the Truth, and finally pointed at Bulger, “How you doing Jim?” Heh.
Who needs a laugh-track when you have the Whitey Bulger trial?
Though the George Zimmerman trial may need some laugh-tracks, after those bad “knock-knock” jokes. But I digress.
Seriously, just what is it with these zealous government prosecutors who have this compulsion to overcharge defendants, as with George Zimmerman? Is it mainly to further their own careers? But the prosecutor must have known that there was no evidence to support an actual murder conviction. Hmmm. The cynic in me wants to suggest that TPTB may have urged the prosecutor to overcharge, to intentionally get a “not guilty” verdict, for the purpose of…who knows.
But the prosecutors these days are really getting away with real crimes just as many cops are, including knowingly pursuing the convictions (or worse) of innocent people.
And what was it with that sick pursuit of some Internet geek kid like Aaron Swartz, as prosecutors harassed and hounded him to the point of suicide, in the name of what? His “victims” didn’t even care to press charges.
And the corrupt lawyers and judicial apparatchiks all stick up for each other, too. It’s a sick culture now.
For instance, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently refused to disbar a bad prosecutor, as requested by the OK Bar Association. Their reasons were that because many prosecutors were corrupt and abusive in those “old days” (way back in the 1990s!), this one should be excused.
Well, I think that state Supreme Court justices such as those in Oklahoma who defend the “bad apples” should themselves be impeached! They are not “OK.”
To me, a “hero cop” is one who has courage. A “hero cop” is one who turns in a bad cop. That takes courage.
But in today’s criminal police state, even the good apples are sticking up for the criminal cops. The good cops who act as whistleblowers are being fired from their jobs, or otherwise demoted, transferred, or ostracized.
And to me, a “hero cop” refuses to enforce bad laws. A law is bad if it has nothing to do with protecting the people from the aggression or fraud of others. That is to say, most laws.
A law enforcement officer – local, state or federal – who refuses to enforce drug laws is a “hero,” and those who refuse to enforce criminally invasive regulations of otherwise peaceful trade and commerce are “heroes,” in my view.
Supposedly, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is either a “hero” or a “traitor.” Well, he certainly isn’t a traitor – it’s the other way around. The government agents who are breaking into and trespassing innocent Americans’ communications – those government criminals are the real traitors.
But I don’t think Snowden is a “hero,” as many of these invasive and criminal spy programs had already been revealed years before. And also because Snowden’s release of information to Glenn Greenwald and the U.K. Guardian seems to have been too controlled, too unnecessarily redacted, as though it is still to protect the State.
That monster Leviathan State. The good little helpers out there still need to protect the damn State, and they can’t see that it is just something not worth protecting!
And I share The Daily Bell, Naomi Wolf and Robert Wenzel’s skepticism as well. Wolf points out how “super-organized” Snowden was in his PowerPoint presentations and in arranging his interview with Greenwald, in which “he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling.”
Am I too cynical?
Now, if any whistleblower is an actual “hero,” it is Bradley Manning. So many documents Manning released to WikiLeaks were not at all redacted, and the American people were able to get a real glimpse of the war crimes by the military, and the incompetence and corruption of our diplomats.
But I’m sure that James Claptrapper would disagree with me on that.
Related: Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger asks, Has Edward Snowden been added to Obama’s Kill List?
And former CIA officer Philip Giraldi very well sums up what our buffoonish Rulers have done to America, and to our freedom.
Unlike Snowden and Manning, those two now-dead ones were journalists. Hmmm.
Well, whether those deaths were of foul play or not, I must say that government’s criminality is so in-your-face now.
And now, our incompetent and/or corrupt judges are allowing the NSA to make use of private communications “inadvertently” collected sans warrants.
The feds can not only “inadvertently” grab encrypted info but keep it indefinitely, and for the purpose of attempting to ultimately decrypt it in order to invasively and criminally pry into your private communications with others.
But there are other reasons why we should be concerned with this criminal behavior by government, besides the invasion of American’s privacy and security. Such compromised private communications could involve those with someone’s business associates.
One can easily predict that the bureaucrats will make use of all this criminal spying, and expand it to non-national security-related policies, such as enforcing patent laws or “insider trading” laws.
You see, one reason for encryption is to protect private business information, such as from one’s competitors, which one has a right to do, after all.
Some government bureaucrats, however, could be using the surveillance to steal private information for the purpose of cahoots with victims’ competitors. Such government spying and information-stealing could be a much more invasive and criminal means of the bureaucrats’ own illicit version of “insider trading,” if you know what I mean.
So besides the abuse of average Americans’ private information, this surveillance criminality can also compromise the people’s right to protect their honest ways of making a living (something which most government bureaucrats know nothing about!).
So Whitey Bulger isn’t the only gangster who should be prosecuted, if you ask me.
Now, in Edward Snowden’s interview with Glenn Greenwald, Snowden made it clear that this surveillance state will only get worse, and warned of possible “turnkey tyranny,” especially with future administrations in Washington (i.e. those who may not be as favorable to civil liberties as the Obama Administration has been).
Some further causes for concern include the IRS scandal and the wiretapping and persecuting of journalists. Obviously, these government crimes have nothing to do with “national security,” but with silencing critics of the Regime and cracking down on dissent. And bureaucrats might also get carried away and attempt to snuff out those who probe too intensely into the Rulers’ shenanigans.
But how carried away will these Washington commissars get? Will they use such powers to pursue political correctness and anti-discrimination laws as well? Will they send drones after those who make politically-incorrect comments?
So, even though Premier Obama doesn’t seem to understand things like, I don’t know, the U.S. Constitution, or due process, and the fact that he has never allowed his college transcripts to be made public, and the fact that many white people voted for his teleprompter him mainly because he’s black, I better not refer to him as an “affirmative action president,” or I might be indefinitely detained or worse. (And I shouldn’t mention that he referred to his white grandmother as a “typical white person” either, not that that would mean anything.)
But we’re not allowed to point certain things out, no matter how true they might be. As Dr. Thomas Sowell observed, even news “journalists” censor the racial aspects of riots and mob violence. People are more sensitive now to certain verbal subject matter, but actual violence is excused. Oh, well.
As Edward Snowden mentioned, it’s only going to get worse, all this stuff. Or is it?
Perhaps we can just be risky and do and say what we think is right (and hope for the best).