James Crowley v. Henry Louis Gates ("Jerk v. Jerk"), political manipulations, clueless sheeple, and freedom-of-speech law

So the arrest of Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. by Cambridge police sergeant James Crowley has been blown into a huge national story for all the wrong reasons. Swell. However, it is important to talk about the totalitarian mentality that is endemic in far too many of America's policemen, so let's examine the Gates-Crowley incident more closely to find out who is "scum1" and who isn't.

To understand what goes on in these types of situations, you have to understand several things which are not generally known by the type of illiterate moron who holds on to his erroneous ignorance-based opinion/s with an aggressively, even combatively, belligerent attitude. Case in point is the OJ Simpson saga, in which OJ is most likely guilty, and the cops most likely planted false evidence to help make their case. For all the so-called "right wing" (especially "religious") sheeple who ALWAYS take the cops' side no matter what the facts or law, the Bible says that when you are dealing with a situation in which false witnesses (e.g. Mark Furman, Phil Vannatter, Tom Lange) are presenting false evidence (among other things, OJ's socks had blood on them which was contaminated with test-tube-cleaning chemicals, which logically suggests it was poured from a test tube), that you should do to them what they planned to have done to the person against whom they are witnessing falsely (see Deut 19:16-20). In this case, since OJ was facing the death penalty for first degree murder, that means you hang Furman, Vannatter and Lange (or whomever) from the same gallows you use on OJ. Of course, there will always illiterate amoral scum1 who don't think cops should be harshly punished for lying or planting false evidence. That view is horribly dangerous to a free society.

Complicating the situation is the symbiotic relationship which exists between the establishment media and law enforcement. The media is looking for ratings-enhancing stories and column inches, while law enforcement is looking to pollute the jury pool and convict the accused person in the media prior to trial via strategic leaks and omissions. The actual guilt or innocence of a suspect is of little concern to most law enforcement personnel compared to political considerations such as the opinions of superiors, the opinions of budget committees and elected officials, the opinions of the media, and whether or not the cop is personally annoyed at the suspect. Notice the very manipulatively negative covers by Time and Newsweek at left. You can also get an idea of how some policemen handle themselves in the media from Charlie Rose's interview with Tom Lange and Phil Vanatter and Alan Colmes' interview with Mark Furman. In particular, I have always thought Mark Furman is arrogant lying scum1, or he wouldn't have had to take the 5th Amendment and destroy the prosecution's case against OJ.

One of the biggest problems getting to the truth in a situation like this is the fact most people just want the "bad guy" to "get his". They couldn't care less about the law, the constitution, the Bill of Rights, or procedural due process, AS LONG AS THE BAD GUY GETS IT. That's why the main issue is the public relations contest of demonization to determine which side is the "bad guy". Can the cops, via their lies, spin, leaks and omissions make the people (news consumers) think OJ is the bad guy, or can OJ's lawyers make the people think the LA cops are the bad guys? In this process, the general attitude, even among cops — (and 100% of them will lie about this, just as judges and prosecutors do) — is: "Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth! The truth is all relative. To hell with the truth!" Meanwhile, unlike a huge majority of "the cops are always right" so-called "religious right", I keep being irresistibly drawn back to the Bible and Deut 19:16-20.

Law enforcement's standard practice is to pretend that any disagreement on the part of a "contact" is equal to "uncooperativeness", "unruliness", "disorderly conduct", "tumultuous behavior", "interfering with a police officer", "resisting a police officer", etc, etc. In many cases, they are lying scum1. In other words, when contacted by a law enforcement officer who has been trained to "take control" under all circumstances and to empty his gun into the center of your body mass if he feels physically threatened, if the citizen "contact" does anything but genuflect, roll over and urinate on himself out of respect for "the law", in the mind of the officer the citizen is automatically deemed to be "uncooperative", "unruly", "disorderly", "tumultuous", "resisting a police officer", "interfering with a police officer", etc, etc. The officer too often feels personally challenged or insulted in the face of less than intantaneous obedience on the part of the "contact". Furthermore, as Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, CORRECTLY pointed out in a May 2, 1994 article in the NYTimes titled, "Controlling the Cops; Accomplices To Perjury", cops are routinely trained (unofficially, of course) by prosecutors on how to lie — it's called "testilying" — about threshhold probable cause to help strengthen their cases.

Not that it would impress the illiterate "cops can do no wrong" crowd in the slightest, but let's take a look at the law of the case. It is a legal axiom that "the facts determine what law applies to a given case."

First and foremost is the little-known jurisdictional fact that "A citizen is under no obligation to obey a jurisdictionless legal-nullity court (or police - JRW) order." See Ex Parte Fisk, 113 US 713 (1885), Ex Parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604 (1881), Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wallace) 163 163 (1873), Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1879), Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1879), Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18 (1876), Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 Howard) 307 (1855), Ex Parte Kearney, 20 U.S. (7 Wheaton) 38 (1822), Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 75 (1807). See also Thrap v People, 192 Colo. 341, 558 P2d 576 (Colo): "One cannot be convicted of contempt for respectfully declining to comply with an order which is beyond the court's (or policeman's - JRW) authority."

Of specific relevance to the Gates arrest is the little known but powerful probable-cause case of Ex Parte Burford, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 448 (1806). Because Crowley could not truthfully articulate UNDER OATH WITH PENALTY OF PERJURY ATTACHED specific facts which would cause a reasonable and prudent person to believe that any cognizable violation of any criminal law by Gates had occurred — shouting and/or swearing at police officers and being generally and vociferously argumentative and uncooperative are NOT crimes (see the Massachusetts case law I have linked below) — Crowley decided to arrest Gates and deliberately lie on the official written police report to cover his self-evidently unconstitutional tracks.

Additionally, an accused person is constitutionally entitled to an independent judicial determination of probable cause. In the case of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), Justice Powell wrote for the majority: "Both the standards and procedures for arrest and detention have been derived from the Fourth Amendment and its common-law antecedents. See Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 294 -295 (1973); Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 75 (1807); Ex Parte Burford, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 448 (1806). The standard for arrest is probable cause, defined in terms of facts and circumstances "sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). See also Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 -176 (1949). This standard, like those for searches and seizures, represents a necessary accommodation between the individual's right to liberty and the State's duty to control crime." (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, the "specific facts and circumstances" requirement of the sworn accusation disallow merely parroting the language of the statute. Law enforcement is not allowed to say "he violated the disorderly conduct statute by being disorderly and tumultuous." That type of wannabe-clever prosecutorial manipulation is precisely what the constitutional right to a Bill of Particulars is designed to prevent. Yet that type of wannabe-clever manipulation (the endless parroting of the words "disorderly" and "tumultuous") is ALL I have seen in the public relations campaign Crowley and the Cambridge police have waged in the establishment media. In my opinion, that's most likely all they have or they wouldn't have dropped the constitutionally-violative false charges against Gates.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Bill of Particulars:
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):
"In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the constitutional right 'to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.' Amend. VI. In United States v. Mills, 32 U.S. (7 Peters) 138 138 (1833), this was construed to mean that the indictment must set forth the offence 'with clearness and all necessary certainty, to apprise the accused of the crime with which he stands charged;' and in United States v. Cook, 84 U.S. (17 Wallace) 168 168 (1872) that 'every ingredient of which the offence is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.' It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that, where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species -- it must descend to particulars." (Emphasis added - JRW)

Massachusetts Rules Of Criminal Procedure - Rule 13
(b) Bill of Particulars.

(1) Motion. Within the time provided for the filing of pretrial motions by this rule or within such other time as the judge may allow, a defendant may request or the court upon its own motion may order that the prosecution file a statement of such particulars as may be necessary to give both the defendant and the court reasonable notice of the crime charged, including time, place, manner, or means.
(2) Amendment. If at trial there exists a material variance between the evidence and bill of particulars, the judge may order the bill of particulars amended or may grant such other relief as justice requires.

Regarding Massachusetts law on disorderly conduct and probable cause: Commonwealth vs. Kenneth M. Lopiano, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 723, February 3, 2004 - March 29, 2004 - "'To be disorderly, within the sense of the statute, the conduct must disturb through acts other than speech; neither a provocative nor a foul mouth transgresses the statute.' Commonwealth v. LePore, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 543, 546 (1996)." "Tumultuous behavior is conduct which may be 'characterized as involving riotous commotion and excessively unreasonable noise so as to constitute a public nuisance.' Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. at 729, quoting from Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 597 (1975). Compare Commonwealth v. Zettel, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 471, 472 (1999)."

Disorderly Conduct: Massachusetts Criminal Defense Resource Page - "A disorderly conduct arrest is usually a discretionary decision by a police officer. If we can show that the officer may have been mistaken and overestimated any potential disorder created, we can get the case dismissed. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that your action created a dangerous situation, and served no legitimate purpose. ¶ Being angry and yelling at someone, even if that person is a police officer, is not sufficient cause to sustain a disorderly conduct charge. You are absolutely permitted to express yourself and your first amendment rights to free speech. ¶ The simple fact is that you are probably more likely to be arrested for a disorderly conduct offense if you personally annoy a police officer. But that doesn't mean that you are guilty by any means."

Regarding Massachusetts law on public nuisance:
Connerty v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm., 398 Mass. 140, 495 NE2d 840 (1986):
"A nuisance is public when it interferes with the exercise of a public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury. To maintain a public nuisance action, a plaintiff must show that the public nuisance has caused some special injury of a direct and substantial character other than that which the general public shares. Stop & Shop Cos. v. Fisher, 387 Mass. 889 , 894, 899 (1983). W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra at Section 90, at 650. If such a special injury has occurred, a private plaintiff may recover for injuries caused by a public nuisance even though the injury did not involve any interference with the use of land in which the plaintiff had a property interest. See Stop & Shop Cos. v. Fisher, supra at 894-895. Without such a particularized injury, however, the remedy for a public nuisance must be sought by public authorities. W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra at Section 90, at 646 & n. 41."

Massachusetts Prosecutor's Guide Online - "3. Investigatory ("Terry") Stops and Frisks
The stop may be occasioned by a motor vehicle violation or other minor infraction, Commonwealth v. LaBossiere, 347 Mass. 384, 385-386 (1964), or by "specific and articulable facts" justifying a threshold inquiry. Commonwealth v. Ling, 370 Mass. 238, 240-241 (1976)." - See also Commonwealth v. Lehan, 347 Mass. 197 , 204 (1964) and Commonwealth v. Silva, 366 Mass. 402 , 405-408 (1974) - JRW

Regarding the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, there are a number of seminal United States Supreme Court decisions every citizen should read. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) is the obscenity standard. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is the “fighting words” standard, but Chaplinsky has been weakened by later cases such as Gooding v. Wilson, 405 US 518 (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 US 130 (1974). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) is the standard for parody and satire. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 are also "must reads". As a matter of fact, in the recent case of State of South Dakota v. Marcus J. Suhn, 2008 SD 128, the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases, upheld a citizen's right to swear at the police. The clear reasonable inference of 1st Amendment free speech law is that, unless he physically struck Sgt. Crowley (he did not), Prof. Gates was pretty much free to say whatever he pleased as vigorously and obnoxiously as he pleased without having the testilying Cambridge cops spin it as "uncooperative", "unruly", "disorderly", "tumultuous", "resisting a police officer", "interfering with a police officer", etc - as they unarguably did.

In trying to determine the "preponderance of the evidence", I've read dozens of articles and watched dozens of video snippets. I have linked to some of them in this blog.

Once the Cambridge police had seen Prof. Gates' identification, and they knew it was his house, they should have just excused themselves and walked away, because it was self-evident at that very moment that no crime had been committed by Gates, and that probable cause to arrest Gates could not possibly exist. It was the lack of a crime by Gates and the lack of probable cause to arrest him that undoubtedly caused the Cambridge police to drop the phony "disorderly conduct" charge because they knew that obtaining a conviction was virtually impossible, especially since Gates was being represented by Harvard law professor colleague, Charles Ogletree. There is no doubt in my mind that, from all accounts I've read or heard, Gates' behavior did NOT fit the statutory provisions and language of the crime of "disorderly conduct". (See also the Wikipedia article, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates".) Hence the dismissal, since it obviously was not out of the bigness of the Cambridge Police Department's heart.

To me, Prof. Gates and his daughter Elizabeth (a Daily Beast writer who wrote "My Daddy The Jailbird") are credible because they spoke naturally and were themselves. In contrast, Sgt. Crowley has less credibility because he speaks less naturally, like he's being less than candid and extremely careful of what he says. Elizabeth's statement — "I think after Sgt. Crowley followed him into his home, was when he knew this wasn't going to be standard procedure. And I think that's when, for my father, the tone changed. And I think that's when his defense went up. I think for anybody, you know, who is violated in their own home in that way, I think that would also, you know, call on their own defenses." — makes sense to me as being the truth of how events unfolded.

It seems pretty obvious that there was a flareup of some sort, perhaps testosterone induced or amplified, as suggested by columnist Kathleen Parker in a round table discussion with Michael Eric Dyson and Bob Schieffer. In that discussion, Dyson told a police horror story of his own which seemed relevant. My own police horror story is even more directly analogous, and might help illustrate what most likely happened that would cause the Cambridge Police Department to support testilying by officer Crowley and his black colleague, Leon Lashley.

Many years ago on a weekday, I had been looking at the merchandise in my friend's music store and the pawn shop next door. Both businesses were about half a block away from the local county courthouse which contained both the county court and the state district court for our county. When I walked outside after spending much of the morning in the two shops, I was approached by a policeman who asked me if I was the owner of the car parked at a meter immediately in front of the two shops. I said yes, and politely showed him my ID upon his request. He then asked me if he could look in the trunk of the car. So I asked him what was going on. He said a bank a block away had been robbed, and the robber who had been wearing a blue baseball cap had fled in a car very similar to mine. As we spoke, the two shop owners (one of them was a personal friend) came out and verified to the officer that I had been in their stores all morning and couldn't possibly be the robber of the bank.

As it happened, I had left a blue and white baseball cap on the front seat of my locked car. At any rate the cop was insistent upon looking into the trunk of my car and was intending to take me back to the bank for the bank employees to see if I looked like the robber, even though the robber was a 5'7" Latino, while I am a 6'5" Anglo. At that point, being somewhat familiar with the law, I asked the officer something like "In view of my size and race, and the testimony of these two shopkeepers as to my whereabouts, what are the articulable facts upon which you base your notion that you have probable cause for thinking I'm your robber?" He said he didn't care what my opinion was and insisted on me unlocking the car and opening the trunk. He had obviously been trained to take control and insist on being obeyed. I told him, "See that courthouse over there? Let's go talk to the chief district court judge, and if he says you've got probable cause, I'll open the trunk." The cop declined my offer but kept up his insisting. He asked me why I didn't want to help him catch the robbers. I told him that at this point he wasn't looking for the robbers anymore, but trying to build a case against me under the presumption that I'm too stupid to know the difference. I told him that at this point he was wasting time while the real robbers were getting farther away. Again, he told me he didn't care what my opinion was. So I asked him if he'd ever heard of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). He said "No." (I believed he was either undertrained or lying.) I told him that Terry applied directly to so-called "stop and frisk" encounters such as the one he was engaging in with me, and that according to Terry, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I then said something like, "Okay, you've had your reasonable Terry stop — (for more information on Terry stops, see United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)) — and I have reasonably shown you my ID and explained my whereabouts. I have even offered to go to the courthouse with you and ask for a judicial determination of probable cause. At this point, as a matter of 4th Amendment law, I am either under arrest or free to go. Which is it?" He wouldn't answer the question, but merely kept asking what did I have to hide and why didn't I want to open the trunk. I repeated to him that by law I was either 1) under arrest or 2) free to go, and asked, "Now which is it, officer? If you refuse to answer that simple question of law, I am going to turn my back on you and walk away." At that point a higher ranking more experienced police officer appeared out of nowhere and said, "You're free to go." I thanked him and turned to go. But as a parting shot, the first less experienced cop said, "Boy, you had better never need our help!" to which I replied, "Believe me, that won't be a problem, officer. You guys are never around when somebody really needs your help anyway." (Most people are unaware of the FACT the police do not have a general legal obligation to protect specific individuals. See DeShaney v. Winnebago City Social Services Department, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).) "You only come in after the fact and enforce policy." With that, the small group of people which had gathered broke up and we all went our separate ways.

Now, the illiterate "cops are always right no matter what" morons might ask, "Why didn't you just open the trunk of your car to let the cop see there was nothing in it?" I suspect that, perhaps a bit like Gates, something about the cop's cold-hearted control-freak barely-civil tone and attitude combined with my zealous personal philosophy of individual freedom, my knowledge of my legal rights, and my moral belief that if there are going to be constitutions and rules, everybody, even cops and judges, have to obey them, caused me to stand up for my legal rights. I guess it seemed unreasonable to me that the cop did not accept at face value the testimony of two reliable shopkeeper witnesses who had already vouched for my whereabouts. Perhaps a bit like Gates, the cop just reached a point in his conversation with me where I made the moral judgment that he was being unreasonable, illogical, and exceeding his constitutional authority. As a child I was taught to love America and feel blessed and proud to be an American. I loved American history and all the stories about the Founders, the Revolutionary War of 1776, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of rights. Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Samuel Adams, et al were my heroes and important to my cultural upbringing. I loved the story about the 300 Spartans. I guess when I believed that I had cooperated sufficiently to cause a reasonable person (on a jury) to believe I had fully complied with the law — both shopkeepers thought the cop was out of line for ignoring their testimony — I decided I was going to stand my ground instead of dishonoring the Bill of Rights and retreating further out of fear and cowardice. Additionally, not being naive, I knew I would be in big trouble if the cop could persuade even one of the bank employees that I looked remotely like the robber, since my car was a similar make, model, year and color as the robber's getaway vehicle.

In my situation, what caused the investigating cop to be offended was that, using the law, I (the "contact") had taken control of the situation instead of him taking control and me obsequiously obeying him. I guess he would say I was being "uppity". I would say I was defending my legal rights in a normal conversational tone. Lucky thing I wasn't black! Somehow I suspect that with too many cops, "uppity black" is even worse than "uppity white". With such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Bill Cosby (but see also his "I was shocked!" statement on YouTube) and many other black voices, I might be inclined to blame the failed deliberately-race-dividing black "entitlement" culture for that sad fact.

Freedom in America has so deteriorated that I wouldn't try that strategy again today. I'd be afraid the cop would simply empty his gun into the center of my body mass and say he thought my wallet was a gun, as happened to Amadou Diallo.

I suspect Prof. Gates' version of the story is true. I suspect he did indeed show Sgt. Crowley his ID, and that Crowley is lying about that fact in an effort to take the attention off his prima facie unconstitutional arrest of Gates. The reason Crowley is lying is because the very instant he saw Gates' ID, probable cause became impossible AS A MATTER OF LAW. Of course an experienced cop like Crowley would know that, but, most likely because he had already internally lost his cool, he was going to "teach Gates a lesson" and call Harvard security to verify Gates' ID under the pretence of "going by the book". Crowley obviously knew nothing could happen to him as a result of him trying to verify Gates' ID. Gates most likely saw that delay, coupled with Crowley's pushy, gruff, unfriendly and unsolicitous attitude, as race-based harassment.

I suspect Crowley became angry when Gates repeatedly and vigorously insisted that Crowley give Gates his name and badge number. Obviously 4th Amendment probable cause law was on Gates' side, and Crowley, for whatever reason, was unable or unwilling to simply ratchet down and walk away saying, "Thank you. We're glad everything is OK. Have a nice evening." But that's not what cops do. Cops tend not to ratchet down. They most often tend to take control, even if that means making a knowingly unconstitutional arrest in prima facie violation of the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirements and relevant 1st Amendment free speech law.

I asked a small town chief of police friend of mine what percentage of police officers he thought cared about the constitutional rights of the citizen, particularly the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and he said about 50%, with the younger officers being the most "kick ass" and least sympathetic.

I was also interested in what NYTimes' columnist Maureen Dowd had to say in her column "Bite Your Tongue", because her dad was a police detective and one of her friends is a chief of police. According to Dowd, "Gates told me Crowley was so 'gruff' and unsolicitous 'the hair on my neck stood up.'" I've known a few cops, I've seen cops, prosecutors, and judges lie first hand, so I definitely believe that.

OJ prosecutor and legal insider, Marcia Clark's, excellent blog titled "The Coverup Is Worse Than The Crime" at the Daily Beast is also revealing and helpful in understanding police tendencies. Marcia sees the racial implications and doesn't think, to use her words, Crowley was "just a badge-heavy jerk who had to prove he was the boss." I disagree. I think there was probably more badge-heavy jerkness and less racism.

Former New York City detective, John Connolly, (another law enforcement insider) also had a very helpful blog titled "What a Cop Is Supposed to Do" at the Daily Beast. Connolly said, "There is no doubt that Sgt. Crowley felt personally challenged when Gates started mouthing off to him. If Gates had been white instead of black, would Crowley have acted differently? Only Crowley knows the answer to that. But Crowley was the one who is paid to keep his cool. That’s his job! He should have backed out of the house, called for a patrol supervisor, who in all probability would have settled everyone down, and that would have been that. Instead, he threw the cuffs on Gates and probably reported to Central that he had one male perp in custody. His report of the incident to Central should have been a simple 'Unfounded.'"

I seldom read the Daily Beast. (That may change, considering its overall excellent work on the Gates arrest.) Perhaps it is particularly interesting on this issue because Prof. "Skip" Gates' daughter Elizabeth is a writer there. At any rate, there is an ample supply of interesting reading as the Daily Beast writers weigh in on the Gates arrest. Huffington Post has some 10 pages of Gates arrest articles. Townhall.com also has 10 pages of Gates arrest articles. WorldNetDaily.com has 5 pages of Gates arrest articles.

My guess is that Gates' biggest mistake was being arrogant, ignorant, naive, and thinking he was a special-deal bigshot just because he is a professor at "Hahvard" and personally acquainted with Obama. You just don't say things like, "Do you know who I am?" or "You don't know who you're messin' with!" to a cop. Nor do you threaten to go after their badges and make political problems for them. They don't care. They aren't impressed. They aren't the least bit intimidated. They are supremely confident in the accuracy of their political assessment that, collectively speaking, the clueless and helpless government-worshiping public are unalterably dependent on "law enforcement" as an institution. (Notice how "law enforcement", as an institution, forced Obama to ratchet down his rhetoric to the point of actually retracting his CORRECT artful use of the word "stupidly".) They are also supremely confident in their knowledge that they can quite literally murder you and almost certainly get away with it (e.g. the JFK assassination), although 100% of them will lie about that FACT. Crowley knew, that with the support of the Cambridge police establishment, there was no possibility of anything negative happening to him as a result of his deliberately constitutionally-violative arrest. That's just not how real life works.

Crowley's mistakes, in their order of appearance were, 1) losing his cool, 2) making a deliberately illegal probable causeless arrest, and then 3) lying about it to coverup his deliberately unconstitutional arrest.

At the end of the day, after all is said and done, I suspect the Gates Arrest Incident was a clash of big egos facilitated by mutual arrogance, false pride, impatience and testosterone. The difference is that Gates' behavior may have been jerkish huffing and puffing, but Crowley's cold, calculated control-freak behavior, especially the lying coverup, was not only extremely jerkish, but tyrant-minded, fully informed, and SERIOUSLY ILLEGAL (See 42 USC §1983, 18 USC §241, and/or 18 USC §242). As has been said by other writers, if America is to be a free society where the Bill of Rights is the Law of the Land, the strong younger warrior with the gun, badge, professional training and government license to kill is more powerful, and, therefore, MUST be held more accountable and blameworthy than the weak older intellectual with a cane in his own home.

I am sick to death of slick and clever. Crowley is slick and clever. In fact "law enforcement" as an institution is sickenly slick and clever. Crowley's speech is professionally devious, indirect and faux-benign. In my opinion, he's just another wannabe-clever lying scumbag1 politician2. FAR too many law enforcement personnel, including cops, prosecutors, judges and advocacy lawyers, are. And virtually all who are not willingly ignore and/or coverup the lawlessness of those who are. Think about it for a minute: if judges were not liars, not only would they stop ignoring, enabling and otherwise facilitating police perjury, they would stop perpetrating the documentable big lie that America's monetary and tax structures are constitutional when they are self-evidently not. Given these kinds of systemic problems in America's justice system, can we realistically expect better of hot-headed, tyrant-minded, control-freak police officers?

Interestingly (and sadly) it seems as though cooler and more manipulative heads have persuaded both Obama and Gates that it is not in the big-picture best interests of an "ordered society" — (especially a fascist3 neo-feudalistic debt-money-based society in which the moneyed classes have created the "legal" structure with which to "legally" steal the labor and property of the productive working classes) — to challenge the systemic behavior of the entire police-power structure (which, as a matter of blatantly unconstitutional public policy unconstitutionally enforces that "legal" thievery via fear, intimidation, and "legal" violence). Accordingly, Obama explained and "clarified" his "stupid" remark, seemingly throwing Gates under the bus, although everyone pretends that's not what happened. A Breibart.com article titled "Gates says it's time to 'move on' from his arrest" very clearly illuminates some of the political manipulation which has gone on in the Gates arrest case. In pertinent part, the article said,"Obama, who had said Cambridge police 'acted stupidly' in arresting Gates, sought to tamp down the uproar Friday. He spoke to Crowley and Gates during separate telephone calls and declared that Crowley was a good man. ¶ Obama invited the officer and the professor to the White House for a beer. He conceded his words had been ill-chosen, but he stopped short of a public apology. ¶ A trio of Massachusetts police unions released a joint statement shortly after Obama's latest comments, saying Crowley had a friendly and meaningful conversation with the president. ¶ 'We appreciate his sincere interest and willingness to reconsider his remarks about the Cambridge Police Department,' according to the statement. 'It is clear to us from this conversation, that the President respects police officers and the often difficult and dangerous situations we face on a daily basis.' ¶ Gates added that he hoped his arrest would lead to a greater understanding about racial profiling in America. ¶ 'If my experience leads to the lessening of the occurrence of racial profiling, then I would find that enormously gratifying,' Gates said on The Root. 'Because, in the end, this is not about me at all; it is about the creation of a society in which "equal justice before law" is a lived reality.'"

What a crock! Clearly, Obama and Gates got politically outmaneuvered by the police establishment, the police unions and the illiterate "cops can do no wrong" crowd. Even the usually correct paleo-conservative Patrick J. Buchanan says so. Obama has the power and the bully pulpit to challenge systemic police lawlessness and he chickened out. Gates should sue Crowley and the Cambridge police establishment for violation of his constitutional rights, but he has apparently recognized that the direction of the political winds is blowing against a judicial vindication of his constitutional rights. That's truly sad, but I don't want to hear anymore Gates whining about racial profiling and black victimhood. This case was about deliberate police lawlessness, NOT race. I'm not interested in "the creation of a society in which 'equal justice before law' is a lived reality," because that could be either bad or good depending on what the law is, and which special interest/s get to make the law. I am interested in an individual-freedom-based society with a free-market-based level (fair) economic playing field, equally accessible to all, in which the cops and judges have to obey the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights or face unemployment, imprisonment, or both.

I despise the too-dumb-to-live so-called "left" because, while pretending to be altruistic "good people", they are actually too illiterate, self-absorbed, and intellectually uncurious to understand that the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are NOT merely some imaginary white-bearded leprechaun's attempt to spoil everybody's "fun", but are in both logical reality and actual material fact empirically observable and provable natural laws of economics which are not dependent upon human opinion for their gravitational force and effect. They are the self-evident blueprint for both individual and societal harmony, prosperity and contentment. They also just happen to preclude stealing and redistributing by declaring that "to lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation." See Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 386 (1798), Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. (2 Peters) 627 627 (1829), Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 (20 Wallace) U.S. 655 (1874) (aka Citizens’ Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wallace) 655 (1874)).

I would offer an admonition to the illiterate and manipulative "cops can do no wrong" so-called "right-wing" crowd. As a libertarian-leaning (smallest government possible) Anarcho-Christian who unwaveringly believes in the supremacy of the kingship of God, the kingship of man, especially steal-and-redistribute Big Government, lying scumbag1 politicians2 and lawless police-power personnel are anathema to me. I take a back seat to NO ONE in being philosophically opposed to them on moral grounds of self-ownership. I also despise and vigorously reject Obama's elitist world view, fascist Big Brother policies, and dissimulative deliberately misleading Orwellian 1984-ish Newspeak political rhetoric.

Having said that, I believe that all decent people of good will are morally obligated to articulate their ideas with intellectual honestly, directness, specificity and accuracy. In view of the fact Obama was 100% correct in his statement to the effect that the Gates arrest was "stupid", I think it is the very height of stupidity, arrogance and political manipulativeness for certain illiterate "right-wing" members of the "cops are always right no matter what" crowd to try to twist a rare CORRECT public statement by Obama around so it can be used for political advantage by deliberately dishonestly using it and demonizing it to pretend that Obama hates and disrespects cops in general. (See the police unions' scummy1 and highly manipulative statement, "It is clear to us from this conversation, that the President respects police officers and the often difficult and dangerous situations we face on a daily basis.")

Of course, in my opinion, the police unions and supervisory personnel, being fully aware of all the information I have presented here, are scum1 for making a conscious deliberate choice to lie about, coverup for, and otherwise enable and facilitate police criminality instead of cleaning their own house (which they will NEVER do).

The most heartening words I ran across in this study were by Thomas Sowell, who, being seriously opposed group identity politics, wrote: "Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a "post-racial" era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us. ¶ That is quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially."

Expanding on Sowell's (a black) point, Ben Shapiro (a white) wrote with razor-sharp incisiveness: "Obama and Gates have a stake in pushing their vision of the universe. It benefits them -- they make fame and fortune from whites who seek to appease them by providing them opportunities vastly exceeding their qualifications. Their success, however, brings with it a certain cognitive dissonance: While Obama and Gates recognize that they have been successful through preferential treatment, they wish to see their success as a product of their own hard work. The obvious way to resolve this dissonance is to blame white society for its continuing racism. If America is a racist country, any handout is an entitlement rather than an act of charity. Thus, according to this logic, Obama and Gates deserved their success after all. ¶ There are many victims in the Gates case. Most of them are, ironically, black. Joseph Crowley and the police departments of the country will survive intact. Many African-Americans, however, will continue to think that they are entitled to resist police, to blame "white society" for their problems, to peg shortcomings on "institutional racism" rather than personal irresponsibility. ¶ Obama and Gates have benefited from white largesse. It is time for them to stand up and help African-Americans achieve success without preying on unwarranted white guilt."

Right there, between an honest black man (Sowell) and an honest white man (Shapiro) is your honest discussion about race, folks! Obama and Rahm Emanuel are mere con artists and posers.

The people to whom Sowell refers are race-dividing entitlement-minded scum1 who call evil good and good evil. They make hate necessary because they make it impossible to courteously and rationally discuss ideas such as the wisdom or folly of any particular economics theory, for example fascism or socialism versus free market enterprise. If you disagree with scum1, they call you a racist even though you're not. And only blacks can get away with this. Some Hispanics try to get away with it, but for the most part they are a poor imitation of real-thing scumbag1 race hustling and race dividing.

I referenced this blog in a comment I posted on the talk string of Patrick J. Buchanan's column "Sgt. Crowley, a Cop in Full". I got this reply (#215) from an "Akagi": "Read enough, Gideon - Sorry I don't need to read any more once I read this "Case in point is the OJ Simpson saga, in which OJ is most likely guilty, and the cops most likely planted false evidence to help make their case. ¶ Anyone who thinks the cops planted evidence is a fool and thus anything they say can be assumed to be as idiotic. Sorry, I don't need to read the analysis into the 1st and 4th amendments since if anything like the above will be as flawed."

Obviously Akagi doesn't know to a moral certainty that OJ is guilty. Equally obviously, Akagi doesn't know to a moral certainty the cops didn't plant false evidence. As a matter of fact Akagi doesn't know diddley squat. So Akagi is obviously the type of illiterate moron I mentioned earlier who "holds on to his erroneous ignorance-based opinion/s with an aggressively, even combatively, belligerent attitude."

So I posted back (Reply #234), "To Akaqi @ Reply # 215:
"Excellent display of ad hominem and gross ignorance. Pathetically illogical, fact-challenged, intellectually uncurious and inept analysis. Either you 1) don't have any cops or lawyers for personal friends, 2) have never had any adversarial contact with the legal system, or 3) are a liar, or 4) are a troll. ¶ My condolences. Your ilk and rhetoric don't remotely impress anybody."

I guess since Akagi is such a flaming beacon of intelligence, wisdom and knowledge, he should talk to the OJ jury and tell them what stupid, no-good, unAmerican racist jerks he thinks they are. That should play well in an honest good-will discussion about race! Unable to be understood by an illiterate proudly bull-headed moron like Akagi, my point to "right-wingers" is that it can serve no useful purpose to talk endlessly about the gross exaggerations about racial profiling to the complete and utter exclusion of constitutionally-violative badge-heavy police jerkness — (which DOES exist to whatever extent) — especially for cheap political points against a political adversary. It only serves to destroy "right wing" credibility. Because too many people, including Gates (who may well be a jerk himself for all I know), have seen it first hand to pretend it doesn't exist.

It's not hard to see why the "honest conversation about race" is so tough: it is inextricably intertwined with an honest discussion about economics, and too many people who believe in stealing and redistributing other peoples' labor and money, especially the entitlement-minded blacks referred to by Thomas Sowell and power-hungry elitist white "liberals", don't want to have it. Individual freedom lovers can NOT afford be intellectually lazy or sloppy and let the totalitarian scumbags1 win.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *

NOTE: Following is a supplemental list, not in any particular order of importance, of articles and videos about the Gates arrest for your edification and reading pleasure. Because I'm continually adding new ones, I didn't want to put them in my regular section for recent articles, blogs, videos, etc. As too many restaurant waitrons love to say, "Enjoy!" (Transitive verbs are supposed to have objects.) Read your little heart out!

(EPILOGUE: February 5, 2010 04:53 PM Cop Who Called Gates 'Jungle Monkey' Fired - Boston.com - This is the story I liked. If you read former Boston police officer Justin Barrett's email, you have some additional inside into why I called this blog "Jerk vs. Jerk". I have no doubt but that both the cops and the professor are arrogant jerks, which is what actually caused the problem. If any of the men involved would have been remotely gracious, the "event" would never have taken place. That's just a simple self-evident fact, so get over it, you who insist on being part of the illiterate and irrational "I love cops no matter what they do" mob!)

BREITBART: On race, 'No, he can't!' - Washington Times

How About A National Conversation On Race Hoaxes? - AnnCoulter.com - "The disorderly conduct charge was not dropped because it wasn't a good arrest. It was dropped, according to Gates' own lawyer, because of Gates' connections." - Yeh, right, Ann. The left is bad enough, without the right making up its own facts as well. As you can see Coulter's partisan BS doesn't stand up under constitutional analysis. She's a lawyer, so she should know that. That means she's pulling your leg just as surely as the leftists do! - JRW

Policeman calls White House meeting productive, by Bob Feller - AP Yahoo NewsBoston.com - What a total crock! You can watch the video and see it's all politics! Crowley: "We had a cordial and productive discussion today . . . We have all agreed that it is important to look forward rather than backward . . . Maybe some meaningful discussions in the future . . . So I think what you had today was two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue . . ." - Yeh, right. I think what you had, and still have, is two arrogant jerks who are now playing pure politics, "looking to the future instead of reliving the events of the past couple of weeks". What a TOTAL crock of political manipulation! The more I see slickmeister Crowley talk on TV, the more I think he should be fired! _ JRW

‘Cordial and Productive’: Cambridge Police Sgt. Crowley Says No One Apologized - MSNBC.com video

3 amigos get suds; she gets scorn - Politico.com - Lucia Whalen is the woman who made the 911 call in the Gates fiasco.

911 caller in Gates case contradicts officer - MSNBC -

Gates racial drama ensnares minor characters, too, by Steve LeBlanc - AP - The key quote is: "she lived in fear for her safety for days after being labeled a racist because the police said she described the possible burglars as 'black men with backpacks' when tapes show she had not." - Notice that the police spin machine lied to make Crowley's actions appear more reasonable. - JRW

James Crowley's police report - The Smoking Gun

Officer suspended for Gates slur in e-mail, by Matt Collette - Boston.com - Do you suppose illiterate internet trolls like Akagi think jerks like this cop give a damn about constitutional probable cause? - JRW

911 caller in Gates case hurt by racist label, by Jay Lindsay - Breitbart.com - "Gates has said he was outraged and has demanded an apology from Crowley; Crowley said he followed protocol and responded to Gates' 'tumultuous behavior' appropriately." See what I told you?! All Crowley can do in his cutesy-pie little public relations campaign is parrot the "tumultous behavior" language of the statute, which as I have demonstrated, is legally unacceptable. Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself. Crowley has hung himself with his own rope. He is a liar and a wannabe-clever manipulator! (This by no means excuses Gates' obnoxious "Jerk vs. Jerk" behavior.) I rest my case. - JRW

Liberty and Lippiness, by Jacob Sullum - Creators.com

Gates of Wrath, by Cal Thomas - Jewish World Review

Redemption on Tap: Why Cambridge Could Use a Cold One, by Kathleen Parker - Jewish World Review

Kathleen Parker: The Barry Lynn Of The South - AnnCoulter.com - I included this article because I've pretty much had it with Kathleen Parker, and I wanted to present another point of view of Kathleen's work. Coulter has her own problems, but she did a good job here! - JRW

The Gates Arrest: Commenting Before All the Facts Are In, by Michael Merritt - PoliGazette

Obama, Gates, and the Problem of Black Guilt, by Ben Shapiro - Townhall.com

Henry Louis Gates: Déjà Vu All Over Again, by Stanley Fish - NYTimes

Who Was ‘Stupid’ in the Gates Arrest?, by Rich Lowry - National Review Online

Henry Louis Gates' 15 minutes robs nation of a much longer dialogue, by Stanley Crouch - NY Daily News

HWB – Home While Black, by Larry Elder - WorldNetDaily.com

Harvard Prof Gates Is Half-Irish, Related to Cop Who Arrested Him, by Niall O'Dowd - ABC News Politics

How to Talk to a Policeman: A Lesson from the Henry Louis Gates Incident, by Bonnie Goldstein - Politics Daily

How to Talk to a Policeman, Part 2, by Mary C. Curtis - Politics Daily

Gates Becomes Part of "Black in America 2" and Obama Says "Cambridge Police Acted Stupidly" - Maynard Institute - There are dozens of articles here - JRW

The Gates Case: When Disorderly Conduct Is a Cop's Judgment Call, by Bonnie Rochman - Time

Viewpoint: The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest, by Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr. - Time

Bite Your Tongue, by Maureen Dowd - NYTimes

Obama's accidental gift on race - Breitbart.com

Who May Harm Whom?, by Walter E. Williams - TownHall.com - Check our posts #17, #60, #61, #109 by "oldsocialworker":
"Social work's ethics reflect irony
The social work 'prime directive' is that each human being has a right to self-determination, and we are never to make a value judgement during assessment or intervention. The problem is that it is the often horrendously harmful undergirding value systems/priorities that lead to most personal, familial, and social problems; its harm being done to the self and others, and we are not supposed to deal directly with it — rather despite it. Yet the negative results yielded by poor personal choices and behaviors are dumped upon others who suddenly become responsible to 'do the right thing' by subsidizing it all! ¶ It is clear that the 'right' to live harmfully and produce harmful situations receives gov't protection; while those who resist the madness are accused of being harmful! There is no disputing this, not at all."

Are Black Victims of Police Brutality the Only Ones that Count?, by Michael Medved - TownHall.com

A Post-Racial President?, by Thomas Sowell - Townhall.com

Comrades In Arms - Cambridge Cops Support Their Own - CNN video

Sgt. Crowley, a Cop in Full, by Patrick J. Buchanan - Townhall.com - I voted for Pat for Prez, but he biffed it huge in this column, and displayed his complete ignorance of both logical inference and 1st and 4th Amendment law. - JRW

A Teachable Moment Indeed, by David Limbaugh - Creators.com

Crowley gets ovation from officers in California
, by Gillian Flaccus - Breitbart.com

Colin Powell on arrest of Prof. Henry Louis Gates: You don't argue with cops - NYDaily News

A teaching moment in class warfare, by Wesley Pruden - JewishWorldReview

Comment on Gates incident undermines law enforcement, by Rick Wagner (cop, lawyer, politician) - Daily Sentinel - According to his website, "In addition to Mr. Wagner's private practice, he serves as legal analyst for the NBC affiliate in Grand Junction." His is typical faux-benign cop spin which, in this particular radically over-simplistic piece, doesn't stand up under strict constitutional analysis. - JRW

Police Brutality at Drive Thru - YouTube video - Is the "policeman" in this video a Crowley act alike? The cop was trying to steal $10. He only gave the girl a $10, not a $20. She filed suit and got $60,000, while the cop was cleared of any wrong doing! What TOTAL scum! - JRW

Beer Battle - BLT: The Blog of the Legal Times - More total stupidity. Now they're hassling over which beers are going to be served at Obama's little beer get together with Crowley and Gates. Unbelievable! - JRW

Chicago too has cops and citizens who lose their cool - The National Law Journal

Under construction . . .


Feds try to detect the 'lone offenders', by Kevin Johnson - USA Today - "Federal authorities have launched an effort to detect lone attackers who may be contemplating politically charged assaults similar to the recent slayings of a Kansas abortion doctor and a Holocaust museum security guard. ¶ The effort, known as the 'Lone Wolf Initiative,' was started shortly after President Obama's inauguration, in part because of an increasing number of hate groups and surging gun sales. ¶ 'Finding those who might plan and act alone, the so-called lone offenders … will only be prevented by good intelligence, the seamless exchange of information among law enforcement at every level, and vigilant citizens reporting suspicious activity,' said Michael Heimbach, the FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism."

Could Leonard Peltier leave prison next month?, by Thomas C. Fox - National Catholic Reporter - "His imprisonment has come to stand not only for five centuries of unjust violence waged against Native Americans, but also for the inhumane theft of the life of a man who has handled his 33 years in jail with epic dignity, effectiveness and grace."

How Leonard Peltier Could Leave Prison by August 18, by Harvey Wasserman - Huffington Post - From the comments section: Steve Russell from Texas said, "In Incident at Oglala, Peltier admits to being an accessory after the fact and claims he knows who the shooter was but will not tell. That is the strongest argument against his parole. ¶ I think two things trump that argument. ¶ First, Peltier is now a sick old man and no threat to anybody. ¶ Second, Peltier did not get a fair trial for beaucoups of reasons. I say this having been a trial judge for over 20 years. I also believe the judge who tried the case is now supportive of Peltier's release. ¶ Was Peltier guilty of being the shooter? Probably. But the burden of proof in an American criminal case is more than "probably," and nobody could claim with a straight face that he got a fair trial."

Geithner Asks Congress to Increase Federal Debt Limit - Wall Street Journal - "'It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations,' Mr. Geithner said in a letter to lawmakers."

Opposition Emerges to House's Jet Spree - Wall Street Journal - "'The whole thing kind of makes me sick to my stomach,' said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) in an interview Sunday. 'It is evidence that some of the cynicism about Washington is well placed -- that people get out of touch and they spend money like it's Monopoly money.'"

Governors oppose DoD emergency powers - The Hill - "Current law gives governors control over National Guard forces in their own states as well as any Guard units and Defense Department personnel imported from other states."

To Hear Your Banjo Play (1947) - Pete Seeger

The following video is almost one year old, but still relevant to revisit as a reminder in view of current events.

Peter Schiff, Andrew Napolitano, and Rand Paul discuss what the GOP needs to do to make a comeback - YouTube video titled, "Rand, The Judge and Schiff on Happy Hour"

The following video is almost one year old, but still relevant to revisit as a reminder in view of current events.

10/28/08 Peter Schiff predicts doomed economy under Obama - YouTube video

Compare Peter Schiff's analysis in the above video with the "Rah-rah! Green shoots!" propagandistic cheerleading from the MSM. On of the problems with libs is their constant projection of their own behavior onto their opponents. They actually believe that an economy is all psychological! They actually believe that if the right person with the right charisma and attention-riveting personal style says the "right stuff", everything will be OK! The truth is opposite their beliefs: it is impossible for printing money, raising taxes and/or incurring more debt to lead to prosperity and wealth. MAKING REAL THINGS is the only path to prosperity and wealth. Unfortunately, America has outsourced too much manufacturing (aka "making real things") to foreign countries.

Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth? - WorldNetDaily - "Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because 'he's afraid for his life.' ¶ Taitz's motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. " - Looks like there's proof that Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. "The alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964. " I hope to God that it's true, not to spite Obama, but to spite the legions of wannabe-clever scumbag DEM political manipulators who did such a poor of job vetting Obama, and then worked so hard to cover up the truth and demonize those who disagree with their cover up! - JRW

Federal tax revenues plummeting - biggest drop since Great Depression, by Stephen Ohlemacher - Associated Press

Rupert Murdoch's move to charge for content opens doors for competitors, by Jeff Jarvis - The Guardian

Cash For Clunkers is a Modern-Day Version of the Broken Window Fallacy, by DrexDavis - ByteStyle.tv

Part 1: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Daniel Hannan, Peter Schiff, more, with Judge Andrew Napolitano - YouTube video

Part 2: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Daniel Hannan, Peter Schiff, more, with Judge Andrew Napolitano - YouTube video

Part 3: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Daniel Hannan, Peter Schiff, more, with Judge Andrew Napolitano - YouTube video

Part 4: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Daniel Hannan, Peter Schiff, more, with Judge Andrew Napolitano - YouTube video

Part 5: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Daniel Hannan, Peter Schiff, more, with Judge Andrew Napolitano - YouTube video

Part 6: 08/05/2009 Freedom Watch 26 w/ Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Daniel Hannan, Peter Schiff, more, with Judge Andrew Napolitano - YouTube video

Drink To Your Health - Resveratrol - YouTube video (Morley Safer, 60- Minutes) - "Scientists have found a substance in red wine that is slowing down the aging process in mice."

Everything He Wants to Do is Illegal, Megan Phelps Interview with Joel Salatin - Mother Earth News

Polyface farm - YouTube video

Joel Salatin and the Winds of Change - Food Safety Legislation - YouTube video

Sissy Farmer (Joel Salatin on Forgiveness) - YouTube video

Bloomberg: Interview and discussion with Joel Salatin of Polyface Farm - YouTube video

Joel Salatin - Healing the Planet one plate at a time Part 1 - YouTube video

Joel Salatin - Healing the Planet one plate at a time Part 2 - YouTube video

Joel Salatin: "How to Eat Well AND Save Our Planet" (interview with CTV Regina)
- YouTube video

The Polyface Farm DVD Trailer - YouTube video

Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms Provides Pork for Chipotle - YouTube video

What's So Special About Organic Seed? - YouTube video

www.FreshTheMovie.com - Blip.tv video

Food Inc: Michael Pollan and Robert Kenner - YouTube video

Food, Inc. - Official Trailer [HD] - YouTube video - (Embedding disabled by request - This is a totally B.S. thing to do by people allegedly trying to spread the "healing food" gospel! Karma, fellow babies, Karma! - JRW)

The Truth About Food, Inc. - YouTube video - (Embedding disabled by request - This is a totally B.S. thing to do by people allegedly trying to spread the "healing food" gospel! Karma, fellow babies, Karma! - JRW)

'Food, Inc.' Challenges the Industry - YouTube video - (Embedding disabled by request - This is a totally B.S. thing to do by people allegedly trying to spread the "healing food" gospel! Karma, fellow babies, Karma! - JRW)

Michael Pollan: The omnivore's next dilemma - YouTube video

Free & Pay WiFi Hot Spots in Grand Junction, CO, by Rick Castellini - HelpMeRick.com

Recession TWICE As Bad As Prior Estimates, Revisions Show, by Bob Willis - Bloomberg.com

GDP has fallen for four straight quarters for the first time since government records started in 1947, by Lucia Mutikani - Reuters

30 Most Influential People In Programming - WebDesignDev.com

Tarp banks award billions in bonuses, by Greg Farrell - Financial Times - "'There is no clear rhyme or reason to the way banks compensate and reward their employees,' Mr Cuomo said. 'Compensation for bank employees has become unmoored from the banks’ financial performance."

Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news - Aspen Daily News Online - What a joke Dan Rather is! - JRW

U.S. judge rules for Fed in Fox News Network request - Reuters - The FOIA needs to be amended to remove the exceptions. No exceptions except in war time. I'm fed up with "national security" government by secret! Despite all the lying talking points to the contrary, the main purpose of secrecy is to facilitate the theft of your labor and property! - JRW

Security Chief Urges 'Collective Fight' Against Terrorism, by Spencer S. Hsu - Washington Post - Drudge linked this story with the headline, "BIG SIS Urges 'Collective Fight' Against Terrorism..." I LOVE it! God bless Matt Drudge! - JRW

We are out of money, by Vox Day - WorldNetDaily

Obama slammed as 'racist' at Jerusalem rally, by Aaron Klein - WorldNetDaily

Mark Steyn deconstructs President Obama's dissembling on health insurance, by Hugh Hewitt - TownHall.com

The state despotic, by Mark Steyn - The New Criterion - "A review of Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect by Paul Anthony Rahe ¶ On our gradual slide into servitude."

Quit Whining!, by David Frum - NewMajority.com - Frum mistakes militancy for "extreme dispair". I included this as an example of utter rah-rah BS. - JRW

AP Sources: Senate group omitting Dem health goals - Yahoo News

Germany calls carbon tariffs "eco-imperialism" - Reuters

China web users outnumber US population: report - Breitbart.com - Notice how so many ad hominem comments have been deleted from the talk string. I especially liked this comment by one "swimkin": "People are always seeking ways to express their independence and their rights to be free in every society especially under dictators or any tyrannical government. If it wasn't for the internet we wouldn't be hearing from the people in Iran trying to express their freedoms after their own tyrannical government. ¶ We have our own silent majority awakening in the USA now, too. Many people here are using the internet as their main source of true information Our own country has been overrun by a statist MSM (mainstream media) who helped elect a far left Marxist who is trying to legislate all our freedoms away." - JRW

Right-wing racism on the rise, by Joan Walsh - Salon.com - Check out this TOTAL crock of wannabe-clever "leftist" BS! (I included it as a novelty piece.) - JRW

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites - Vancouver Sun

Chicago Sees Coldest July In 67 Years - CBS2

U.K. Law Society Warns Students Away From a Legal Career - Legal Blog Watch

Top 10 Social Networking Sites - TutorialBlog.org

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them - CNSNews video

Rather sues to return CBS execs to $70 million suit - Reuters - I consider Dan Rather to be arrogant elitist scum1, but no more or less so than Les Moonves, and this article is an excellent example of wannabe-clever demonization and political manipulation in the press. JRW

Female genital mutilation “is part of the Sunna of the Prophet” - Winds of Jihad (Sheik Yer' Mami) - Dear "leftist" and "globalist" morons, here is a good look at your "kinder, gentler" Islam! - JRW


1. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate "scum" what it is.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. After all, the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David, were murderers. In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to individual freedom.

3. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag2 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones, the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions.