Leo Strauss on Solitude

…the philosopher cannot possibly desire to rule. His only demand on the political men is that they leave him alone…(p.207)

   That’s why I yell at my cats- even the “gentleman,” Mr. Black, my “best animal,” “Leave me alone!” If I were a true and full philosopher, I would likely never yell (and they would never listen (Republic, opening), though they do not anyway). And that’s why Justice Black (or Frankfurter?) said, “the right to be left alone is the right most prized by civilized man,” and why the U.S. Declaration, setting rights above duties, is so excellent.* It allows for the Holy Spirit: it is the house without a roof, open to the sky. All men (universal sense, which of course includes women, not of course, qua women, but qua men) have the faculty developed in the philosopher: The philosopher embodies and shows the excellence of man, hence, “all men are created equal-” equally endowed with rights, as Lincoln explains in his speech on Dred Scott. So here, Strauss continues,

   …The philosopher cannot lead an absolutely solitary life because legitimate “subjective certainty” and the “subjective certainty” of the lunatic are indistinguishable. Genuine certainty must be “inter-subjective.” The classics were fully aware of the essential weakness of the mind of the individual. Hence, their teaching about friendship: the philosopher is a philosopher in need of friends.

                                                                                      On Tyranny, p. 208

Tyrants, of course, cannot have friends.

  It is irony itself that the tyrant is surrounded by flatterers and bigger and smaller fish. Some he depends upon to mirror his prestige, while others he depends upon for safety. Meanwhile, the philosopher must hide away in the woods like Merlin to keep mankind from tearing themselves to shreds if they encounter him, who is by nature a gadfly.

   The philosopher too is one of the many, a citizen like any other, with the peculiar advantage that he is one of the few who can speak. There are very few substantial letters to congresspersons, amplifying the voice of those among the people that are able to speak of things that mater. Most, of course, cannot.

   Athens killed Socrates the Philosopher, and Plato and Xenophon wrote Apologies of Socrates, arguing of course that this should not have occurred. Xenophon wrote that far from being punished for not believing in the gods of the city and for corrupting the youth, Socrates was deserving of honor. Socrates, required to tell the truth because he is in court, said he deserved free meals in the Prytanium like an Olympic victor.

   Honor, which the philosopher does not seek for its own sake, in the sense of recognition, is needed for his own protection. It is also good for men to look to and esteem things truly honorable (Leo Paul S. de Alvarez).

   Had Athens honored rather than judicially murdered Socrates the philosopher, Greece might have become an autocthonous nation, more than a match for Persia, and avoided the Imperialism of Alexander that destroyed Greek liberty .

   But you see that since the madman and the philosopher are indistinguishable to the folks in the neighborhood, many things follow. The Constitution supersedes the “Michigan Mental Health Code,” which is unconstitutional when it seizes a man for mere speech because others are deluded and self-interested or imagine him a danger, and act upon this delusion rather than allow him to explain. And the case is important enough to pursue to the ends of the earth. They live like slaves because they fear death, and like the Miller in Grimm’s goat story, will do things so base as to destroy the value of their having lived at all. It is no grave dishonor to be considered mad, nor to lose all one’s friends as Odysseus did while having done or said not a single thing wrong. They could not restrain themselves from the cattle of Helios, or, their ignoble self interest proves them incapable of philosophy. But then Odysseus sees, and gets to see Nausikka.

   This leaves open the possibility that there was no outside influence in what caused my family- people I have known for fifty years- to hurt me so badly I will likely never be reconciled. “…But a sin against the Holy Spirit…” And what do you think the context indicates He is talking about?

Note* So long as one does not violate the rights of another, “society” is required by our fundamental law to at least leave him alone.

Why Are the Americans Asleep to the Surveillance of the Internet?

   As usual, the Americans are just not thinking it through. Everyone welcomes this “internet of things,” assuming it is unopposable or something. We just had an election turned by foreign manipulation of the internet, and fascism has been rising in America, while we all just go on about our business. A few literat-ures talk about Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s “the Handmaid’s Tale,” but for the most part, our noses are in the dirt and we walk about in an Oxy induced daze, dumb as a box of rocks. Awake! Your liberty is being destroyed, and indeed we can do something about it! We do not have to let this happen because there are internet billionaires and dark forces over drug gangs flushed with the proceeds of our vices. There are in fact billionaires who can think, and do have hearts and souls. We could install an honest internet TOMORROW. And “they” – who are probably some logarithm by now- still cannot control the American voter completely,

   The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the destruction of our security in our houses, persons, papers and effects, and this is fundamental law. The internet of things is illegal. “No person shall… is how this amendment begins. Laws can prevent rich companies from supplanting our government and constitution if the Constitution itself is thought to not forbid this. But it only need be argued that if, for example, Duterte is allowed access to my phone calls, this will effect government, and liberty cannot then be secured. Look how they argued that growing one’s own weed and smoking it “effects” interstate commerce (Reich v. Ashcroft). The cell towers are tracking us are they? How bout if we cut them down? These companies are remarkably responsive, though, to public opinion when it effects their bottom line. The bosses want now infinite surveillance of employees, do they- How ’bout we stop working till they back the f off! The people are enough, too, to trample Congress and push cell towers over- how expensive will that be for the corporate panel and shareholder value”? Put that in your logarithm and crunch it!

   And did this not all start when we gave companies the right to make us piss in a cup to see if we smoked any weed? What would be the answer of James Otis in 1774, of Thomas Jefferson and the generation of 1776? Well, let us give them the answer for which they are asking.

Revive the Re-vote: Declare 2016 Elections Void due to Russian Interference

   Jeroll M. Sanders has done an ingenious work in preparing the Supreme Court case # 16-907, which was denied by the Supreme Court without explanation. I am repeatedly in admiration of her direct and relaxed common sense in stating profound and trenchant points transcending legalese, and recommend reading her write-up of the case, which I have just read entire for the first time today. Especially ingenious is her basing the case on Article IV and on the Twelfth Amendment, points that are both true and difficult to see, though obvious once stated. She has run for Mayor, and receives my endorsement of the CLC for this and higher office. The Appeals court denied the case because no precedent was provided, for events that are in fact unprecedented, though without recourse these have become the way of our world quite quickly. Supreme Court precedent in election cases outside civil rights issues are very sparse: the question has simply never arisen before. Our constitution contains perennial principles that are quite sufficient to meet circumstances that are new, and there is no reason that new circumstances do not call for setting precedents. For surely an election determined by foreign invasion through the internet is not a constitutional election, or not what the founders had in mind by “election.”

The Appeals court also alleges that the political branches of the U. S. government have made no such determination, and for the court to determine that the United States was “invaded,” triggering the Article IV requirement that the national government defend the states from foreign invasion, would “disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibilities of other branches of government, and would result the court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.” But what if, as Sanders indeed indicates, the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had in fact concluded that such an invasion aiming to influence the elections did in fact occur? Ms. Sanders cites Mark Morell, the Deputy Director of the central intelligence agency, as stating on CNN that Russia’s meddling in this election is “the political equivalent of 9/11.” I would have added, had I been permitted, that General Hayden had called the Russian meddling, “the greatest covert operation in history.” In fact, had I been permitted to write an Amicus brief, a letter citizens may submit to inform the court regarding a pending case, I would have suggested bringing the CIA right into the Supreme Court, both to tell the court what could be told and to tell them there was more that could not be told to protect “sources and methods,” but that their conclusion was and is that there had been significant Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

   And had I been permitted, I would have suggested a third scenario to add to the two presented by Ms. Sanders: Wikileaks, soon after the case was denied by the Appeals Court, revealed that our own government knew of vulnerabilities in our new spy-marketing tech that leaves these open to hackers, but that the agencies decided not to protect us so that they might themselves exploit these vulnerabilities. My own brother had just accused me of insanity, quite seriously, for saying that, as he summarizes in caricature, “the T.V. is watching me.” After the Wikileak became public, I offered to accept his apology, when he delivers it. What was once madness is now common sense. Then he assured me that it is only the newest “smart” tech instruments, and assured me too, as did the agent he sent to make sure it was safe to seize me if possible, that it is only used for “marketing” purposes. And what is an election? How similar to marketing? We will never have another free election if we cannot restore the security in our persons, papers, houses and effects guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution. And this shows the reason for such security: people like nations have enemies bent on using every bit of information they can skim only against their targeted person. And in fact what occurred in the 2016 election is that the Russians bought and hacked into every bit of “marketing” information, passively collecting data, and then used this to target interference again through our computers, as through Kaspersky, which handles four hundred million security accounts right from Moscow, or some similar method- I have no particular evidence against Kaspersky except the sort of attacks which walk right past their security onto my home computer, namely Russian and Trumpster attacks. Targeted interference might be either mechanical, operational, or intimidation. What if one’s words are simply allowed less publicity, and one were to do this to 25% of the words of one’s political opponent, while expanding the publicity of fake news by 25%? I would have added this and similar information in an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, except I was prevented by at least three ostensibly Russian attacks including a death threat, and forced to cease working on the computer after February 4th, 2017. A documented death threat came from Trumpsters January 28th, and this is right there on Twitter, excepting the tweet redacted by the sender after I identified it as technically a death threat. But the most serious came while commenting on a letter to be sent to President Obama a few days before the inauguration, when first prostitutes and then a scary face with the word “Assasin” came up under the page I was writing on to take over my computer screen. Facebook has commented that given modern marketing techniques, it would be quite easy to throw an election this way, and a report on NPR (Probably from the BBC) confirms that the Philippine election was in fact turned this way- spy marketing tech collecting information and then targeted interference. Indeed, we will in fact have to choose between this “internet of things” and free government with free elections, at least until we figure out a way to have both. The oblivious Americans do not even realize that this is the choice, and plunge headlong into a world that makes perhaps the worst imaginable and surely the most pervasive tyranny a mathematical necessity.

   It is beyond my capacities to explain why the police have ignored my complaints, even as stand in amazement at what my Trumpster relatives have done of late, and these are people I have known for fifty years. The police would not even look at the computer to see if there really was a death threat, and did not provide the protection needed to secure the right of a citizen to continue political work guaranteed by his liberty, as required by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rather, everything I have said has been as if only used against me. As described in part in a previous blog, my Trumpster relatives, having tried to have me “treated” for the mental illness of  not being oblivious to these new things, and for trying to warn them of the dangers of tyranny and of this tyranny, drew up a perjurous complaint saying that I, who had done nothing wrong and even had said not a single thing thing that is false, be seized as a “danger to myself and others.” The writer of the complaint demonstrably and intentionally lied, and part of her charge was literally that I was working on a Supreme Court Case. I had said so when I was prevented from continuing my work, which I consider quite important. The instigating relative, though, an Uncle, was careful to try to avoid demonstrable perjury. I will ask him in court if he was influenced by anyone in the Trump organization, since his efforts happen to coincide with Russian and Trumpster efforts aiming at the result that I “stop doing what I am  “doing now.” That message came over my phone right when I was receiving the tweet string that knocked me off the internet and prevented me from continuing to work on this Supreme Court Case. I did not look long enough to see if this string contained a fourth death threat, but it included many things I had said that angered the Russians and white supremacists, as well as personal information used to hurt and let one know that they are not just on the internet, but in your phone and in your drugstore and anywhere else the new tech allows them entry bought or forced. I have seen the new world that is emerging, perhaps a little more closely than most. These things are quite demonstrable, and plenty of reason to ask the court to reconsider. I thought we might gain an unanimous decision, rather than have to rely on the partisan 5-4 majority, as this is far beyond a partisan issue.

Orwell’s 1984 in 2017: Truth and Delusion

   If you seriously cannot tell which is reality and which is illusion, I suggest you look at who is persecuting people for mere speech. And here we see the surprisingly deep importance of the principle of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I keep forgetting that there are Trump supporters, and perhaps people who seriously cannot tell, as well as people who due to an ethical failure do not care or are simply willing to pervert the truth for baser interests.

   In Orwell’s 1984, there are of course people who believed that government, or, there are fools.  I recall Orwell’s description of his neighbor’s family, where all were as if wholly deluded, the father, mother and two children, all avid supporters willing to live wholly in the world Big Brother had created for them. There are also people who from fear do not consider truth, and of course a third sort, people who know well the difference, and for some ungodly reason are willing to impose the tyranny and its delusion onto everyone. That is how the domestic life of North Korea appears to us out here in the West. But seriously, who knows? Are there not “two sides to every story,” and did you not know that “truth is relative?” “We have our culture and they theirs,” and did you not know that ethical truth is culturally relative? “Who knows?” or rather, swallow this: if we lived in North Korea, Kim Jong Un would truly be the “Great Father!” Sarcasm is important, and does not, sometimes, come across through the written word. I keep forgetting that there really are Trump supporters. Trump has people willing to believe his fake news, and also to believe his accusation that any criticism of him is fake news. Our press struggles nobly to achieve for us objective clarity in the face of the stupidest lies. Many Americans seriously admire a good sales pitch regardless of the truth. Trump also has people who seriously cannot tell the difference, and, again, third, people who know the truth of the story quite well and are willing to produce for him fake news. And look now across America: Our democracy is seriously having difficulty telling the difference.

   2=2=4, and it does not equal 5. I had a great professor who once mentioned Orwell, and we, the students, were surprised that he would descend to discuss a novelist. He said he liked the work quite well, 1984, but took issue with Orwell’s presentation of human nature as being that malleable. But this was before the age of the Internet. If we do not act now, the orchestrated opinions may soon be those of We the people. It is perhaps an ethical problem, or, at root it is an ethical question: Are you willing to pervert your theoretical mind and common sense for the sake of bodily self interest? Will you do this if they threaten you? Or do they only need to pay you? And how much? For, like the joke about the prostitution of the wife of the man offered a “million dollars” to let the seducer sleep with his wife, we have already established that she is a prostitute, the only remaining question is the price. Read Machiavelli’s play Mandragola. And do you have enough money yet, America?

   But sometimes there is a serious difficulty about truth and a mirror image, which after all does have the same features as the true picture. Birds often are seen trapped in an illusion that the bird in the mirror is indeed another bird, because they have never yet seen such an example, and it takes a while to learn that such an illusion is even possible. Who would intentionally set up a mirror to confuse me in this way? Can we not just trust that the Lord would not make things so difficult for common sense? Do you mean, Mr. McDonald, to say that we really do have to consider such things about the president of the United States? Are we not obligated by the grandeur of the office not to question? Are we not obligated by the chain of command? Yes, indeed, this is not North Korea, yet, and every American citizen has a right to work on a Supreme Court case, to support impeachment when it in the nation’s interest, to speak freely and to ask questions freely. Trump had never read the constitution, and that is why he so often trips over it, and the Trumpsters do not care, and that is un-American!

   But this does not change the truth: Those who say 2=2=5 are lying. The philosopher can always be presented as mad, because the people cannot, without a great natural intelligence and a life of toil devoted to the truth, understand him, and, amid their life absorbed in practical concerns, they do not care. Again that is why our constitution is so important, and free speech so fundamental. I will add that that is why the abuse of our courts and the issue of perjury is so fundamental. I was taken from my driveway and held for 20 days without even getting a single word in to a judge, until a court appointed lawyer gained an independent evaluation by a psychologist who did not have an interest in filling a bed or getting me addicted to their drugs, and this convinced a judge of the rather obvious truth that they did not have a right nor any legitimate power to seize me 20 days prior. The abuse of our mental health system is, along with perjury, very serious, a very important development, because this system needs to be in place and honest for those who truly need it, that is, for genuine emergencies. I have seen it, the courts and our mental health system, corrupted by Trumpsters for political reasons, and this is simply not ok, that is, assuming that we do see something truly wrong with the way of life under Kim Jong Un, and we are not to assume it is simply our cultural preference. I am pressing charges of perjury, but it is quite likely that the police will be told to do nothing, and that the officer will again say that the question is “above his pay grade.” And it is perjury: When certain Tumpster relatives learned by experience that they could not have me “treated” by compulsion unless I were a “danger to myself or others,” they simply lied to say I was. We have an uncle who has a PhD in “Education,” and he was influenced too by some “psychologist,” likely a Trumpster, and perhaps someone in our government who has an interest in my being certified insane: I do not know, and fear to raise these questions so as not to appear “paranoid.” But someone sure does have an interest in presenting as insane, or a mere “conspiracy theorist,” anyone to whom it has become apparent the extent to which Russia threw the 2016 election. Again, if you seriously cannot tell which is truth and which illusion, I suggest you look to those suppressing the questions, to those suppressing free speech, for I was seized in my driveway while the Supreme Court Case #16-907 to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference through the internet was moving through the courts, I having done nothing wrong, not a thing I do not have a right to do, having threatened no one illegally, nor even said a single thing that is false, but for mere speech. One can always tweak and twist a word, and then forbid the accused to explain. The limed bird, remember, the more you struggle to free yourself, the more you will be stuck, if only we use everything you say only against you, will not listen, and insist it is you who will not listen, while it is we who are entering your world to determine how things shall be for you. Liberty is fundamental, and when one has violated the rights of no other, it is the obligation of government to leave him alone. This is fundamental law in America still, the principles of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Third assertion of the Second sentence of our Declaration: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The purpose of government is to secure rights, and so again, since it is apparently difficult, when one has not violated the rights of another, government has no purpose and must leave him alone.

   But in the end, and in “this world,” these questions are determined not by equations on a blackboard, but by power. We must take a stand, or see free government perish from this earth. I can blog, and have a wonderful time, and you can read, dwelling here with the ideas, if you have leisure, but in the end, they control the visibility and access to my writings through the internet, because we have allowed this to occur. The Resistance can tweet all day, but in the end it is on Twitter, and Twitter is being monitored and controlled, and by someone other than “We the people.” They can win because they have money and power, and we are not taking a stand.

Citizen’s Arrest of Donald Trump

   I wish, then, to declare the arrest of Donald Trump for election fraud, here in writing now. I Do not know which agency to contact, but will do that within the next day. They really need to contact me, since, I have told my Senators, if I call the FBI, they will not understand and hang up on me. The State Police, too will send a 24 year old adorned with so many cameras he can hardly walk, let alone sit for philosophical arguments. Ok, Donald J. Trump, presumed President elect, you are hereby under arrest. The charade is over.

   I wish, too, to appeal to the Federal election Commission to declare the vote of the Electoral College illegitimate, and the U. S. elections of this past November to be null and void, due to foreign interference which may well have turned the presidential and some congressional elections. I request a do-over, with paper copies of each vote, sealed and kept by each citizen in case there is a problem.

   I suggest, too, that until we sort out what the true vote of the people is, all office holders keep their places, in the interests of national security.

Note: Incidentally, this is quite in the interest of Mr. Trump personally, though it may not yet appear to him. On the charge of Treason, he may well be able to plead that he really just did not know what he was getting into. Crime requires intention, and there are various levels of intention and different senses in which one did not know what they were doing.

Black and Blue: Lives Matter

A recent statistic making the press is that black men are 18 1/2 times more likely to shoot a cop than a cop is to shoot a black man.

   My first response, which is not the first question one should ask, was that the 18 are not given a badge and being paid with tax money, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law in their office. Nor have we elected their bosses. But the point is simply this: The nineteenth black guy is not a “black guy” under the U. S. constitution, but a citizen, and this is what people mean when they complain about “racial profiling.” He is the black cop on his way home from work, the black minister giving his life to help the city, the doctor who may well save one’s life, if not become director of housing one day.

   No, the first question I should have asked is this: How many more times is a “white” guy likely to shoot a cop than to be shot by a cop. What? No Stats?

   What affirmative action was trying to address was the systematic destruction of a people by the years of slavery- the breaking of the black families and the discouragement of education- followed by the effect of years of segregation and plain meanness that humans practice toward one another given the power to do so. That is not a racial thing, but a human thing. If affirmative action is not quite equality, and not quite constitutional, the question is what can we do to heal the wound of the lash that once drew and may again draw blood by the sword drop for drop. Indeed, the white guy too is not a “white guy,” but just an applicant. Indeed, to list people by race for the purposes of affirmative action was a horendous error, as will be demonstrated when the racists take office, if it has not already been demonstrated by what they have been allowed to do.

   That ninteenth guy is he on whom the solution to our greatest domestic national problem depends. There are things the black minister can do that no one else can do, and black politician who recognizes that is our patriotic duty to avoid corruption. Government in geneal can provide equipment and secure the oppotunity to do, but cannot do it.

   How many times more likely is a black man to be shot unjustly than a white man? How many more times likely is a cop to not be prosecuted when mudering a black man, or even genuinely accidentally shooting him? Did I overtax or burn out your stats function? How many times more likely are the mad to be shot than to shoot? How many times is a man moe likely to be punished for than listened to for telling the truth?

   There are things too about this statistic that are difficult to say. How many more time is a black likely to encounter criminal police than is a white guy?

  There are things accessible to common sense, not to mention intelligence, that defy statistical analysis, if only fo practical reasons- one cannot get good stats if they deny that murders are murders, and deny that injustice is injustice in any paticula matter.

Black

And Blue

God only knows its not what

We would choose

To do.

                                                   -Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon

Police Lie to a Grieving Mother About the Death of Her Baby

In a story by Prinna Boudreau called Treading Water, on the Moth Story Hour, the police told a woman who’s child had just died that the child had a bruise on the neck. They said the doctor’s had found this, but it was a lie. Their purpose was to test the people, in case they murdered or accidentally killed their child.

   Ok, Americans, this is you Bill of Rights test: What is wrong with the police doing this, even if helps catch child murderers in some cases? Innocent till proven guilty is, after all, not in the Bill of Rights at all. So what is wrong with police lying to us and creating false circumstances in order to test us for crime?

   What is violated here is the provision of the Fifth Amendment that our liberty is not to be violated without due process. The mother should sue. The police caused suspicion between thee people, could have damaged a marriage or even caused a suicide. Had such occurred, and the police wee tried like a mother who accidentally shook a baby to death, with out intending to kill it, but doing a misdeed that was instrumental in causing a death, the police would not even have been charged with manslaughter- as would be just- let alone murder, as they charge those who did not intend to kill but have by a misdeed caused a death on some popular issue. In our opinion, for the good of the people, this mother should sue. Someone must tell the police, very loudly, that they do not own our liberty to a degree sufficient to create false circumstances for us without probable cause.

   I am reminded of the 17 year old shot to death when an Eaton County cop pulled him over for flashing bights lights back at the cop, whose lights were intentionally set too high.

   More “police training” is not going teach the police that they do not have the power to make false circumstances, lie about medicine, then see how we react. The police are operating in ignorance of the Bill of Rights, the fundamental law, and this is resulting in deaths, and many other problems. Regardless of how much crime could be prevented if police were given the powers of gods, they cannot have this power in America, and we need to tell them no.

Alfred Olango: “Stop Shooting My People”

   CBS reports that protests of the shooting of Alfred Olango are becoming more violent. He came to the U. S. for safety from war in Uganda. He had a mental breakdown, it is said, over the recent death of his best friend. Don’t call the police, the professionals, in circumstances like this. He was walking in traffic, and indeed, someone needed to go get him and watch over his safety. He was going down the street when police encountered him, and, apparently in a dream world as if playing, like Ophelia, he pointed his e cigarette contraption at the police. His sister says, “He needed someone who was going to calm him down and then take care of the situation.” It took police in El Cajun near San Diego, more than an hour to respond, and they shot him dead in less than a minute. While they do have a power to answer such a circumstance and such a call, the Fifth Amendment still applies in this case, as the man is not obligated to understand if he does not understand, but police are obligated to deal with the circumstances accurately. Indeed, this can be very dangerous. But the police  do not have the authority, even here, to enter the circumstance and issue orders, then shoot one they knew might not understand. Summary execution has not yet been decreed for failure to understand orders, though if we want a premonition, we can look to the Philippians, and the party of Donald Trump. Mr. Olango is not being paid, while they are being paid. Indeed, if he is in traffic, he is in danger. Police, incidentally, are to defend tourists just as they defend native citizens, to kill them is murder, etc., because humans, not just American citizens, have rights. No crime has been committed, and the police apparently respond to everything as though it were crime, or else they just do not know how to respond. Perhaps our nation needs a refresher lesson from the philosophers as to what a crime is, after now nearly a century of prohibition. CBS writes:

Critics have questioned why personnel with special training to deal with the mentally ill were not dispatched after police received a report that Olango was behaving erratically, KFMB notes.

Police later said a Psychiatric Emergency Response Team clinician was on another call at the time.

   The Black Lives Matter movement is important, because the Blacks are both subject more to law enforcement and are the only ones protesting. But again, if you want to see them shoot some white guys, just scroll the shootings of the homeless driven insensible by cold, then failing, in delusion, to quickly drop a knife. The white kid, 17, shot in Eaton County, Michigan, before charges were even brought in these cases for a sham trial, is a good and white enough example. The officer in Oklahoma will be acquitted of manslaughter, perhaps because it is a bit more like second degree murder, with the intention to kill and all, even though it is an office we have set in that circumstance, serving the public. If Tim Walberg addressed this, the Eaton County shooting, in his district, in his recent meeting with the State Police chief, I might still vote for him despite his slavish support of torture and Donald Trump, his ignorance of the issue and importance of the difference between liberty and tyranny. But wait until the Second Amendment folks realize that the police shooting of everyone imagined to be armed in effect makes it vey dangerous to keep and bear arms: the police ae far more likely to shoot you, even though they cannot always believe it, for example when relatives say one is not armed. Perhaps then some powerful lobby will make the police stop shooting His people, our people. We really think it is a more general problem, a matter of our forgetfulness of the Bill of Rights.

Stop and Frisk: The Wrong Answer

   On many questions, the Donald unthinkingly gives answers that demonstrate or are consistent with his being a tyrant. His answer to crime, to impose “law and order,” in response to the erroneous shooting of so many citizens by police, is just what tyrants say. He is not going to call it the “iron fist,” because in addition to being a potential tyrant, he is a salesman.

   The policy of stop and frisk is not unconstitutional because of equality, but because of liberty. The police are not given the authority to interfere with citizens for no reason, nor for any reason, and it would not be ok if unconstitutional rule is applied evenly to “blacks” and “whites.” If whites were being shot equally, it would not then be constitutional to shoot the citizens, because equality, in the Fourteenth Amendment, is not the only thing the constitution has to say. Yea, if all were poor we would have less income inequality, but that is not quite what we meant to say about the disappearance of the middle class. People are often being shot when police had no reason to interfere with them to begin. The Eaton county case and the Tulsa case are extreme and obvious examples, and especially the L. A. shooting of John Berry. In Tulsa, Mr. Scott sat in his car waiting for his child and the school bus harming absolutely no one. No one seems to notice the violation of liberty,  and the cases are not even being argued this way, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, because we no longer understand liberty. Especially after Boston, it seems, we gave the government the power to conduct blanket searches, and now the Americans do not want to object to these “preemptive” measures. But the errors involved in these shootings are precisely why the police ate not allowed to interfere with the liberty of the citizens for no reason. A deaf or confused person might then be obligated, on pain of immediate execution, to understand shouted orders and respond correctly. Rather than “stop and frisk,” and other unconstitutional violations of liberty that get people killed, why do we not exercise our foresight when the Constitution is being trashed, and consider where these things lead? Tyrannical measures can be made to sound “great,” and can solve many smaller problems in the shot run. Trump would give the police a blank check to bash heads, and the response would be riots, civil unrest, or worse. Trump supporters: dress you kids in bownshirts and prepare for war. But that is the point of the CLC.

We aim for a movement of liberty to equal that of the past half-century for equality.

Kevin Matthews Shot to Death by Dearborn Police

This shooting occurred December 23 of 2015, and we are just now hearing of it. The Police Chief assures us that they worked very hard at de-escalation, especially regarding Kevin Matthews. He was pursued for suspected larceny, had apparently escaped custody earlier in the day, and was shot six times. He was unarmed. The press has begun an inquiry into the criminalization of disability. Lewis Wallace, the reporter for NPR’s Marketplace who did the story, notes that people called “autistic” cannot obey the order to freeze, and it is easy to see how many people might misunderstand an officer chasing them. We never even heard about it when the Dearborn police shot Kevin six times.

NPR, with their pro-psychiatry assumptions, manages to use the story to call for more “treatment” for those categorized in these ways. We must use the story to note that with these sorts of errors made by the trusted authorities, Kevin Matthews would have been better left alone, especially that day. It is precisely police ignorance of and disregard for the Bill of Rights that makes possible the shooting of these relatively innocent people. Police may shoot a fleeing axe-murderer when it is their one big chance to catch him. They may not shoot most other people, and must allow for the possibility that their orders are not understood, and must stop shooting innocent people multiple times.

Why are these people being shot multiple times? Is there not a police policy to be sure to kill anyone they shoot, turning accidental shootings into murders?

Kevin Matthews is dead. John Berry is dead. We assume the police want to work hard at de-escalation. In order to do so, we suggest that they cease shooting innocent people multiple times based on false and unexamined assumptions, from which the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the citizens.