The Freedom Bulletin

If you need another reason not to vote for Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate tomorrow, in addition to her political views and the fact that she called Curt Schilling a Yankees fan, she has also put clearly innocent people in jail on at least two occasions.

According to this article by Ann Coulter, in 2001, when Coakley was Middlesex County District Attorney, Gerald Amirault, who had been convicted of child molestation in 1986 despite there being no evidence to support the charges, was granted clemency by the Massachusetts parole board. Governor Jane Swift was going to go along with their recommendation, but Coakley enthusiastically lobbied Swift to keep Amirault in prison, and she agreed. Because of Coakley, Amirault remained in prison for three more years.

Additionally, in 2003, Harvard grad student Alexander Pring-Wilson was walking down the street when he was attacked by two drug dealers, both with criminal records. In the ensuing struggle, Pring-Wilson fatally stabbed one of his attackers with the utility knife that he always carried. Middlesex D.A. Coakley charged Pring-Wilson with first-degree murder for his act of self-defense. He was held without bail and convicted of voluntary manslaughter, but then was awarded a new trial and eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Even if you think that Pring-Wilson acted wrongly, which I don’t, it is inappropriate to charge someone with first-degree murder for a non-premeditated death that occurred in the middle of a fight.

So, there you have it – two examples of people unjustly put in prison by Coakley. Contrary to the opinion of the Coakley supporter that I encountered at yesterday’s rally, a D.A.’s job is not to put innocent people in jail.

In all the election craziness, a tidbit of news about Clark Rockefeller, whose trial i attended last summer, slipped through the cracks. As you may remember, Rockefeller, whose legal name is Christian Gerhartsreiter, was convicted last June of kidnapping his now 8-year-old daughter, Reigh. According to the Boston Herald…

The Herald has learned Sandra Boss, who is divorced from the mousy mystery man she knew as “Clark Rockefeller,” wants a London court to take over jurisdiction of her child-custody agreement. The visitation deal was originally hammered out in Suffolk Probate Court before the infamous July 2008 Back Bay custodial kidnapping of their then-7-year-old daughter Reigh “Snooks” Boss by her father.

“She is asking the London probate court to assume jurisdiction over Reigh, and she’s seeking to cut off contact” between the girl and her father, said Timothy Bradl, one of Gerhartsreiter’s defense attorneys.

Read the rest here.

Today (Sunday, January 17) I attended a demonstration by Scott Brown supporters at President Obama’s speech endorsing Martha Coakley at Northeastern University in Boston. It was totally awesome. There were about 100 (or maybe more) Scott Brown supporters holding sings and chanting “Make Obama frown, vote Scott Brown” and “Don’t do coke” (as in Coakley ). We definitely outnumbered the Coakley supporters. We spread out all along Huntington Ave and then marched across the street to the massive line of (mostly pro-Coakley) people waiting to get in to see Obama’s speech. At least 3 cars covered in Scott Brown signs passed by, and we got lots of honks and thumbs up from passing cars, including a fire truck. We even got free hot chocolate from people who I think worked in the Northeastern cafeteria. Many of the Boston cops who were keeping order at the protest indicated that they supported Scott, too!

When we crossed to the side where the Coakley supporters were, one guy kept going on and on about how Scott Brown supporters are defending sex offenders and want them walking around on the streets. Apparently he was referring to the case of Gerald Amirault, who was falsely convicted of child molestation but was kept in prison due to Coakley’s lobbying, even though there was no evidence supporting the charges. A couple of Scott supporters and I pointed out that actually, opposing the jailing of innocent people is not the same as wanting sex offenders out on the streets, and that putting innocent people behind bars is not so great. He replied, “She was a prosecutor; that’s her job.” Oh, yeah. Putting innocent people in jail, that’s a prosecutor’s job, all right!

Here are some photos I took at the rally. Enjoy!

I also made some videos of the Scott Brown rally, which I have uploaded to Youtube and which you can see here.

For some mainstream media coverage of Obama’s appearance and the protests, check out:

• Boston Globe
• Boston Herald

Image credits: Kennedy, Brown

In the U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts, there are many good reasons to vote for Scott Brown and many good reasons to vote for Joe Kennedy.

I like Kennedy’s positions on the issues better. He is stronger in his opposition to excessive taxes and spending than Brown is. According to the Center for Small Government, Brown expressed opposition to Question 1, the 2008 ballot initiative which would have abolished the Massachusetts income tax. Even more disturbingly, he supports the state law that requires all people to have health insurance. I completely believe everything in the Center for Small Government’s statement about Brown’s failure to support tax cuts and spending cuts, and I strongly dislike those things about Brown…

But I will still be voting for Brown. Why? Because unfortunately, Kennedy has no chance of winning. It would be totally awesome if Kennedy won, but it would still be pretty awesome if Brown won. Although Brown is not a great candidate, to have a Republican Senator from Massachusetts would be great. It’s something that I used to believe could never happen, or even come close to happening. Additionally, and most importantly, Brown would be the 41st vote against the health “reform” bill. He would not vote the bill down because of philosophical objections to the individual mandate, but he would vote it down nonetheless. So although I don’t agree with Brown on all – or even most – of the issues, this bill needs to be voted down, and electing Brown would do that. For a Republican to win Ted Kennedy’s old seat and vote down the Democratic health bill would rock.

Don’t get me wrong – I really, really wish Kennedy had a chance of winning. It is unjust that he doesn’t. But I would rather vote in support of something awesome that has a chance of happening than something really, really awesome that has no chance of happening. My heart is torn about this. The Center for Small Government makes great points, and I have absolutely no ill will toward them or toward Kennedy, who is a great man and whom I fully support. Also, in most elections I would simply vote for the candidate I like best. But in most elections in Massachusetts, the choice is between a Libertarian or Independent who has no chance of winning and a Republican who has no chance of winning. A Republican candidate in Massachusetts who has a chance of winning is something special, and I want to do everything I can to help him win.

I like Joe Kennedy better, but I am going to vote for Scott Brown, and I encourage people to do the same.

How did I miss this? A couple weeks ago, in the wake of the now-infamous Christmas Day terror attempt, Senator Joe Lieberman said…

“There have been privacy concerns expressed about the use of these whole body imaging devices, but I think those privacy concerns, which are, frankly, mild, have to fall in the face of the ability of these machines to detect material like this, explosive on this individual. Just think about it. Three hundred people could have been killed and untold more on the ground in Michigan if this plane had crashed.”

Right. So forcing all people to have their nude bodies examined in order to fly on an airplane is a “mild” privacy concern? What on earth would Senator Lieberman consider to be a major privacy concern, then? With the exception of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the use of virtual strip searches on all air travelers would be the worst government action in U.S. history and one of the worst in world history.

I would much rather 300 people die  – even if I was one of those 300 people – than the dignity and sexual innocence of millions of people, and the liberty of all people, be taken away.

The fundamental duty of the government is not to keep people safe but to preserve liberty. For the government to actively take liberty away is inexcusable and is an infinitely worse wrong than merely allowing terrorist attacks to happen.

I have not forgotten about Ed and Elaine Brown, the New Hampshire couple who refused to pay the federal income tax out of the conviction that it is unconstitutional. Ed was sentenced yesterday for his part in the standoff against U.S. Marshals who were trying to arrest him and Elaine for tax evasion. He received 37 years in prison for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and weapons charges. Elaine was sentenced to 35 years last year.

It seems that throughout this trial, the court system has not treated the Browns or their views as respectfully as they should have. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the judge to agree with them that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and dismiss the charges. The Browns did break the law, although I admire them for their act of civil disobedience.

But I disagree with Ed’s lawyer’s decision to order a mental health evaluation against his client’s wishes out of concern that he suffers from delusional disorder. I also disagree with the psychologist’s conclusion that Ed has narcissistic personality disorder. And I disagree with the judge’s comments that Brown is like a 6-year-old who needs a time out, that he is just someone who wants his 15 minutes of fame, that he should show remorse to Elaine for what happened, and that he is lucky to have been able to defy a court order for months before being arrested, while in other countries he would have been arrested immediately and executed.

No matter what you may think of the Browns’ beliefs – and they are radical, so I would not expect everyone or even most people to agree with them – it is hard to deny that they courageously stood up for what they believe is right. I think that both Ed and Elaine acted out of conviction, not out of a mere desire for fame, and certainly not out of mental illness. Holding unusual opinions and being outspoken about them doesn’t make one mentally ill, and to claim that it does is the worst form of bigotry. Ed shouldn’t apologize to Elaine – they were both equal participants, and  it’s the government who tried to forcibly take their money and arrested them when they resisted. And while some governments would immediately arrest and execute someone who defied them, we shouldn’t be thankful for a government that takes our money through the graduated income tax just because some governments are even worse.

The judge might think that Ed Brown’s “15 minutes of fame” are over, but I’m not going to forget about him or Elaine, and I bet they’ll have a sentence or two in the history books. I agree with a lot of what they have to say and salute their bravery for standing up for individualism, liberty, and property in a society where these things are unpopular.

Sources:

• Concord Monitor – “Ed Brown gets 37-year sentence”
• Union Leader – “Ed Brown erupts, gets 37 years”
• New York Times (AP) – “NH Tax Evader Gets 37 Years on Weapons Charges”

There. I said it. I used to think George W. Bush was a pretty good president. Not awesome, but pretty good. But my outrage over the increasingly frequent strip-searches of innocent air travelers has changed this.

Believe it or not, I didn’t know until last week that the TSA was founded after the 9/11 terror attacks. I just assumed it had been around for a long time. According to Wikipedia, the TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act on November 19, 2001. It was passed by Congress and signed by Bush.

That means that Bush indirectly caused the routine strip-searches of air travelers. Although strip-search machines did not begin to be used as a primary method of screening until after Barack Obama became president, Bush created the TSA, which in turn decided to forcibly strip-search innocent Americans. As a deontologist, I usually do not hold people responsible for things that they only indirectly cause, but strip-search machines are such a heinous abuse of liberty that I can’t possibly support anyone who even indirectly caused them or had the power to stop them but didn’t.

So although George W. has a lot of funny quotes and a nice laid-back demeanor, I can’t consider him a good president. Liberty, privacy, and dignity are such important principles, which the TSA has violated so egregiously, that I won’t support the president who created the TSA.