Iranians to Price Oil in Euros and Yen

If you remain skeptical about the possibility of a United States/Iranian confrontation in the near future, Iran's refusal to sell oil in dollars should dispel any lingering doubts.

In a lot of ways, economic warfare is deadlier than conventional warfare. Simply put, Iran's refusal to accept dollars for oil will trigger an increase in demand for other (more stable) currencies like the Euro and the Yen. Iran's decision, coupled with the Federal Reserve's latest rate cut, means more dollars will compete for fewer goods in the world economy. This is inflation in its simplest form.

How will that impact the United States' policy towards Iran? Well, there's a (recent) historical precedent to consider here, as Saddam Hussein did the same thing in November, 2000. While I do not contend that we invaded Iraq solely to defend the dollar's hegemony in the world market, there is a significant amount of literature available to suggest Hussein's decision to diversify his country's holdings played a major role in our ousting of the dictator.

Is the deliberate destabilization of a country's currency enough to drive that nation towards open conflict? Absolutely. A country's currency serves as its economic bloodline to prosperity and the well-being of its citizens. Given that the United States has been itching for a reason--any reason--to strike Iran, and that effort has received (at best) lukewarm support, how much more support is likely to be drummed up when we begin to read stories blaming Iran for our economic woes?

Make no mistake, the drumbeat for war will increase in intensity over the coming months and, under a constant deluge of propaganda, American support for another pointless war in the middle east will increase. As the economy goes south, support for war will increase. This formula isn't new or groundbreaking...it has been perfected over the years and experienced great success.

Unfortunately, most Americans refuse to confront the reality associated with years and years of reckless spending and the continuous expansion of the welfare/warfare state. Instead, we embrace a series of programs and reforms that will only result in prolonged agony and an even deeper recession. You cannot possibly solve government-generated problems with more government; such "cures" are tantamount to curing an alcoholic by giving him a job as a bartender. Yet, due to economic ignorance or general ambivalence, Americans are doing just that.

I hope I am wrong about my prediction in the coming months, and that America begins to address our present economic woes using methods other than reducing interest rates and flooding the world market with more worthless dollars. It should be obvious by now that this Keynesian practice hasn't worked, nor will it ever work.

It is time for serious action in our economy, and the government can kick things off by legalizing competing currencies. It goes without saying that, had America stuck to any semblance of a gold standard, America's supply of oil would be secure and not subjected to the scares that are inherent in a fiat banking world. Sound money knows no borders, nationalities, or codes...and senseless wars to defend a worthless currency would never be fought, much less entertained.

Ron Paul on CNN's American Morning

In my (heavily biased) opinion, this is by far Ron Paul's best performance in an interview. From start to finish, Dr. Paul displays why he's the only candidate with consistent, principled views on the economy, the war, and civil liberties. His book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, is a brilliant roadmap that offers direction to disenfranchised conservatives (as well as liberals) who find no hope in our present slate of mainstream candidates and desire a return to traditional American principles such as sound money, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and market-driven solutions to present economic woes. Only Ron Paul has the answer, and he comes across as America's physician in this interview:



I especially enjoyed Paul's contention that, if John McCain is the party's nominee, then why waste all the taxpayer money in having a convention? From Nevada to Minnesota and beyond, organized (as well as active) Paul supporters refuse to accept the status quo and continue to use the democratic process to press for recognition of their candidate. Shame on the GOP for overtly discriminating against Paul's followers. Based on the strength of Paul supporters at caucuses nationwide, perhaps the GOP elite will admit there's more than a "handful" of Paul supporters spamming those online polls?

The Best of Neocon Radio

I'm really, really starting to like Mark Levin's radio show. Not because he's informed, insightful, and displays any semblance of intelligence, but because he's so over the top that I find myself laughing out loud while listening to his analysis of some issues.

He has all the required characteristics for today's "conservative" talker: overt blood lust, adherence to the blame-the-liberals-at-all-costs doctrine, willingness to play paddy-cake with traditional conservative values such as low taxes and responsible government spending, and of course bowing at the alter of Rush Limbaugh and his most famous barnacle, Sean Hannity.

One of Levin's favorite things to do (usually near the end of his show) is to go into his familiar refrain wherein he "salutes the men and women of the armed forces, our police, fire, and emergency personnel." Like the other talking giants Limbaugh and Hannity, he believes any criticism of our armed forces to be tantamount to treason, and anyone critical of our war effort to be any combination of the following adjectives: leftist, Stalinist, unpatriotic, and/or liberal. Of course, like his big talking brethren Rush and Sean, Levin is missing military service on his resume. But never mind that...

I started listening to Levin's radio show this past summer when I moved to Baltimore. Listening to conservative radio has long been a hobby of mine (if you can call it that), and I thought I'd heard it all. Boy was I wrong. Listening to Levin is like being transported into an altogether different universe, but it took me a while to reach that conclusion. Once I worked through the usual anger associated with closed-minded blowhards like Levin (whose arguments, despite being a lawyer by trade, consist of "You jerrrkk" and "Get off the phone ya big dope!" when he disagrees with callers) I started to appreciate his firebrand sense of humor...sort of.

Until tonight, I couldn't place my finger on why I am enjoying this intellectual caveman's show so much lately. And then it hit me: Levin's uncanny ability to transport me back in time generated my new found affection for him. It's as if Levin is broadcasting from within a bunker (eerily enough, his top of the hour lead ins hype the show as Levin broadcasting from the "underground command post, deep in the bowels of some hidden bunker, underneath the brick and steel of a non-descript building...) in late 1930's Europe. Pick your country, they all heavily inundated their populations with propaganda wherein the [insert enemy country] were coming to get them if they didn't conform!

Tonight was the tipping point for me. Every once in a while--and usually during the last hour on Friday's show, where he plays "America" by Ray Charles--Levin will play a patriotic song to remind his listeners that, yup, he's still rooting for America, and no, his support for her has not waned during the commercial break. Tonight Levin broke with tradition and decided to play the fight songs of our five branches of national service: Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. It's a pity fire departments, police, and emergency personnel do not have patriotic songs...I'm sure Levin would have played them as well.

From now on, while listening to Levin's play list and rhetoric, I'm going to try and substitute various words from the 1930's and 40's for his usual targets, the leftists, liberals, Stalinists, Maoists, socialists, etc. Words like Nazis, Fascists, Jews, Gypsies, race mongrels, etc. are a good place to start, I think. I don't think the conclusion I'm going to draw here will shock anybody: Levin--as well as his big talking compatriots--are repeating history in targeting specific groups of people, and using fervent nationalism to buttress their cause.

Regardless, Levin's show is entertaining. Of course, I couldn't disagree with him more on a wide range of issues, but I still appreciate his dog-and-pony show that gets played out for two hours every day. That people call in to voice their support for this maniac, and even form fan sites dedicated to "The Great One" should serve as a reminder that, no matter the extremities of your views, there's always a fan base eager to accept vehement nationalism.

My Online Battle With a "McCainiac"

Lest you think I only criticize Democrats, the following is the transcript of an online "battle" in which I am presently engaged. The blog's owner, John, has been gracious enough to engage in an exchange of ideas, and I'm thrilled he has (at least up until now) allowed me to comment/criticize freely. Although I disagree with the majority of the views presented on his site, I regularly visit his blog to remove myself from my comfort zone.

jen Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Deranged? What’s deranged is the quaqmire in Iraq, what is deranged is fed reserve ripping off and owning the American people. Deranged is those who support the conditon of todays socitey, foreign policy and deranged is those who vote purely on media propaganda from talking heads from monoplized communications in the US..Deranged is those who want to see chaos no matter where chaos happens to be..or else create it.

Ron Paul people unite through the message of Liberty, prosperity and PEACE.

There is a better way. Ron Paul makes sense and is for the people, by the people. He stands for the American principles. One man in Washington who can be trusted to say what he means and does what he says for the betterment of our country and YOU, man kind!

Jonn wrote: That’s fine, jen, you can feel anyway you want. You can belittle me, call me names, throw eggs at my house, anything you want to do, but stop trying to subvert the two-hundred year system because you think you know what’s best for America. Stop having childish little hissy fits because the majority of Americans don’t see things your way. And stop calling the majority of Americans who do the heavy lifting in this country sheeple. I’m convinced that Ron Paul has done so poorly this year, not because of his politics, but because he attracted the most infantile, underhanded, disingenuous people in the country to his campaign. Spamming polls and spamming blogs is not the best way to convince people you’re not deranged.

EddieWillers Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Jen is right, but it will take more time for Ron Paul’s message to sink in…regardless of education level.

To John and the other anti-Paul people: can you refute Jen’s claims? Specifically, how is the federal reserve NOT ripping us off? And, more importantly, what solution(s) has your candidate offered to help ease the suffering we’re feeling at the hands of reckless inflation?

The Iraq and our “War on Terror” strategies speak for themselves. Why anyone would mindlessly accept a rudderless policy of “winning the war” is beyond me. For the record, none of the remaining “mainstream” candidates will end the war, a fact that should please the pro-war crowd.

The major reason people don’t support Ron Paul is because he’s against ALL overseas occupation by the United States military. I can’t think of a more pro-American policy than bringing our troops home to defend OUR borders, and history is rife with examples of how mercantilistic policies have failed. Even cynical supporters of our unconstitutional invasion of Iraq (those who admit we are there for oil, for example) have to face the fact that the policy has failed miserably (price of oil has tripled since Iraq invasion).

Are Paul supporters smarter? Of course not. But please, if you are going to refute claims made by us, back it up with something more than a slogan or name calling.

As for the GOP gridlock in Nevada, that’s democracy in action. Paul supporters aren’t breaking any rules, and McCain isn’t the GOP nominee. He didn’t even win Nevada for chrissakes!

Jonn wrote: I have no interest in refuting anyone’s claims.

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT NO MATTER HOW OFTEN HIS MINIONS BADGER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. I hope the caps help you deal with reality. Whether McCain won the primary in Nevada or not, it doesn’t improve the potential for Paul to be our President for a crowd of Paulians to throw a temper tantrum. McCain may only be a marginal improvement over the alternative, but he’s an improvement nonetheless.

I’ve already made it clear that there’s little I find to disagree with Paul, but his main problem is that he’s attracted a bunch of pseudo-intellectual blow hards to support him. Every time I point that out, another pseudo-intellectual blow hard shows up to prove my point.

EddieWillers Says:

April 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Ah yes, the ad hominem…the mating call of the anti-intellectual.

No, the CAPS don’t help me to deal with reality. It only underscores the reality of the majority of today’s “Conservatives” as being nothing more than a conformists. Need I remind you that the lesser of two evils is still evil? Such mindless logic is EXACTLY how we arrived in our present political quagmire, and why we will continue to rationalize foolish votes while our liberties are steadily eroded by bigger government (Democrat or Republican).

I’d gladly take a bunch of “pseudo-intellectual blowhards” over conformists any day, if for no other reason than these same “blowhards” have brought to the forefront major issues that heretofore have been neglected in political campaigns. When was the last time you heard the subject of monetary policy, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc. debated? Absent Paul’s successful campaign these issues would have never been raised.

Again, McCain has won nothing. He’s not the GOP candidate. If the nomination is sewn up, why have a convention? You’d think that true believers in the democratic election process would admire Paul’s fervent supporters in advancing their candidate’s chances of winning…that we experience the opposite should serve as a bellwether of how far we have drifted from our Republican principles.

Jonn wrote: Look, after over a year of tolerating you folks good-naturedly, I’m just sick of the weasely way you think you can circumvent the system in favor of the minority. You misspoke when you wrote “…would admire Paul’s fervent supporters….” That should be “…Paul’s fevered supporters”. Just because all of your spamming internet polls and harrassing hardworking bloggers finally came down to your candidate getting less than 2% of the POPULAR vote in the primaries, that doesn’t give you the right to throw temper tantrums.

I’d rather be called a conformist than call Obama my president - because that’s the best you can hope for.

And this is MY blog, if I want to call you a pseudo-intellectual blowhard, I have that right. You have the right to go elsewhere and cry your crocodile tears. Certainly a fine Libertarian like yourself can understand the rights of ownership? But somehow I feel your inherent blowhardedness isn’t quite slaked yet

EddieWillers Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

I completely understand the ownership issue, and please understand I’m being sincere when I tell you that I appreciate your willingness to read/respond to my comments. I’ve been banned from sites before for asking questions and/or presenting pro-Ron Paul positions, and I respect the administrator’s right to do so without complaint.

Moreover, I like your site and visit it often…even if I disagree with the majority of the views expressed. It does me no good to read pro-Ron Paul articles all day because it does nothing to help me understand the viewpoints of others. To that end, I appreciate your site.

Hate to tell you, but there’s not much difference between Obama, Clinton, and McCain. How many can you name? None will end the war (a plus for you, I assume), both believe in expanding the government’s reach into your life without restraint, etc. Basically, what it boils down to is a choice between nationalized health care and reckless warmongering or reckless warmongering and runaway inflation. Both candidates are big government shills, and it’d be foolish to categorize them as anything but.

Sure, Paul supporters have spammed polls and bloggers, but so what? Do you take those polls seriously? I’d ban half the idiots I read responding to RP sites, too (weellllll, maybe). Point is, why not engage the brain a little and step outside of our comfort zone once in a while?

Jonn wrote: Funny, but I’d like to see the war end yesterday. Successfully for all concerned. To call any veteran “pro-war” is intellectually vacant. Is that “reckless warmongering”? If it is, we’ll never have anything to discuss.

EddieWillers Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

My argument is not just for the end of the “War on Terror” but for the end of all ridiculous “wars” in which the government is presently engaged. Take your pick: War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc. All have failed, and failed miserably.

Bring the troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from every remote corner of the world. Why do we continue to occupy other countries? It’s pointless, and we’re going bankrupt doing it. Mercantilism doesn’t work, but free trade and non-binding relationships do. Vietnam is the textbook example: what we failed to achieve in over 20 years of war we achieved in short order through trade and diplomacy.

The reckless warmongering I was referring to was the adherence to the idea that we need to station troops all across the globe, that we need to threaten Iran at every turn, and that somehow we can enforce democracy and freedom through the barrel of a gun. I don’t know about you, but to classify any of the remaining “mainstream” candidates as anything other than reckless warmongers (using that definition) would be foolish.

Jonn wrote: See? we have nothing to discuss because your child-like innocence in regards to our national security negates a rational discussion.

Using Vietnam as an example of not using war as an instrument of diplomacy is ridiculous. Vietnam punched themselves out. As allies of the Soviet Union, and not trusted by the Chinese Maoists, where else did they have to turn when the wall came down and the Soviet Union fell apart? How many Vietnamese died and were driven out since 1975? How many Laotians suffered when Vietnam invaded them before the Chinese stepped in? It’s certainly naive of you think that we can just sit back and let the world punch itself into exhaustion. How many will die in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Israel, Lebanon, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, North Korea, etc…while we sit safely inside our borders passing around the same dollar bill?

Somehow, Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next county.

jozzf Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 1:01 am

John,

EddieWillers brings up a lot of good points, and you (for the most part) just continue the ad hominem attacks. You don’t really have anything to back up your pro-McCain position besides the tiresome “the lesser of two evils” and “Ron Paul just can’t win!” (why, because that’s what the media tells you?), which are both not good enough reasons for me. If you have really “made it clear that there’s little I find to disagree with Paul”, then what does it matter to you what his supporters are like? VOTE for him. Thanks.

Ray Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 2:03 am

Jozzf,

Eddie deludes himself with the misconception that we live in a society that has no ties to the rest of the world. “We should bring all our troops home.” Really? Ask the French how well a static defense works against a mobile enemy. How would you have us respond to direct threats to the United States? With a magic “transporter beam” that would move troops when we finally decided we were in danger? You can’t move troops, armor and a logistics train halfway around the world with fairy dust. How different would our world be now if we had taken your attitude during WWII? The whole European continent would be speaking German now and I’m guessing Hawaii would be speaking Japanese. The Korean and Vietnam wars as well as the rest of the “Cold War” hot spots were attempts by the Soviets to dominate the world, and eventually us as well. Had we just sat back and watched, the USSR would still be a Superpower, and a good number of people who are now alive and free would be under their yoke.

People who hide behind walls and ignore the wolf will eventually become dinner. Ron Paul deludes himself that “diplomacy and free trade will win out” when the other side has no intention of negotiating in good faith. His ignorance of the existence of real evil in the world scares the crap out of me. Fortunately enough Republicans realize his limitations and have declined to vote for him. In a general election he would be like a piñata on Cinco de Mayo. Ron Paul is a dead horse that you can beat all you want, but he will NEVER be POTUS.


John Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 2:06 am

Paultards,

Saying that Ron Paul cannot win is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply a mathematical fact. Ron Paul has not won a single state and John McCain is the GOP nominee. Get it?

It is also a fact that many Ron Paul supporters have staged many various spamming and phishing events on the Internet that pretty much piss everyone off. I almost get the feeling you don’t really want Ron Paul to win as much as you want to argue with people until they agree you’re right. Seriously, move out of your parent’s basement, get real jobs and grow up.


EddieWillers Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 10:24 am

I suppose if I subscribed to the “might makes right” school of foreign policy my views would appear childish and uninformed. My point is that our foreign policy–regardless of the political affiliation of the president–has been one of murderous intervention, and it has failed miserably to achieve its desired results. Why continue to pursue a fruitless foreign policy that has only succeeded in usurping American freedoms and making us less safe?

The idea that we saved lives in Vietnam by killing millions of civilians (a practice not unfamiliar to your heralded candidate, I might add) is Orwellian beyond belief. Seriously, if the Chinese, Russians, French, etc. want to fight over Vietnam, so be it. It’s none of our business, and we’re going broke trying to fight those battles.

The likelihood of a Red Dawn-like Soviet invasion of the United States is/was about as likely as the Soviets taking over Mars. If you’re still unconvinced, consider two things: one, the Soviets utter failure to overrun Afghanistan, a country with not even a fraction of the military prowess of the United States; and two, the fact that the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad. Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.

But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute.

Ray, my argument is that we should engage in commerce with the rest of the world and set a positive example. Instead, our present policy has us bombing them when we disagree with them, and subsidizing them when they adhere to our demands. Either way, under the present system, our citizens lose. We lose tax money when we subsidize foreign governments, and what we lose in war need not be mentioned.

Further, Ray, while your knowledge of WWII certainly would have earned you an “A” in any government-funded public school, it is wildly off the mark. I suggest reading authors that are critical of FDR, Churchill, etc. in the run-up to the war. You have history exactly wrong. The information is out there, you just have to find it and have the courage to confront your convictions. Feel free to insert the obligatory conspiracy theorist label if you want, but if you blindly subscribe to the idea that we’d all be speaking German or Russian if it were not for benevolent US military intervention and fail to balance your research, then you are the fool, not me.

John, my point is that it is none of our business if other countries want to bomb each other into submission. If we deem such actions are a threat to the United States, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and come home. No nation building, no prolonged presence. It doesn’t work! We haven’t declared war since WWII, and we haven’t won a war since WWII. If you want to continue to invade countries at the behest of the President or to enforce UN resolutions, then I expect you to be at the front of the line volunteering to serve. If you, your family, friends, etc. are so intent on dying for the freedom of the Sudanese, Vietnamese, Tibetans, Venezuelans, etc. there’s nothing stopping you from going…even if the US fails to declare war. Become a mercenary, but don’t drag the rest of the country (via taxes and inflation) into your personal conflict.

Ultimately, I find it comical that libertarians are labeled as childish, unemployed basement dwellers when in reality the self-admitted conformists (see John’s comments above) are the ones mindlessly toeing the party line despite obvious disagreements with McCain. Silly me, I thought patriotism was more closely linked to dissent than conformity.

Finally, John McCain is NOT the nominee. He hasn’t won anything. The democratic process involved in determining the nominee includes electing delegates to the national convention. While I don’t dismiss Paul’s poor showing in the primaries, I offer a similar question to McCain supporters: if there is such strong support for McCain, where are all his supporters when electing delegates? In other words, where are the McCain supporters WHEN IT MATTERS?

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright

I'm really starting to like Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. The more I learn about him, the more I hear him speak, the more I like him. I've never been much for religion, and I disagree with Pastors, Reverends, Rabbis, etc. endorsing candidates (they can, but they should immediately lose their tax-free status upon endorsing a candidate), but I'm really starting to get in to this "controversy" surrounding Reverend Wright.

We've all heard the clips from his 9/11 sermon. Most of us, whether we care to or not, can recite some of his "outlandish" claims from memory, much like we can recite annoying commercials (think ads for Jared jewelers, for example). We all know Barack Obama attended Reverend Wright's services for the better part of 20 years, and supposedly during that length of time we're supposed to believe that Reverend Wright's beliefs somehow became Obama's beliefs. It's the classic guilt-by-association argument, and it appears to be working to perfection.

Well, somewhat perfect anyway. Last week Reverend Wright gave an interview with PBS' Bill Moyers, wherein he let slip this juicy piece of information (emphasis mine):

BILL MOYERS:
Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago. Wanted to know about
the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion.
He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led
him to the faith.

You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You
were, for 20 years, his spiritual counsel. He has said that. And, yet,
he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about
you. How did those words...how did it go down with you when you heard
Barack Obama say those things?

REVEREND WRIGHT:
It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to
two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two
different worlds.

I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in
Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.

Indeed, Obama's politician-esque reaction to Reverend Wright's comments has helped shore up his campaign against the onslaught of attacks, but there's a larger lesson here: Obama is just more of the same. Anyone doubt the other candidates would have handled this issue differently?

But the Obama's ties to Wright is not what intrigues me most about the Reverend. In my estimation, the majority of Wright's "9/11 sermon" is accurate. In other words, from my viewpoint, what Reverend Wright was suggesting was that reckless American foreign policy is what contributed to the attacks on 9/11.

Sounds like blowback, doesn't it? Hmmmm, where have we heard blowback mentioned before? And, I could be wrong, but doesn't Obama subscribe to some form of blowback as well?

By far the most amusing Reverend Wright soundbite came out yesterday while Wright was speaking at the National Press Club in Washington. During his speech, in response to his alleged unpatriotic leanings, Wright asked the question:

"I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?"

Of course, the morning "conservative" talkers in DC had a field day with that comment, immediately shifting the focus of the conversation from Wright's brilliant quip to his 9/11 comments. And all was right with the world--my trusty morning show was back in their comfort zone, having successfully avoided addressing Wright's assertion.

Personally, I hope Wright continues to speak out, and often.

The Pentagon Matrix

A thoroughly scary examination of how involved the Pentagon is in our everyday lives. Whether we realize it or not, from the sheets we sleep on to the tires on our cars, the products we consume all share a common thread that can be traced directly to a company that is heavily involved in defense contracts.

Nick Turse (via Tom Englehart and LewRockwell) details the extensive, powerful reach of today's military industrial complex in his book "The Complex: How the Military Invades our Everyday Lives."

Police Victory in NY

Getting married in New York? Your chances of surviving your bachelor party just decreased, and you cannot expect anyone to be held accountable for your wrongful death, especially if the local police determine their lives are in imminent danger.

Three police officers were acquitted of all charges stemming from the killing of Sean Bell in Queens, New York, in November, 2006. The description and subsequent explanation of the events that transpired that morning is beyond absurd: five officers fired a total of 50 bullets into Bell's car, all because police believed one of Bell's friends was returning to Bell's car to retrieve a gun after an argument broke out. Only one officer suffered "injuries" during the fray when he was grazed by Bell's car.

The police were present at the Queens strip club as a result of increased suspicion of three non-crimes--drugs, guns, and prostitution--present or originating inside the establishment. Bell's surviving friends testified that none of the plainclothes officers identified themselves as police during the argument.

Think about this. Plainclothes police officers fail to identify themselves as such while arguing with three men outside a strip club at 4 in the morning. When the three men decide to leave the scene of the argument, police play the familiar "we thought one of them had a gun, and we feared for our safety" card to justify firing 50 bullets into the side of Bell's car, murdering him in the process. Is it any wonder people no longer trust police officers?

To top it off, this murderous rampage by state-hired and taxpayer-funded jackbooted thugs goes unpunished because some of the witnesses had prior convictions and contradicted themselves. Exactly how a prior conviction (one whose punishment was delivered via a revenue-generating courtroom of the state, no less) can diminish one's credibility as it pertains to this case is beyond me.

Cases like this serve as a pertinent reminder that, no matter what, the will of the people is always subjugated to the will of the state.