Monday, August 11, 2008

Support Your Local Rape Gang

Did these guys really tease an 18-year-old boy about his looks? Confessed jail rape facilitator Clinton Shawn Sydnor (left), and his accused co-conspirators Wesley Lanham (middle) and Shawn Freeman (right).

If you can stand to, take a careful look at the faces at the top of this page.

Do they inspire respect, confidence, a quiet sense of gratitude for public service courageously rendered?
Or do they look like the kind of human detritus one would find lurking in the vicinity of the local Junior High, leering at underage girls (or boys)?

How would your answer change if, instead of being seen in a police mug shot, each of the individuals above were swaddled in a government-issued police costume and clothed in the supposed majesty of the "law"?

You see, these three guys, who are accused of conspiring in the jailhouse rape of an 18-year-old high school student, are former deputies in the employ of the Grant County, Kentucky Sheriff's Department.
Sgt. Clinton Shawn Sydnor, the fetching item on the left, was the highest-ranking officer on duty that night at the Grant County Detention Center, located in tiny Williamstown, Kentucky.

Sydnor has entered a guilty plea and agreed to testify against the other two, Wesley Lanham and Shawn Freeman, in consideration of a reduced sentence, most likely 15 years in prison. The others, who insist that they're being used as scapegoats, confront the prospect of life sentences.

According to the indictment, these three decided to have a little fun with a terrified teenager who was arrested and jailed on Valentine's Day 2003 for driving 35 mph over the speed limit and attempting to elude the police.

These heroes in the cause of public order -- each of whom apparently considers himself the
beau ideal of masculinity -- taunted the kid about his physical appearance: He reportedly weighed about 120 lbs., had blond highlights in his hair, and wore satin underwear.

Living down to every cinematic stereotype of the dim-witted, in-bred rural prison guard (stereotypes have to come from
somewhere, I suppose), the deputies told the young boy he'd make a good "girlfriend" for some of the other inmates.

Clothing their sadism in an imbecile's notion of pedagogy, the deputies decided to teach a "lesson" to the boy -- who was, remember, in police custody because of a minor traffic infraction: They invited a group of convicted felons to run a train on the terrified kid. Rather than placing him in the "drunk tank," as standard procedure would require, they threw him into a remote holding area with 14 feral convicts, locking the door behind him amid predatory taunts: "Come in here, girlfriend" -- "Bring him to me!" -- "Happy Valentine's Day!"

The victim was seized by the other inmates, stripped, taken to a shower, and raped until he passed out. When he regained consciousness, he began to scream for help -- only to be grabbed again and forced to perform oral sex on the other prisoners.

It's impossible to believe that specimens like those pictured above -- certified members of the Epsilon Semi-Moron caste, Huxley's taxonomy -- could have locked up the kid with a pack of recidivist felons without knowing exactly what would happen to the victim. They knew he would be sexually violated, physically traumatized, emotionally shattered. That's the result they were seeking, because the "lesson" they wanted to teach to this helpless kid was this: You are the State's bitch.

Granted, to the extent that the cerebral activity called "thought" took place within the craniums of these tax-subsidized perverts, they almost certainly didn't think of their actions in such expansive terms. Instead, they most likely acted on an atavistic tribal impulse to get this uppity kid to show some "respect for the uniform." But this is merely a particularized application of the general tendency on the part of those who exercise State-authorized coercion.

It wasn't just the three cretins pictured above who conspired in this hideous crime. Other deputies were on duty, and at least some of them played a hands-on role. All of them must have known what was going on, and since nobody tried to stop it, everyone on that shift must be considered an accomplice.

And this brings us to a point that has to be driven home with the pitiless force of a jackhammer: It is the guilty, collusive silence of good police officers that makes possible the ever-accumulating atrocities of the "bad" ones.

one conscientious deputy exclaimed, "You can't do that!" as the others prepared to feed the teenager to a rape gang, it most likely wouldn't have happened.

At least one deputy, a female guard, suffered a fit of conscience so severe that it caused her to have a seizure. She asked Freeman to drive her home, a fact from which he is trying to wring an alibi. That effort isn't likely to succeed, since the female guard has pointed out that the seizure was a reaction to her knowledge of what was happening to the boy -- a fact of which Freeman was likewise aware. She was also reacting to a threat I'll describe anon.

While the victim was being raped, those who facilitated that crime did what police in such circumstances always do. They lied, devising a cover story -- namely, that a plugged floor drain in the "drunk tank" made it necessary to confine the teenager with a pack of felons. They also falsified shift logs by reporting frequent visits to check on the welfare of the victim, when not a single such visit took place.

And Sgt. Sydnor, the ringleader of this criminal conspiracy, intimidated one would-be whistleblower -- the above-mentioned female guard -- by threatening her with harm unless she lied to support the cover story.
Although the perpetrators disagree about allocating the blame, the facts are undisputed. The boy and his family sued the County and won a $1.4 million settlement. Three of the inmates involved in the attack have been prosecuted and convicted of the crime.

But this matter is being tried in federal court as a "civil rights" matter, rather than locally, as it should, because
a state grand jury refused to indict any of the guards who were on duty the night of the gang-rape. I suspect, but cannot presently demonstrate, that this outcome reflects an absence of zeal on the part of the prosecutor, which is generally how things turn out in cases of this kind.

This was not the only case of deputy-abetted jail rape reported at the Grant County Detention Center (GCDC).

Just a few months prior to the Valentine's Day episode, deputies arranged for an inmate with a mental disability to experience prison rape: They locked him up with a federal prisoner serving a life sentence and claimed, falsely, that the mentally handicapped inmate had sexually molested a child. This could have led to homicide, given that child molesters are regularly beaten and killed behind bars. In this case, the victim was "only" raped and forced to perform oral sex on another prisoner.

Yes, it does look like a Government School: The Grant County Detention Center.

The tax-fattened sadists at that brand-new facility (it opened in 2000, and received a 50-bed upgrade last year) routinely used criminal violence to "teach a lesson" to a prisoner.

In May 2003, 36-year-old Todd Cox, a prominent businessman from nearby Pendleton County, was arrested and booked on a charge of driving while impaired. He reported that after he dropped his coat and belt on the floor, rather than in a plastic bag, he was attacked by several guards, who handcuffed him, dragged him out of range of the jail's video camera, knocked him off his feet, and repeatedly kicked him while he was face-down on the concrete floor.

Grant County Jailer Steve Kellam.

The videotape of the incident, which was material evidence in both a civil action and a potential criminal case, was reviewed by Grant County Jailer Steve Kellam, and then conveniently lost. Significantly, the county prosecutor reacted to Cox's allegations by dropping the drunk driving case, insisting that the beating Cox received was "punishment enough."

No, it wasn't "punishment": It was a crime, a brutal crime of violence committed against someone merely accused of committing a crime against "public order." Given the facts reviewed above, there's reason to believe that the crimes committed by the guards at the GCDC are more serious than the offenses charged against most of the detainees.

And the same is almost certainly true of many, if not most, of the facilities operated by the Prison-Industrial Complex. Despite the theatrical outrage being directed at China for its domestic repression, and Russia for being run by Siloviki (that is, Soviet secret police retreads), it is the United States of America that has the largest prison population of any nation on earth. And unlike China or Russia, the Regime ruling us is bent on exporting the blessings of its prison system beyond its borders.

A little more than a year after Sydnor and his colleagues arranged for their little tutorial-via-gang rape, the world was stunned and sickened by photographs of U.S. military reservists, many of them prison guards in their "civilian" careers, taking demonic satisfaction in the sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Those revelations prompted the organs of official opinion to exclaim, in near-unison, "Where, oh where, did our men and women in uniform learn to do such horrible things?"

The chances are good that they spent a lot of time practicing at the nearest government revenue center called a "jail" or "prison." And the chances are just as good that, as you read these words, a new crop of torturers is refining the same skills.

(Thanks to Wendy McElroy and "CLS" at Classically Liberal for their work on this story.)

On sale now!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Dear, Mr. Griggs

As usual you give an expertly written yet sickening account of abuse by agents of the state. Because of your work, my high blood pressure nearly gave me a heart attack. Please, for the sake of those such as myself who can only stand so much corruption and officially sanctioned sadism, try and be kinder to state agents.

Anonymous said...

Re: Todd Cox
Drinking and driving is more than "committing a crime against 'public order,'" unless you consider the mangled bodies commonly found in the aftermath of a boozer's car wreck a mere form of "disorder."

Anonymous said...

the father (if there is one around) of the 18 year old boy ought to get to choose the punishment for those officers involved.

this is so sad. there need to be more indictments, but we know that won't happen.

and as for the "Re: Todd Cox" comment, i must disagree. Lew Rockwell wrote a very enlightening piece on DUIs and DWIs. I'll try to keep it in context.

DWI and DUI are primarily measures of blood alcohol content (BAC), not driving incapacitation. What needs to be measured is the driving of the person. A BAC of 1.0 does not have the same effect on every person, and for some, it has no effect.

Lew went on to say, if i remember correctly, "why is the amount of alcohol in my blood a crime in certain instances, whereas in others it is not?" as one person put it in a past blog, "the law is an ass." when common sense is applied to most laws, the stupidity of said laws is truly revealed in the light of day.


Anonymous said...

direct democracy to purify the western constitution, from ground up is our only hope.

rick pls see my response to you at the tail end of mr griggs last post.

Anonymous said...


democracy is rule by the majority. we got us voting for congressmen, and senators in direct elections. and as a consequence, the president is pretty much elected directly through the electoral college because of state laws saying winner take all.

we can vote all we want, but as i think it was stalin who said, "it matters not who votes, but who counts the votes." furthermore, all of our voting is getting us nowhere. the guy who responded to your last entry on the last blog pretty much said why.

oh, and it doesn't take all of a people voting to make a law justly passed, just a simple majority. the federal reserve act passed the senate by a vote of 3-0.


Anonymous said...

Re: anonymous
"Drinking and driving is more than "committing a crime against 'public order,'" unless you consider the mangled bodies commonly found in the aftermath of a boozer's car wreck a mere form of "disorder.""

You're falsely attributing manslaughter OR homocide to Todd Cox. He he guilty of neither. Think before you speak.

Anonymous said...

Good people don't need laws because they are good. Bad people won't follow laws because they are bad. Tell me, which of those two groups benefits from laws? Oh, that's right, it's the third group: the State. The State makes a killing off of laws. And sometimes in the process of making a killing they actually commit homicide. As I see it, there is no difference between bad people and the State. It is just that one claims a moral authority while the other doesn't hide the fact that they are criminals.

liberranter said...

[D]irect democracy to purify the western constitution, from ground up is our only hope.

Direct democracy and constitutional government are diametric opposites of one another. Indeed, it is the trend toward "direct democracy" over the course of this nation's existence that is responsible for the anarcho-tyrannical mess in which we currently find ourselves. Only a return to the principles of republican (small "r" emphasized) government holds any remote hope of saving that battered "g**damned piece of paper" known as the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, it is obvious that this is not the trend.

Closer to topic, I sincerely hope that the young gang-rape victim and his family obtain justice. There is a remote chance that they might just luck out, but given the thoroughly entrenched corruption and violence that characterizes "law enforcement" agencies today, especially in places like Grant County, Kentucky, their prospects are not good.

Prediction: The three sociopathic stooges responsible for this crime will either be suspended, with full pay and benefits, for an extremely brief period of time, or will be fired by Grant County, only to migrate elsewhere and be hired in some other jurisdiction for the same types of positions. Where any background checking is done at all to screen candidates for "law enforcement", it is usually cursory and careless enough that Charles Manson could be hired as a cop, if only he applied makeup over the swastika on his forehead.

averros said...

> Drinking and driving is more than
> "committing a crime against 'public
> order,'"

It is not. For a crime, to be a crime there should be victims.

If I'm drunk, but still can drive without hitting anyone, I'm not a criminal.

If you're stupid (but sober) and cannot drive safely and hit and kill someone - you should be responsible for the murder. Stupid drivers, definitely, kill more people than drunk drivers.

How about new crime against "public order"? DWS. Driving While Stupid. Or better yet, VWS - for voting for any of the self-proclaimed defenders of the "public order".

My_BAC_is_.5 said...

Annonymous @ 9:11-The medical community was asked originally to come up with a BAC that would demonstrate "impaired behavior". Their answer was .15. Thanks to MADD, I am sure it will soon reach 0, which as you know, is not a level of impairment, but rather a tool of prohibition and control.

Regardless, Todd Cox had no trial. End of discussion, your point is moot. My father was killed by a drunk when I was 2. That does not negate the necessity for ALL accussed to benefit of a trial.

Mr Grigg, it seems that with each new post I tell myself that you have found the absolute pinnacle of government depravity, corruption and slease. And with each post, you set a NEW record for sniffing out government depravity, corruption and slease.

Anonymous said...

hi rick

three points:

1. why do you insist on democracy being defined as 'government by the majority' when it is perfectly possible (with appropriate structure in place) to operate decision making through deliberation and full consensus, without hierarchy?

2.what makes you think that democracy gets properly embodied through a simplistic system of voting? in particular, in a so-called 'representative' (oh how i detest that word) democracy, is not merely voting over which particular overachieving monkey gets to exercise coercive power over all the other overachieving monkeys (ie, us) for a set period of years a rather limited and ultimately doomed idea of attaining a just system of law-making?

3. following on from this, in what way - precisely - are you using the word 'just'? from my side it appears this word is understood somewhat differently..

(i thought democratic government - hopefully leading to a truly just system of law making - was supposed to be 'by the people'. not 'most of the people' or 'very few people, chosen by most of the people, most of whom were brainwashed anyway'..)

Anonymous said...

"Their answer was .15. Thanks to MADD, I am sure it will soon reach 0." -- My_BAC_is_.5

This has already happened in Japan and a number of eastern European countries. (Look up Wikipedia's article on "Blood Alcohol Content.")

What's particularly bizarre, in the case of Japan, is that intoxication actually used to be a DEFENSE against the consequences of drunken accidents ("He was drunk and not responsible for his actions").

Now even a detectable trace of alcohol on a driver's breath will get him carted to the police station, as occurred to a friend of mine. Japan seems mainly intereated in revenues -- the fines and costs of re-education classes mount into the multiple thousands of dollars.

What any of this has to do with justice is unclear. People should be responsible for their actions. Driving when you can't control your vehicle is wrong. But thirty years ago, 0.15% was thought to be a reasonable standard. Now, by federal fiat, the number has dropped to 0.08% -- which very petite folks can reach with a couple of beers.

Read the stories of DWI defense lawyers, and you'll learn that DWI is a crime with serious consequences (such as not being able to drive to work), in which you're assumed to be guilty, and you're not entitled to a jury trial.

DWI crimes are another example of an "exception to the constitution" which is alleged to be necessary because of a clear and present danger to the public. I'm not so sure. Erosion of the rule of law, long-term, has killed more people than drunk driving. MANY more.

deliverance banjos said...

Superpower to turd world banana republik in 8 short years. Yea those gene pool rejects at the top of the page should be poster children for birth control. Now that government is the last employer left plenty of inbred Deliverance fodder will be marchin around demanding we respect their authoritah. I say F them and F their law take your authority and put it where the sun never shines. I'm on your list ya say? Good I'll save on toilet paper hand me the list please.

Anonymous said...

Sic Semper Tyrannis - 'nuff said

Anonymous said...

anon @ 1621, answer your points (i think you may be from outside the U.S.):

"1. why do you insist on democracy being defined as 'government by the majority' when it is perfectly possible (with appropriate structure in place) to operate decision making through deliberation and full consensus, without hierarchy?"

--because it is rule by the majority. goebbels said if you lie often enough people will believe it. think of it this way:

:monarchy = rule by one
:theocracy = rule by a religious few or a group
:plutarchy = rule by the rich
:oligarchy = rule by a few

these are various forms of govt boiled down to the most simplest of definitions. democracy is rule by the many, a large group--the majority. that's it. anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. it doesn't come with the bells and whistles you describe. you may want to ask yourself how come America's founding fathers condemned democracy, but all of these new politicians--since Wilson--seem to endorse it? if we have rule by the majority, what happens to the minority? i'll leave with with...ask 1.5 million armenians, 700,000 serbs, ? ukranians, the american indians, 60+ million russians, 40+ million chinese, then there is us, those americans who owuld prefer our constitutional form of govt over the one we have now.....we are a minority.

"2.what makes you think that democracy gets properly embodied through a simplistic system of voting? in particular, in a so-called 'representative' (oh how i detest that word) democracy, is not merely voting over which particular overachieving monkey gets to exercise coercive power over all the other overachieving monkeys (ie, us) for a set period of years a rather limited and ultimately doomed idea of attaining a just system of law-making?"

--i don't think i ever argued this point. sounds like you're bashing democracy, as do i. my only point is that the democracy we have now is found in how we vote--the guy or group with the most votes wins. now, democracy in our country should stop right there because of our constitution which places limits on govts, minorities, and majorities.

"3. following on from this, in what way - precisely - are you using the word 'just'? from my side it appears this word is understood somewhat differently..

(i thought democratic government - hopefully leading to a truly just system of law making - was supposed to be 'by the people'. not 'most of the people' or 'very few people, chosen by most of the people, most of whom were brainwashed anyway'..)"

--what i mean by 'just' is a law that 'properly' made its way through the legal process and became law. i'm not talking about issues of morality here, but a law that properly came into being.

...and remember.....heaven is a dictatorship because no one gets to question God. :-)


A Radical Whig in Chattanooga said...

We all know that after our Constitutional Convention, when asked which form of government had been given to the people, that Ben Franklin replied "A Democracy, if you can keep it".

History has long shown us that a democratic government, “the rule of men”, is vastly preferable
to a republican form of government, “the rule of law”.

The virtue of democracy was recognized long ago as Rome was transitioning from an isolationist republic to a democratic empire destined to provide “Pax Romana” to the world. The great Seneca commended democracy to us, stating “Democracy is more cruel than
wars or tyrants”. Likewise, (as summarized by Dr Will Durant) Cicero compared democracy to other forms of government, stating “monarchy becomes despotism; aristocracy becomes oligarchy; and democracy becomes mob-rule, chaos, and dictatorship”.

Anybody who would oppose sending our troops overseas to invade other countries to provide democracy should be considered a traitor. After all, the author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, endorsed democracy when he stated: “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%”. Likewise, his coworker, Ben Franklin, both commended democracy (and endorsed gun control) when he
wrote: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Let’s not forget Samuel Adams: “Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that 'did not commit suicide.'"

Contributors to our Constitution also endorsed democracy. Surely, they would have endorsed using our military to spread it to others (the requirement for a Congressional Declaration of War is so quaint and outmoded)!

Elbridge Gerry: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots."

Alexander Hamilton : “It had been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”


"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

James Madison: “..democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
(There's no turbulence and contention in Iraq, is there! If only the minorities would accept the tyranny, oops, wise rule, of the majority!)

And then there’s John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, who said: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

The famed Englishman, Benjamin Disraeli, made a speech to the British House of Commons in which he said: "If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and
perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete."

And there are many others who would have endorsed spreading a carpet of bombs across the Middle East in order to provide them with Democracy:

James Russell Lowell: “Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.”

W.H. Seward: "Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them."

Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."

Oscar Wilde: "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people."

H.L. Mencken: "The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goosestep."

Ludwig Lewisohn observed: "Democracy, which began by liberating men politically, has developed a dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the deadly power of their opinion."

In 1931 the Duke of Northumberland, in his booklet, The History of World Revolution, stated: "The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

Note that in many foreign countries, Christians are persecuted democratically!

Actually, Ben Franklin replied "A Republic, if you can keep it".

And Will, if I plagerized much of the above from one of your old articles, I apologize!

William N. Grigg said...

Rich, I don't think it's possible to "steal" something you're entitled to use at any time!

Anonymous said...

"Re: Todd Cox
Drinking and driving is more than "committing a crime against 'public order,'" unless you consider the mangled bodies commonly found in the aftermath of a boozer's car wreck a mere form of "disorder.""

Even assuming your fallacious points were true, you then advocate gang rape as an acceptable punishment for being accused of committing a crime against 'public order' - before even setting foot in a courtroom?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Grigg,

Due to the fact that the stories you post are most disturbing, unsettling, and cause physical nausea, I chose to believe that none of it happened. You are an effective fiction writer, Mr Grigg. If you keep it up you may get a great book deal.


William N. Grigg said...

Dear O'Brian -- How are things today at the Ministry of Love?

Loving Big Brother (since you straightened out my thinking),


Anonymous said...

Dear Winston (aka Mr. Grigg),

You caught me right before my next appointment being held in Room 101. I'm glad to see my words of love still ring true in your heart and that you still have your sanity.

Always remember Ignorance is Strength.


Will Blalock said...

Again, driving through any little
town with enouth money to put up
a speed limit sign and rent a thug
to chase tourists places all of us
in danger.

Like Mexico, it is becoming too
dangerous to drive at night in

Do not, repeat, do not get out of
your car at night unless there is
a STATE TROOPER on the scene.
Two squad cars at least.
While this is no guarantee of
safety it at least rasies the ante
in your favor.

Also, speeding is a class C
misdemeanor and you CANNOT be
jailed for it (in Texas anyway.)

If you refuse to sign the ticket
then they must hold you and summon
a JP to render a verdict.

I have done this before. Simply
REFUSE to sign the ticket and the
officer has to then call a JP to
render a verdict. Since they
cannot jail you they have to get
this done quickly because the
only witness, the officer who
attempted to ticket you, must also
testify before the JP.

If everyone in America started
refusing to sign their traffic
tickets it would be the end of
speeding violations.

Mack Rogue said...

Here's hoping for a max sentence for Sydnor.
Hmmm...former jail guard in federal prison. I hope there will be video.
Oh, and O'Brian, if you are serious about "..effective fiction writer, Mr Grigg.", Google is your friend. Use it so you don't appear so ignorant.

William N. Grigg said...

Mack, O'Brian is waxing ironic. :-)

And yes, the prospect of Mr. Sydnor and his chums in lock-up does strike me as a potentially unpleasant bit of ironic justice.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the response, and to the other gentlemen for his many quotes.

However, I do think that we are talking at cross purposes here.

Personally, I do not see the examples you give as examples of true democracy. And I do not think true democracy is beyond the wit of humanity.

Democracy works very well indeed at the small scale of maximum 500-1000 people. It is the non-hierarchical system of governance par excellence. "The power of the free people resides in the commune" [Democracy in America, De Tocqueville]

All our problems come from the existence of closed power hierarchies. Inevitably, without appropriate, and suitably radical checks these naturally accumulate more and more power to the centre as time passes until all is lost to the fascist state.

By radical checks I mean, power is dispersed, sourced at the decentralised level of the human scale, and all topics can be debated and decisions made at this level, with full delegate system rights to work with the larger regions of constituency above. There are no short cuts to building a just civilisation and by just I mean laws made with the active consent nay PARTICIPATION of the PEOPLE.

In our constitution fora of 2006, we debated what a 21st Century Constitution would look like, drawing on all the experiences and historical learning we had at our disposal, including our view of the now-failed but valiant in its time US Constitition. One thing we were firm on was the need for a 'sunset clause', basically this would mean that every 15 years or so the Constitution would lapse unless the whole people took time out of their schedule (some kind of jubilee I suppose) and got together to deliberate the constitution throughout society and work out what parts of it worked and what not before giving it the go ahead for the following 15 years.

This would force the populace to stay actively engaged and vigilant. A positive republican democracy, "if you can keep it.."

Slavey Jefferson said there should be some form of revolution in every generation. Hence the right to raise a militia? Better IMO, a natural jubilee clause. The right to call jubilee on parts of the constitution that aren't working, a clean slate

All the problematic examples you describe are problems of tyranny. Worse, tyranny dressed up as democracy due to the sleeping public's acceptance of such patently false ideas as that which says democracy can ever work in the context of top down government, or with a global 'mass' society without the ultimate check of executive governmental structures at the grassroots, commune level of the human scale. The fallacy of so called 'representative' democracy.

And please don't quote me any Roman examples - republican or otherwise - as good models without serious provisos to explain what on earth you mean. And the same goes for the Founding Fathers. Stop lionising slave owners, colonialist, indigenous people bashers without proviso. These men all just happened to be on the 'right' side of history 'then'. Then is not now. Picasso was a great artist, that doesn't make him a great person. Churchill was a racist bigot who invented 'gassing the Kurds'

Athens could be a better model than Rome, its scale and insistence on all citizens taking part (and being paid to do so) in daily fora deliberations is closer to the mark. But of course citizenry was restricted by gender, race and slaveship. Take the lesson where it applies, and exclude the nasty stiff but don't romantise (sic)

The positive repubican democratic model makes the case for human liberty through true democracy embodied in a small state in which everyone is able to participate fully in the framing of laws that effect them. If you own a law, you will look after it. And if you understand the purpose and reason behind a law, you can own it. In such a system, if you can't understand a law, either you haven't take part in the process of framing it (your mistake, and you should find out more and if you still don't like it, change it through same easy to access, open channels) or those that framed it have abused their power by allowing a law to take affect without all citizens having recognised its worth.

Unfortunately we have bred a race of passive consumerist drones who have been actively dissuaded from getting directly involved in law making, but this cannot stand or western civ will fall.

If only you'd had that sunset clause my friend Anne dreamt up!

One might read David Held's 'Models of Democracy' in particular the chapter on the 'positive republican model' for a more erudite treatment of this important subject.

Life, Liberty and the Cultivation of Wisdom would have got you a lot further. Seeking happiness in this world is a will o the wisp. Hence the need for therapy throughout the western world. Founding Fathers, western 'enlightenment' my arse..

And about that anarcho capitalist Jesus b*s. Jesus is a communist and you know it. Acts 2:44-45

James Redford said...

Anonymous at 4:52 PM, you wrote "And about that anarcho capitalist Jesus b*s. Jesus is a communist and you know it. Acts 2:44-45."

For the refutation of that statement, see:

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (first published on December 19, 2001)

William N. Grigg said...

Jesus is a communist and you know it. Acts 2:44-45

When did Jesus either command or endorse the forcible redistribution of wealth, rather than denouncing the cardinal sin (covetousness) that inspires such wholesale theft?

"And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me;

And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Luke 12:13-15

liberranter said...

Always remember Ignorance is Strength.

Ah, so THAT'S why Amerika is the strongest nation on earth...

Bob said...

Acts 2 and 4 are descriptive accounts of the charity of believers in Christ and are not necessarily prescriptive for civil government.

O'Brian said...

For those who did not get my sense of humor (thankfully Mr. Grigg instantly got it), please read the book written by George Orwell entitled Nineteen Eighty-Four.

MoT said...

Charity is voluntary. Being voluntary it is also peaceful and exactly how things were meant to be. When things become mandatory, which is a consistent failing in evil men, then it is enforced through violence. Voluntary society would be such a relief.

Anonymous said...

As with many other terms, I refuse to use the terms 'communism', 'democracy' (& consumer 'goods' for that matter) as they are commonly used (to refer to Soviet era central command economy, western neo-liberal capitalism and mindless, addictive corporate consumerist 'goods' and 'bads' respectively) when they actually mean something quite different.

Communism does NOT mean forcible distribution of wealth, that is just what it has come to mean (for now) because of the political class' ongoing abuses of power and language. Linguistic shock and awe.
Look at the Diggers of the English Revolutiun of 1649, they invented modern communism and were punished and persecuted as a result, betrayed by the very movement they fought for to overthrow the Catholic King on God's behalf.

'Communism' (as referred to in the De Toqueville quote in my last post) like democracy is the people's right to work together in every community to build an ever closer approximation to God's Kingdom on Earth. Look at the early Christians, how they lived.

That did not and does not mean living to the exclusion of private property, but it does mean finding a humane, fully inclusive balance: collective solidarity for all WITHOUT HIERARCHY!

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need"


All this comes down to the ongoing abuse of the power of words. Or, "thought control in [so-called] democratic societies" as Chomsky [with my addition] put it way back when.

But ever it were thus: have not empires of human power of whatever hue always spun, abused the truth of the founder's historical idealism? Movements get co-opted and used to Machiavellian ends..


"In order to maximise our own liberty, we must cease to put our trust in princes, and instead take charge of the public arena for ourselves, [constructing a genuine democracy] in which government is for the people as a result of being by the people" Professor Quentin Skinner

Ignorance is Strength. Work Makes You Free [in a concentration camp]. War is Peace. Democracy is not Democracy. Developed countries are lacking development. Most goods are bad. The west is not yet truly free.

Oh how the politicians love to abuse language. Similarly words have been abused and heretics burned by religious empires in the past, for disagreeing with rhetorical disingenuity.

See, for example Freeman's AD381

As, also with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is in truth the Fiery Lamb who, even as we speak stares us all immediately, directly and infinitely in the face.

Also interesting is RI Moore on Medieval Persecution

In the Dictionary of Love And War (LAW) IMO 'Anarchism' must mean self-organising, without government but WITH mutual support.

It is not any atomistic individualistic free market notion of the right as indicated by Mr Redford's work, all that does - on its own - is create more envy, haves and have nots, other forms of hierarchy. We have enough of that already, thankyou very much.

But it (anarchism) IS about civil government 'from below, inclusive of genuine humanity both left AND right.

IMO it absolutely should NOT be limited to a capitalist model without including voluntary, grassroots mutual support as a matter of course. Look at how the early Christian's lived. From each according to capacity (business or otherwise) and to each according to need.

And for all Marx's faults and the misinterpretations of his attempt to influence the world for the good, embodied in that simple statement is the whole of religion.

= anarchitecture!

And dear Bob, to go back to the power of words, I think that 'civil government' which you propose, much like 'civil society' sounds like a jolly good thing. As Gandhi once quipped when asked what he thought of 'western civillisation', if only we had a truly civil government. With civility by civilians for a true, and genuinely democractic civilisation

The Real CIA
Cosmic Indigenous Anarchist


Anonymous said...

Hear Hear MOT, voluntary society, what a relief indeed.

But also: Hear Heart Hearth Earth Art!


Anonymous said...

And when the Diggers failed, religious non-conformism in revolutionary England went inward, for if we could not build God's Kingdom on earth, then surely we must strive to do it within our hearts. Hence the Quakers emphasis on inner stillness, Christ as the light within.

But still the messianic urge remained:

"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
(Edward Burroughs, 1659 - from Quaker Faith and Practice)

Anonymous said...


Dear Brothers & Sisters,

It Is Not Enough To Be Good; One Must Also Show The
Right Path To Others Who Might Otherwise Do Evil.

God Almighty brought us into existence, endowed us
with millions of blessings, granted us uncountable
sorts of eatables, provided us modes of relief,
respite and adornment so that we could live a
comfortable life. As there is no order greater than
that of God, therefore, we should get a complete
knowledge of His directives and spend our life
according to His will, and should not follow the path
forbidden by Him. And we should be grateful to Him
every moment for the blessings He has bestowed on us.

You know that to eliminate all kinds of vices from
the world and to promote good is the responsibility
of every person. Everyone amongst us is a caretaker
and is responsible for his subordinates on the Day
of Judgment. Rulers will be answerable for the
citizens of their state, every family head will be
accountable for the members of his family and will
be asked as to what he did for their reformation,
education and better life. He will be asked as to
whether he forbid them from adopting the bad ways,
and helped them in leading a pious life or not.

The world history reveals that until the people
performed the task of commanding the others to do
good and barring them from doing evil, the pious
people remained dominant in those societies and there
was peace and tranquility and satanic forces were
subdued. But, when this collective responsibility was
designated only to clerics, and the common people
ignored this task, in spite of the efforts of the
clerics, waywardness spread quickly. A wave of
offenses, terrorism, tyranny, evils, sins, ignorance
and anarchy engulfed almost every segment of life.
Disorder, commotion and chaos were on the rise in the
world society, wrecking the peace of all mankind.

The world is facing disaster upon disaster every day
and people are expecting a major catastrophe. The
deeds that have been forbidden by God are being
committed openly. The evils are increasing, while the
virtues are fading out gradually. Tyranny, oppression
and carnage are going on, liars and cheats are
overcoming. Terrorism, bribery, corruption, evil,
nudity, vulgarity and wickedness have assaulted the
world. It seems we have reached inferno before the
Last Day. History tells us that such a situation
arises when people are being cursed by God.

It is feared that members of the previous generations
will be accountable for their individual deeds on the
Day of Judgment, but present generation will be
thrown as a whole into hell after a collective
prosecution, because the nobles of this generation
remained as silent spectators instead of restraining
the Wrongdoers, Terrorists and Separatists from
committing, cruelty, sins and misdeeds.

The Divine punishment to an ancient civilization
seconds this fear. There were three groups during
that period. One was of knaves, the second was of the
people who did good deeds but did not halt the
disobedient from transgression. The third group was
of the people who followed the Divine doctrines as
well as restrained others from disobeying them. When
God cursed the nation, the people exempted from this
torment were those who had been observing the limits
fixed by their Master and were stopping others from
wrongdoing as well.

There is another but similar happening. The residents
of a town had been engulfed by an ocean of sins.
However, there was a noble man who was always busy in
worshipping God, but he did not bother about
persuading others to give up their bad ways. When God
ordered the angels to destroy the town, He said:
" Overturn the town on the person who was anxious to
save himself from the Divine Punishment, but was not
endeavoring to save others from it".

I advise the virtuous people of the world that they
should not only depend upon their prayers to save
themselves from the Divine Punishment; rather they
should lead the Evil Doers and followers of Satan who
have gone astray, to the right path. They should
undertake this task against Evil Doers with full
determination. Only then will their virtues and
prayers save them from the Divine Punishment.

Peace Activist

Anonymous said...

anon @ 1652,

"all your learning has made you mad!"

now...who said that and to whom? :-)

...and i think you missed my point about heaven being a dictatorship. let me explain. God is in charge of heaven. it truly is a dictatorship. however, it's a utopia. i was hoping you'd pick up on the irony.


Anonymous said...

Sorry to be picayune. Isn't it O'Brien, or is there another joke at work here?

If Mark keeps commenting here he's eventually going to straighten us all out.

R Cozine

O'Brien said...

Isn't it O'Brien, or is there another joke at work here?

Thank you, sir, for pointing out the misspelling of my name. I have instructed the Ministry of Truth to make all necessary corrections.

Also, the US has always been at war with Russia.

Dave said...

Sickening. Too bad that happened in Kentucky. I'm new to this place and have always found Kentuckians to be unexpectedly nice people. But then again, maybe law enforcers aren't really people.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Is there a way you can flag the posts of "Mark the Muslim/Peas Boy/Anon/happy face/whatever" so time doesn't have to be wasted reading his stuff? I hate to sound testy but life is short. Just some little symbol so we know he's back.

Anonymous said...

PS Author of that last missive, JA!

Anonymous said...

Land and Freedom


William N. Grigg said...

A brief programming note:

I don't like to reject contributions to the comment thread unless they're 1) spam, or 2) profane (meaning, specifically, abusive of the Name of the Deity). Where possible, I prefer to let the discussion wander as far afield of the post as contributors want to take it.

That being said, I think some minimal exercise of editorial discretion is defensible to prevent threads from being hijacked by people who are dying to discuss perfectly fascinating topics that have no plausible connection to the original topic.

I permitted the post above (after rejecting a couple of others fro the same contributor) because it offers a link to a very interesting discussion of the 17th Century English Levellers. Those who wish to be edified about that topic -- which, as far as I can tell, has NOTHING to do with the Grant County Jail Rape Atrocity -- should check it out.

In similar fashion, I rejected a comment recently that contained a lengthy essay on the purported role of "The Jews" in the African slave trade. That may be a fascinating and provocative subject, but it had nothing at all to do with the original post.

I genuinely appreciate the time anyone takes to read what I write and comment about it. Nearly everybody makes an effort to be relevant, and I appreciate that, as well. Those who don't shouldn't be surprised if, on occasion, some of what they write ends up being treated like spam.

Anonymous said...

The current adoption of BAC as an indication of guilt is the direct result of federal bribery to institute law outside of the federal jurisdiction. Use the threat of loss of federal highway dollars unless the desired policy is adopted. And the application of such behavior is far broader than highway funding.

State gov'ts have become addicted to the federal teat that they suckle from continuously. State/federal, there has become no discernible difference.

Always with gov't, if you want an answer, follow the money . . .

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Griggs,

What do you think? Do you think the founding fathers of this country knew something, when they drafted the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Do you think they were aware of the potential for misuse and abuse of power and authority, when they drafted these documents to protect individual rights and freedoms, and curtain government power and authority? Now that my children are all grown up and have families of their own, they occasionally come and tell me, "You know what you said about, when I'm a parent, I will understand, well I get it now... do you think you and your readers get it now? Do you think you and your readers now come to understand the reasons why individual rights and freedoms are so prominently upheld in the Constitution, while government power and authority is so limited...? Do you get it now...?

brianakira said...

This story is sickening.

Not least because it is so common.

In the comments I read about constitutionalism and drunk driving. It's also sickening that nobody seems to deal with the actual offense. Rape.

I understand that in generations past, prison rape was not widely discussed, because it was considered too depraved for media coverage or general conversation, and the victims just kept it to themselves.

You would think that in our more "enlightened" era, with all manner of depravity on the airwaves, it would be possible to finally deal openly with this disgusting phenomenon.

But no, instead, it is now a source of entertainment: "Hilarious" shower scenes in jail-house movies. rappers actually boasting about how they will shove their penises up other men's rectums, a standby for unimaginative comedians to get a cheap laugh.

Why is it not taken seriously or dealt with properly?

I would say that's because any serious attempt to do so would be shouted down by "gay rights groups" complaining about "homophobia".

Anonymous said...

I agree with your stand on this; however, if you are going to post information, you should post complete, accurate information. Although some details may seem minor, to others, they are not so small. The guards were Deputy JAILERS employed by the Grant County Jailer NOT the Grant County Sheriffs Office. I am sure the members of the Grant County Sheriff's Office would appreciate the distinction. No, they are not the same. In Kentucky the Jailer and Sheriff are two different elected positions, with the Jailer running the jails/detention centers. Also, the charges against the young man were not minor offenses. I wouldn't call eluding a police officer among his other charges "minor." This in no way defends what the deputies did. However, you should acknowledge the fact that Mr. Sydnor did confess his guilt and ask for forgiveness. He did this not only to the family of the victim but to God. He did, as his minister indicated to the court of his salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. He was human, he erred and fell VERY short of the glory of God. BUT should he be earnest in his confession (not for us to judge) then he IS forgiven by the Holy Father. I am sure you can understand that! However, you failed to get the WHOLE story.

John Robbins said...

Funny reading this article of a life time friend of mine and the ridiculous issues that has landed himself 14 years in prison that he will never get back. I see all this hoopla of someone writing about an issue that they obviously don't have all the proper information! What about the prior trials that had the evidence and testimony that proved Shawn Freeman's innocence! This man gets indicted because the federal government was not satisfied with the prior outcomes of previous trials and the already convicted people change prior testimony to get lesser sentences. Funny how the Freedom of Speech takes a whole different role when it comes to convicting an innocent man. If your going to write/report get all the information before you go slandering someones name that you have never met. God Speed and Always Semper FI