Civil Liberties

Shocking FBI Discovery: Austin Is Weird

|

From a New York Times profile of Scott Crow, an Austin anarchist who recently FOIAed his files from the FBI:

Keep counterterrorism agents employed.

Mr. Crow, a lanky Texas native who works at a recycling center, is one of several Austin activists who asked the F.B.I. for their files, citing the Freedom of Information Act. The 440 heavily-redacted pages he received, many bearing the rubric "Domestic Terrorism," provide a revealing window on the efforts of the bureau, backed by other federal, state and local police agencies, to keep an eye on people it deems dangerous.

In the case of Mr. Crow, who has been arrested a dozen times during demonstrations but has never been convicted of anything more serious than trespassing, the bureau wielded an impressive array of tools, the documents show.

The agents watched from their cars for hours at a time — Mr. Crow recalls one regular as "a fat guy in an S.U.V. with the engine running and the air-conditioning on" — and watched gatherings at a bookstore and cafe. For round-the-clock coverage, they attached a video camera to the phone pole across from his house on New York Avenue.

They tracked Mr. Crow's phone calls and e-mails and combed through his trash, identifying his bank and mortgage companies, which appear to have been served with subpoenas. They visited gun stores where he shopped for a rifle, noting dryly in one document that a vegan animal rights advocate like Mr. Crow made an unlikely hunter. (He says the weapon was for self-defense in a marginal neighborhood.)

They asked the Internal Revenue Service to examine his tax returns, but backed off after an I.R.S. employee suggested that Mr. Crow's modest earnings would not impress a jury even if his returns were flawed. (He earns $32,000 a year at Ecology Action of Texas, he said.)

They infiltrated political meetings with undercover police officers and informers. Mr. Crow counts five supposed fellow activists who were reporting to the F.B.I.

There are two key quotes in the piece. One comes from Michael German, a former FBI agent now doing excellent work for the ACLU. (Read his terrific takedowns of fusion centers herehere, and here.) "You have a bunch of guys and women all over the country sent out to find terrorism," German tells the Times. "Fortunately, there isn't a lot of terrorism in many communities. So they end up pursuing people who are critical of the government."

The second quote comes from one of the cops keeping tabs on Crow and his fellow activists. Confronted with the words "nonviolent direct action," the agent declares the phrase "an oxymoron." If you're wondering how the definition of "terrorism" could get stretched so far that someone would think it covers a guy like Crow, that one reaction speaks volumes.

Elsewhere in Reason: Another tale of pointless political surveillance. And another. And another.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

175 responses to “Shocking FBI Discovery: Austin Is Weird

  1. We must surveil or the terrorists will have won.

    1. I wonder what the FBI thinks about Gillespie’s leather jacket.

      1. I always wondered what they thought about The Jacket’s human host.

        1. It can only be separated from him by lound, high-pitch sounds, or fire.

  2. Boy, I sure do feel safer knowing my tax money is being used as an FBI welfare program. WHEW!

  3. “They infiltrated political meetings with undercover police officers and informers. Mr. Crow counts five supposed fellow activists who were reporting to the F.B.I.”

    So, including Mr. Crow, there were seven activists in the group?

    1. 5 + 1 = 6

      1. No, there was one nebbish guy who kept saying “Can’t we just be nice?”.

        The five FBI agents tried to vote him out.

        1. No, it was just dude and the FBI agents who befriended him after the rally and suggested he form a club.

  4. I’m tempted to FOIA my FBI file. I can’t imagine why I would even have one, but I bet I do.

    1. I read a really funny article once where — if I’m remembering it correctly — an old ’60s activist tried to get his FBI files and was disappointed to discover that he didn’t have any. Then he discovered that his conservative, non-activist dad did have an FBI file. Then he found out why: He had been borrowing his dad’s car to go to meetings.

      1. That’s funny.

      2. Lol. RC, do it.
        Hell, it would be so much fun to compare notes.

        1. I don’t think the FBI is overly concerned about mongoloids like you, rectal.

          1. But I still imagine they have a file on useful idiots just so they can exploit them for their twisted statist gains.

            1. rectal isn’t useful. To anyone.

              1. Epi, go get me a coffee

                1. faster bitch, and wear the butler uniform

    2. If you don’t have an FBI file, would the FOIA request be grounds for them to open one ?

      1. You read my mind.

      2. Wasn’t that an old SNL skit? With.. Garrett Morris or something.

  5. (He says the weapon was for self-defense in a marginal neighborhood.)

    Scattergun, dude.

    1. C’mon, he’s a freakin’ vegan. Expecting him to know anything about firearms, or even self-defense, is a stretch.

      The worst possible gun for self-defense is a rifle, but that’s what he was shopping for.

      1. How about “no justification needed” as a response to why he bought the gun?

        1. Works for me. I’m just going on what he said.

      2. A .223 carbine is supposedly best suited for home defense, even over a shotgun.

        1. Oh, good, a gun thread.

          Why would you need a gun with an effective range in the hundreds of yards for home defense?

          1. To punch through the body armor of the government thugs invading your home? A pistol or shotgun won’t do that.

            1. Right. Because most home invasions are done by cops.

              1. Anonypussy, you are more tiresome than ever. Congratulations. Please punch yourself in the throat repeatedly.

              2. Is there even a remote possibility that cops don’t do the majority of home invasions? I mean…argh.

            2. Problem is, they’re probably not going to let you bring the rifle with you to your cell in supermax afterward.

            3. In that part of East Austin, it puts you on par with your neighbors. Personally, I took the nuclear option- the edge of destruction will extend to Hyde park.

              1. True, Old Man with Candy. Some guy got his head blown off by a shotgun near where I live within the last year (also East Austin).

            4. I dunno, a deer slug will definitely let them know they’d been kissed, even if it couldn’t punch through the body armor.

              Maybe your defense at the trial could be that you were using it as a less than lethal round knowing the cops’ armor would stop it.

              Assuming you get a trial, of course.

              1. yay! a gun thread. shotgun is superior to a rifle ANY day as a home defense weapon.

                just the sound of racking a shotgun is a more effective deterrent than you would think…

                1. dunphy, we have his and her “The Judge.” It may not have the cool sound of a shotgun, but you don’t really even have to aim it, just point in the general direction of the soon-to-be-ex-intruder.

                2. Inside the home yes. 00 buckshot for sure. If you have to defend the home from external threats depends on the setting. If your line of site is 50-100 yrds I’d go with a carbine. 30 cal m1 or possibly 223. Outside of that 308.

                  1. which one is preferable for zombie apocalypse though?

                    1. All of the above, plus fire axe and boar spear.

          2. Depends on the size of the house.

            1. Even big houses don’t tend to have lines of sight hundreds of yards long. Unless you’ve got an indoor golf course in the basement.

              1. You poor people and your tiny houses are quaint.

                1. Al Gore?

                  1. AL Gore

                  2. Don’t you mean bore?

          3. So that when the home invader sees the gun and flees, you can take your sweet ass time getting out into the street before firing a long distance killshot to the back of their fleeing skull.

            1. Sorry Sudden, while correct, you forgot to phrase your response in the form of a question. Better luck next time.

              1. damn handles

          4. Excellent points, all.

            But, sadly, I must raise the question of why you would pick a .223 over a .308?

            For home defense, you are unlikely to be humping hundreds of rounds over hostile terrain, so the lighter ammo can’t be it.

            As always, lighter recoil can be an advantage if you are recoil sensitive. But if not, I would go with the .308. And, in fact, I have.

            1. What America needs are guns dogs can use to defend themselves…

            2. The Box O’ Truth did a test where they found that .223 was less likely to over penetrate in drywall than pistol rounds because it destabilizes and fragments. .223 is a great home defense round for just that reason. I have not seen the test on .308

            3. .22 ammo is way cheaper

              1. i get all my ammo for free! :p

                1. Break into my house and you’ll get mine for free, too!

                  1. i lol’d!

            4. If you’re in a rural area and live alone 308 is great, if not, I wouldn’t want to be your neighbor when you start blasting away. That’s why you would go with a shotgun.

        2. A .223 carbine is supposedly best suited for home defense, even over a shotgun.

          It quite possibly is, but I’d suggest a shotgun or a handgun for someone who was as much of a gun noob as this guy.

    2. toss a 15 pack of blackcats down the stairs & all ull see is assholes n elbows fleeing

      1. Why am I not surprised that OO’s system of home defense was inspired by Home Alone.

        1. i got 2 bricks left over fm memorial day. much more fun than shooting the neighbor thru the wall.

          1. then you haven’t met my neighbors.

  6. Conintelpro?

  7. Geez, how do I get the free 24hour security?

    1. You’re making the naive assumption that they would actually lift a finger (even just to call the local boys) if someone was robbing your house.

      1. Are you telling me they won’t bring me coffee in bed? The bitches

      2. Would the local boys lift a finger?

        I mean, robbery isn’t a crime against the state, like speeding or using drugs. There’s no fines to issue and no property to confiscate.

        Where’s the incentive to respond to such a call? It might be dangerous!

        1. I don’t wear clothes

          1. What? So now you’re the emperor?

        2. In the interest of officer safety, we did not respond to the home invasion.

          1. Hmm, naked and dangerous. A vagina knife?

          2. fwiw, in my experience … with NON-asians, the vast majority (at least 90%) of home invasion robberies are criminal on criminal – iow dope deal gone bad, revenge for being ripped off, etc.

            there are some asian cultures that don’t believe in banks and store all their money at home. THEIR home invasions are usually legit.

            1. So if you have previously committed a crime, you forfeit your home property rights?

              1. no. of course not. but by “legit” i mean “legit AS REPORTED” iow not a fraudulent report.

                in the case of the former type, two things generally happen

                1) they never report the home invasion at all. we sometimes find out about them through witnesses, etc. but when one drug dealer is home invaded by a client, etc. they quite often seek to get their own “justice” and skip the police report because
                2) when they DO make the report, they USUALLY lie about the motives, etc. because they don;’t want to admit (understandably so) that the persons who just invaded their house were the same guys they sold a light kilo too of heavily cut coke.

                for obvious reasons.

                so, by legit- i mean – an honest report is given.

                the generally accepted estimate for burglaries (i can’t recall for robberies) is that about 8-12% of burg reports are fraudulent (iow for insurance fraud, etc.).

                i would suggest that with home invasions, there is a much higher “non-report” rate, but also a much higher fraudulent report rate.

                1. oh, and btw… you don’t forfeit your self defense rights, and in my state, we have amongst the strongest protection of self defense claims in the NATION. which is a good thing.

                  i once investigated a case where a drug dealer stabbed a “client” who was trying to rip him off. dealer was a convicted felon, which is why he was carrying a knife, not a gun.

                  it was a clear self-defense case, and he was never prosecuted. as it should be.

                  everybody has a right to self defense and a right to redress of criminal actions against them – to include scumbags.

                  otoh, the concept of “misdemeanor homicide” is well known amongst cops, defense attorneys, and prosecutors. pragmatism, y’know

                2. no. of course not. but by “legit” i mean “legit AS REPORTED” iow not a fraudulent report.

                  OK…. You really expect someone to call the cops and say “Some dude broke into my house and stole all my cash and drugs”?

                  They know that they will be charged for drugs, probably for distribution since they have money, and that money will be confiscated by the police to be used as evidence against them.

                  The robber is less of a criminal than the guy who was robbed.

                  Better to take justice into your own hands.

                  1. no, they WON’t be charged with drugs. no corpus delicti to charge.

                    fwiw, i have taken several “they stole my drugs report”. in NONE of those cases was anybody charged. see again: corpus delicti

                    otoh, if we recover drugs… assuming we are talking ILLEGAL drugs, when we arrest the perp… no, they are not getting the drugs back

                    first, maybe you should understand some of dat dere crim/const law before ya spout off

                    1. So if someone reports that property was stolen from them, and that that property included drugs, aren’t they admitting to being in possession of drugs?
                      If the property is recovered, and it includes the drugs, doesn’t that serve as evidence of that drug possession?
                      If the non-drug stolen property is returned because it is acknowledged to be theirs, aren’t the drugs acknowledged to be theirs?
                      Shouldn’t the person be charged with the crime of drug possession?

                    2. the issue is corpus delicti. if a person admits that his drugs were stolen, there is still not enough evidence to PROVE the “drugs” stolen were in fact … the illegal drugs they BELIEVED them to be.

                      this is tangential to the fact that a mere admission w/o corroborating evidence of ANY crime also fails the corpus delicti test.

                      in brief, we need at LEAST a presumptive test OF a substance to charge a drug offense.

                      assume a different case. guy gets ripped off at gunpoint for a gram o’ coke.

                      cops catch the guy just down the street w/the coke.

                      in THAT case, it is theoretically possible to charge the victim. realistically speaking, it would almost never happen. first of all, the guy would be offered immunity to testify against the robber, and thus his admissions not usable in court against him, and secondarily, in the “interest of justice” prosecutors are going to want to take the robber out vs. some dipshit with a gram o coke

                      but yes, again. in brief, at least at the state level – to charge a possessory offense, you need the substance they possessed to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) it was in fact the illegal drug it is claimed ot be

            2. As for the second type, if you are robbing somebody who stores their money at home, wouldn’t the best and easiest time to rob them would be when they are away from the house? Even if it is in a safe, there are ways of opening safes without the combination/key (cracking it, blowing it open, etc.).

              1. you would THINK, but that’s not how this dynamic works. among other things, the robbers make it verrrry clear to the victims that if they report the crime, … they , or their family … gets killed.

                it’s an intimidation tactic and it works very well with these communities. these communities often come from countries where the cops are ACTUALLY corrupt (cue: reasonoid cops suck retort) and the people can’t actually trust the authorities to help them. they are distrustful of authoritah, and that includes both cops and banks.

                1. “it’s an intimidation tactic and it works very well with these communities.”

                  Why shouldn’t it?
                  Police don’t prevent crime, they investigate it.
                  What can the police do if the robber threatens to kill them and their family?
                  Seriously?
                  Especially if the guy means it.
                  They know they’re as good as dead if they call the cops.
                  It’s not a matter of trusting the authoritahs, it’s a matter of what the authoritahs can do.

                  1. police often prevent crime… as well as investigate it.

                    practically speaking, they do the latter more than the former because they cant be everywhere at all times, nor should they

                    but the reality is – we do a pretty good job of protecting people who are threatened in cases like this.

                    heck, i was the lead detective on a witness intimidation case where the guy was going after the witness that put him in prison for years. we protected him

                    it IS a matter of trusting the authoritahs because many many many people who are threatened by suspects – still call police and get justice.

                    it’s far less common in these communities for the reasons given.

                    realistically speaking, THREATENING witnesses/victims is not at all uncommon

                    it is magnitudes more common than ACTUALLY carrying such acts out

                    if every criminal that threatened to kill me had done so, i’d be dead about several dozen times

                    1. “practically speaking, they do the latter more than the former because they cant be everywhere at all times, nor should they”

                      Police act after the fact.
                      There’s a street I don’t walk my dog down anymore because the only way the asshole with loose pit bulls will be forced to fence in his dogs is after me or my dog gets mauled. Since I called Animal Control on him he stopped calling them back when they surround me and my dog. He just stands on his porch with a grin while his dogs growl and bear their teeth at us in the middle of the road.
                      Government is no help, but if I act against the dogs with a weapon I’m the criminal. Not to mention the guy would likely open fire on me from his porch.
                      So he now owns the public way.
                      Nice.
                      Police do not prevent bloodshed, they respond to it. Since I am unwilling to shed my or my dogs blood to get the cops involved, I walk somewhere else.

                    2. this is false. we frequently respond in progress, we frequently prevent bloodshed, etc. however, just like defensive gun uses by civilians, it is logically difficult to “prove” you prevented anything involving human behavior.

                      if a guy is holding a knife and threatening to stab somebody, and i grab the guy and prevent him from doing anything (that happened several years back) did i PREVENT a stabbing? tough to say. he MAY have stabbed the guy. or not. we’ll NEVER know

                      but again, cops prevent crime all the time, by interrupting perps about to and/or in the progress of committing a crime, as well as catching people and bringing them to justice who would still be committing crimes if free

                      as for your dog example, that’s ridiculous. move here to WA. i have seen 2 incidents of citizens shooting dogs that attacked them (jump fence, etc.) they were neither arrested nor charged. you have the right to self defense

                      WA state respects that right better than most states.

                    3. About 10 years ago my brother was a victim of a home invasion robbery. The guys who did it were friends of a coworker of his, and they had been at his apartment a week earlier for a party.
                      After they robbed him and realized that he knew who they were, the dumbasses called him, and left a threat on his voicemail that they would kill him if he called the police. They left the threatening voicemail while the detective was at the apartment interviewing my brother. They were arrested about 20 minutes later, and charged with witness tampering in addition to the other charges.

                    4. that’s fucking awesome. leaving a death threat ON THE VOICEMAIL!

                      i love dumb criminals

                      my favorite was the bank robbery by bow and arrow i responded to. i asked the teller if she could identify him. she says “identify him? ” and then handed over his SIGNATURE CARD. the guy was a CUSTOMER at that bank . love my job

            3. in my experience … with NON-asians, the vast majority (at least 90%) of home invasion robberies are criminal on criminal

              Nuh-uh. Episiarch says all home invasions involve cops. But then, he thinks all cops are criminals, so…

              1. well, he must have sympathy for the devil…

                1. Being married to a Chinese woman, I can testify to this. Her parents won’t even get health insurance because they think it’s a scam, and forget about banks. So far they haven’t had cancer or anything, so they’ve come out ahead (pay less for routine work than they would annually in premiums + deductible), but I keep telling them they’ll regret it someday.

                  To be honest though, given how murkey the currency situation has gotten, and that “savings” accounts rarely offer more than .5% interest anymore, it’s really not as crazy as it sounds to just keep your money.

                  1. hey, my brokerage allows me to store my holdings in any currency i please, as well using forex as a hedge.

                    i started buying gold under $300 an ounce, so i agree 100%

                    1. The official bank of the People’s Republic opened a branch in NYC where you can deposit dollars, and they’ll match the currency in RMB and keep it matched at the going rate at the time you opened the account. You can’t withdraw on it for purchases, or anything like that, but the deal is that if the RMB appreciates, then your dollar holdings increase accordingly.

                      Since their currency is slated to appreciate v. the dollar by anywhere from 5% – 8% per annum in the near future, it’s a pretty good investment for now.

                    2. i like using forex as a hedge. as long as you don’t leverage (which gets people in trouble all the time), it’s a pretty good way to go imo

                      i also hedge currency holdings with commodity holdings for the same reasons.

                      my corn, etc. did EXCELLENTLY! 🙂

                  2. Did you explain to them that fiat currency is a scam?

  8. New on the curricula at Quantico:

    “Basic, intermediate, and advanced chanting and bongo mastery, to better infiltrate drum circles. Field exercises held regularly in DuPont Circle. METRO passes reimbursable via standard travel voucher procedures.”

  9. Somewhat off-topic, but I’m guessing he’s not a real anarchist, right?

    1. A “real” anarchist? Since there are no rules in anarchy, the “real” is the same as the unreal. Do your own thing, dude. Etc.

      1. Well, he’s one of those left wing collectivist anarchists that I can’t seem to understand. They want a stateless society but somehow seek compulsion towards charity. The collectivist anarchists can totally rock their communes in an ancap society, but something tells me they’re not down with the ancaps doing their own thing in their preferred stateless world.

        1. I think the way they square statelessness with compulsory charity is by declaring that without a state to protect “unreasonably accumulated” property, as soon as you walk away from anything they think the collective needs they’re just taking it.

      2. I’m guessing he means as opposed to a socialist anarchist.

      3. Words still have meaning even in the absence of government.

        Fuck, that sounds like a Loughnerism.

        1. the fact that you are self aware to the fact that you sound insane is to your credit.

      4. “Since there are no rules in anarchy”

        That’s not true.
        There are plenty of rules in anarchy.
        They just aren’t enforce through threat of organized violence by the State.

        1. That’s right. They’re enforced through the threat of organized violence through private gangs. And private gangs are so preferable to government. Right?

          1. Yes, asshole, they are. Because if a privately hired organization doesn’t perform in a manner widely considered to be acceptable, they will lose business and influence. The gov’t has no such restraint.

          2. Well, the median private gang is smaller than the median government, so that’s nice.

        2. Bob Wilson wanted to be an anarchist, but said they had too many rules.

    2. There are many flavors of anarchist, dude, and some of them are people who call themselves anarchists but are anything but (as you imply). Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t.

      1. Yeah, what you and Sudden said. I’m not implying there’s a “right” type of anarchist, but there are plenty of anti-corporate types calling themselves anarchists who are anything but.

        1. A good rule of thumb is if you are in the streets protesting cuts to government, you are not an anarchist.

          1. or if you are smashing niketown in seattle during the WTO because it’s too corporate WHILE wearing nike clothing, usually shoes, you are either completely clueless, or have a very elite sense of irony

            1. Just plain stupid also works.

            2. Not to defend them, but left-anarchists acknowledge they live off the excesses of capitalism. Thus, dumpster-diving, shoplifting, etc. is perfectly acceptable activity to them. Justification depends on the manner of acquisition.

              If those shoes were shoplifted, they would argue they justifiably hurt Nike’s profits (justice for putting workers in near-slavery conditions) without hurting the workers themselves (who have already been paid however many pennies they make per hour for the manufacture of those shoes.) The workers will also be paid to replace that pair, since market demand did not necessarily decrease and stolen merchandise is a sunk cost for corporations. Corporations violate human rights and pay off governments to ignore them, so stealing an infinitesimally small fraction of that corporation’s property for one’s own benefit would still be a just activity.

              At least that’s how they look at it…

              1. they have a weird kind of twisted logical internal consistency. kind of like really bad sci-fi. you have to suspend belief / knowledge of actual science, but then it makes sense in that “universe” so to speak.

                i really have no fucking respect for those assholes though. their entire political philosophy boils down in the real world to – breaking and stealing other people’s shit. and unlike your garden variety scumbag thief, they are self-righteous about it too.

                1. Again, not to really defend them, but they see little value in private property beyond fulfilling basic human needs, since property is dominated by specific demographic groups thanks to historical policies and corporate protectionism/welfare.

                  Right-libertarians would say that there is no right to steal anyone’s personal property acquired voluntarily or inherited. Left-libertarians argue that to a large degree inheritance and economic privilege are functions of historic injustices, discrimination, imperialism, corporatism, slavery, etc. Which is indeed true – the moral dilemma becomes “I’ve lived my whole life on this property inherited from my great-great-grandfather, who was a white slaveholder. I legitimately acquired the property via inheritance but the original acquisition – and the wealth created off the backs of slaves – was unjust (or at least the legal framework that privileged my gx2-grandfather was).” Right-libertarians would say “tough beans, it’s still my legal property” and left-libertarians would say “the original acquisition was theft, therefore you have no rights to the tainted property and were lucky to enjoy it (perhaps at the expense of someone else?) in the first place”. If those original policies are legalized theft and the property is “stolen goods”, “reclamation” is merely corrective and not immoral. At the same time, it’s also just a wankish intellectual way to emotionally justify shoplifting.

                  There’s no easy answer – kinda like the Israel-Palestine thing, it depends on how you look at it. I don’t see property in the black-or-white viewpoint of either side.

                  1. There’s no easy answer

                    Yes there is. The rights I assert protect me against collectives, not the other way around. My property is mine, not a mob’s.

                    1. False – only legally acquired property is truly yours. Stealing (as an individual or as a mob, and with or without the power of government behind you) is always wrong. Receipt of knowingly stolen property is also wrong.

                      Had we started from scratch and never had a single evil government policy like slavery or mandatory discrimination or exclusion of property rights for certain groups, a purist libertarian view of property would be 100% justified and the Left wouldn’t have a single leg to stand on re: “property is theft”.

                      However, some people continue to use government to steal property from others. Are you saying after that happens, those who were stolen from should have no right to reclaim their property by force, and the thieves should be legally justified to kill the victims if they try?

                      And also, even if you weren’t aware you received stolen property, the law still obligates you to return it as far as I know. Thus the dilemma between left- and right-libertarians.

                      Property isn’t black and white, and both sides utterly fail to understand this.

                    2. only legally acquired property is truly yours.

                      I’m trying to make the point that the form of law is not aligned with my natural rights, even if the law’s intent is so aligned. I believe it to be morally acceptable to break laws in the course of maintaining a moral lifestyle. I suspect “anarchists” who seek to destroy property in order to equalize individuals with the collective believe the same thing, which is why they act the way they do. And I feel justified in any defence of property and life.

                      In other words, I can’t stop mobs and brown-shirts and useful idiots from being dangerous, but I can escape into the hills and eventually bring their walls down.

      2. There are many flavors of anarchist…

        I’m Gorilla Grape.

  10. I’m pretty sure that the magnitude of how much the FBI does that is pointless, stupid, and wasteful is beyond any of our abilities to comprehend, just like any other aspect of the Federal government.

    1. Scientific notation is a woefully inadequate means of demonstrating the orders of magnitude of stupidity of the federal government. We need to create a new unit of measurement for this level of stupidity; I nominate calling it a Bush.

      1. “It was so stupid it was like a Bush to the 3rd power.”

      2. How many Bushes to an Obama?

        1. aleph two.

        2. So, would a Bush to the power of Carter be like accidentally starting a nukular war?

          1. over a false flag rabbit attack maybe

      3. Speaking of orders of magnitude …

        Some Afpak wonks recently leaked something about how projected troop withdrawals in Af will reduce costs by $5-$10 billion, but may adversely affect mission effectiveness. Krauthammer goes apoplectic on Fox, arguing that the Obama Admin is planning to “nickel and dime” its war effort. This is literally an astounding 11 orders of magnitude difference.

        The problem with with measuring stupidity in Bushes is that ordinary catastrophic stupidity would be measured in microBushes.

        1. A Krauthammer could be a Bush to the 10th degree.

  11. The FBI didn’t just start efforts to monitor those critical of the government after 9/11. Documents obtained by Dr. Monroe in the 1980s showed the FBI had an informer within the Libertarian National Committee.
    Whoa, that Ed and Alicia Clark were sure some fearsome folks.

    1. I read your comment in the Dr. Marvin Monroe voice, there was no other way.

      1. Hey, I resemble that remark!

  12. a vegan animal rights advocate like Mr. Crow…

    He thinks animals have rights. Not that it’s pertinent.

    1. At least he’s consistent, unlike some dumbass protesting horse slaughter while wearing leather cowboy boots. (Sorry, Willie, I love you. I really do. But seriously…)

      1. Why are those positions mutually exclusive? Maybe he’s against horse slaughter because equine leather isn’t as good as the bovine variety.

        1. And nobody eats the horse.

          1. *looks up with full mouth, blood all over lips, trickling down chin and all over the hands, and nervous shifty eyes*

            Yeeeaaaahhh, no one eats the horse.

          2. And nobody eats the horse.

            Isn’t that the whole point of horse slaughter?

    2. He thinks animals have rights. Not that it’s pertinent.

      So do I, and so does almost everybody on H&R. At least for some animals that is:

      Kingdom: Animalia
      Phylum: Chordata
      Class: Mammalia
      Order: Primate
      Family: Hominidae
      Denus: Homo
      Species: Homo sapiens sapiens

  13. Maybe they spotted him dancing. We all know what that leads to.

  14. A pistol or shotgun won’t do that.

    You’re forgetting about the “magic” bullets which not only are able to pierce police body armor, but to actually seek it out.

  15. Some people call themselves “anarchists” when in reality they are merely thugs.

    1. Intellectual as well as physical. Nothing moves the culture forward quite like printing your opinions on your t-shirts. Opining on a blog is a close second, of course.

      1. The irony of your own stupidity seems lost on you.

        1. I recognize the futility of blog commentary. You don’t.

          1. Is that like the futility of life.

  16. “Keep Round Rock Mildly Unusual.”

    1. Keep Pflugerville Phreaky

  17. The second quote comes from one of the cops keeping tabs on Crow and his fellow activists. Confronted with the words “nonviolent direct action,” the agent declares the phrase “an oxymoron.”

    Statist thought in a nutshell: anything important needs to be done through violence.

  18. “The Man Who Was Thursday” inspired the Irish Republican politician Michael Collins with the idea “if you didn’t seem to be hiding nobody hunted you out.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..s_Thursday

  19. He makes $32,000 working at a recycling center? That sounds like it ought to be a minimum wage job.

    1. Eh, not necessarily. Maybe working the counter, but if he operates an excavator, compactor or magnet, he should be pulling in at least $20/hr.

      1. Yeah, I suppose. More likely it is a sinecure for having the right belief system and a degree in sociology.

    2. My local county allowed unionization of our recycling centers. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were paying bottle porters that much.

  20. …the agent declares the phrase “an oxymoron.”

    Along with “loyal opposition” no doubt. I have to wonder if there is any vermin lower than that which believes obedience is a cardinal American virtue.

  21. The IRS told them to back off the investigation of his tax returns? When the IRS has to tell you you’re not making sense, it’s a pretty good sign you’ve gone off the deep end. Seriously, he makes $32k a year, and I’d guess a grand total of zero dollars of investment income. His yearly tax bill would ring in at less than $3k.

  22. “They infiltrated political meetings with undercover police officers and informers. Mr. Crow counts five supposed fellow activists who were reporting to the F.B.I.”

    If it weren’t for the FBI, I wouldn’t have any friends at all at my libertarian discussion group – some have suggested that my famous bean, blue cheese and garlic dip keeps potential participants away, but I say FREEDOM FARTS!

    1. weren’t the Weather Underground so infiltrated that their were more FBI “members” than actual?

    2. Then I must be extremely free. Do diarrhea and soiled underpants count extra?

  23. I’ve been monitoring Hit’n’Run for the FBI for years now. That’s why every now and then certain people stop posting.

    1. Hey, if you were the guy who got rid of Lonewacko, thanks!

  24. if the FBI surveilled everybody who is critical of our govt. they’d be surveilling everybody… wait a second…

    1. I’ve got my eye on you, dumphy

      1. i can feel you behind me … and it is making me feel strangely aroused.

  25. rogue cop alert of the week! 15 to 20 days suspension for (omg!) swearing at a MS-13 non-compliant gang member AFTER the gang member threatened the officer.

    lol

    http://www.komonews.com/opinio…..48973.html

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c…..ty25m.html

    1. Too bad he didn’t just shoot him, so he could get suspended with pay while a sham investigation is conducted which will conclude that he acted “according to proper procedures”.

      I’m just needling you Dunphy : )

      1. No WoD, no MS-13.

      2. i feel you, brother. diaz is a piece of shit cop-o-crat. this essentially sends a message to all scumbag gang members. it INCENTIVIZES them to not cooperate with police and in fact threaten them… cause god forbid the cop swears at them, they can make a complaint! heck, they can make one even if the cop doesn’t swear. it’s not like they can’t lie. (some cops have audio on stops. some don’t. i think it’s a bad idea not to audio record stops because you don’t have protection against false complaints…)

        granted, the cop mentioned something about skullfucking the guy, which is not exactly genteel :l

  26. My interpretation is that we can wiretap this guy without a warrant because of his behavior.

  27. One of my libertarian political confreres and a close friend was somebody who I guess would be considered today a terrorist. I didn’t know him until many years after his terrorist days, and he didn’t tell me until years after he knew me, but in the 1960s he was part of a conspiracy to bomb a Communist Party meeting here in the Bronx. He blocked the exit. They succeeded in killing one.

    He said that if he knew he had a short time to live, he would undertake similar activity again. (Not the same target, of course. The CPUSA that he had taken to be such a threat had long since revealed itself to be puny.) Unfortunately he realized his condition too late.

    Yes, Austin is weird. Their children’s football league has the most idiosyncratic rules I’ve heard of being in actual use for American football.

  28. thanks for the post guys..family law is the part of legal practice that covers domestic relations. These range between marriage and divorce, to concerns of adoption and surrogacy, and also to issues such as common law marriages and same-sex marriage. In Denver, as anywhere else, you will need a lawyer who has a substantial amount of knowledge within your unique area of need.

  29. Today creating a positive relationship with your prospects and clients as quickly as possible is key

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.