Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Why Cops Tend to be Immune to the Law

Originally posted on Experience Project March 15th 2016

'A Cook County cop, by the name of Richard Fiorito, avoided charges after falsely arresting over 130 people on fabricated DUI charges. A recent investigation has uncovered that state’s attorney Anita Alvarez, who is notorious for letting police off the hook, prevented Fiorito from being prosecuted. During that investigation, some of Fiorito’s old cases demonstrated vast corruption. For six years, Fiorito ran a racket in which he falsely arrested people on DUI charges so he could get overtime pay for the resulting court appearance (policing for profit nothing new). In most of the cases, Fiorito stopped drivers on suspicion of driving drunk and would give them a field sobriety test; he would fail them whether they actually passed the test or not, in many cases he lied about his encounters with the victims and fabricated the details of their behavior.'

*It was suggested by some of the victims that Fiorito unfairly targeted the LGBT community, and would hunt for victims in a part of town where homosexuals often spent their time. Some victims reported that he used anti-homosexual slurs while he was arresting them (mere speculation). *

Side Note: I originally intended to omit this part because it has no bearing on the principle of the matter; his actions would not be more immoral if he specifically falsely arrested homosexuals and likewise his actions would not be less immoral if he had only arrested heterosexuals or falsely arrested people indiscriminately.

'For years, Fiorito would arrest at least one person each day for DUI, on average. Eventually, Fiorito slipped up and dash camera footage demonstrated that he lied about at least one of his DUI arrests. However, he was not fired for the offense but was just reassigned to desk duty (the usual punishment for criminal cops). After further investigation, the attorney’s office was forced to drop charges against more than 130 people who were arrested on DUI charges. After the full scope of his criminality was revealed, Fiorito resigned, but state’s attorney Anita Alvarez never pressed charges against him, despite claiming that her office had investigated the officer for over a year. '

Side Note 2: If you recall, I wrote about a similar series of false arrests perpetrated by the Dothan Police Department, which lasted for over a decade and was exposed by the Henry County Report on December 1st of last year.

EP Link

These are not isolated incidents. Over the past 20 years, criminal cops have evaded being charged in 96% of civil liberties violation cases. An investigation conducted by the Pittsburgh Tribune -Review discovered that federal prosecutors turned down 12,703 out 13,223 civil liberties violations complaints, against police, between 1995 and 2015. In comparison, federal prosecutors only turned down charges in 23% of criminal cases against civilians.

The reason police criminality is rarely prosecuted:

Prosecuting a police officer is much more difficult than prosecuting anyone else. There is a much higher standard than that of a misconduct case brought at the state or local level. Prosecutors must prove that an officer “willfully” deprived someone of their rights. If a cop acted negligently or recklessly – or 'thought' their actions to be legal at the time, they are exempt from federal charges; this is what is called 'qualified immunity.'

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Land of the Serf Home of the Cowardly: Why The Outrage Against Kaepernick is Completely Misplaced

In light of the outrage against Colin Kaepernick, and the growing trend of national anthem protests, I thought it would be appropriate to show that there are legitimate grievances to protest, even if Colin Kaepernick and his supporters aren’t aware of all of them.

Most Americans take their rights for granted, which is not surprising given the fact that they have had the ‘freedom and democracy’ platitudes hammered into their heads since childhood; and despite taking their rights for granted, ironically, most Americans don’t even know what rights they have, in the same way that they don’t know how much money they spend or how many possessions they have, hence consumerism. For this reason, it might be helpful to show that the rights Americans have under U.S. constitutional law and moral law have all but been demolished under the pretense of patriotism and freedom, another ironic outcome of free education.

Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and the press

The right to film public officials in public places is freedom of the press, as determined in Glik v. Cunniffe, and yet police officers constantly violate the first amendment by arresting civilians simply for filming them.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. A vigilant citizenry has never been more critical in this day in age in which so called law enforcement, and their neoconservative lackeys (tried and true jack boot licking pro-cop simps) believe there should be no restraints on what the police can do at either the federal, state or local level. It’s funny how the same people who defend dragnet surveillance techniques like stingray operations object to sousveillance of public officials under circumstances where, unlike the former, there is no expectation of privacy. Allowing people to film the police on the job should be a no brainer given the fact that there is an entire TV series dedicated to filming police on the job. Pro-cop simps are never short in supply.

The right to desecrate and ‘disrespect’ the American flag is freedom of symbolic speech, and yet 40 states still have anti - flag desecration laws on the books, which are sometimes enforced, though it is important to note that none of the people who have been charged with this imaginary crime, equivalent to anti-blasphemy laws in Saudi Arabia, have been put on trial.

I don’t know what’s sadder, the fact that the Illinois legislature passed an anti-flag desecration law as recently as 2013, or the fact that police arrested him just to protect him from crazed lunatics who think burning a certain piece of colored fabric should cost you your life.

I covered this story back in August. This army veteran wasn’t even technically desecrating the banner; flying the flag upside down down signals distress not disrespect.

There are even earlier cases then this one. The fact that criminalizing flag desecration would even be taken into consideration, to the extent that it would warrant an act of congress (see Flag Protection Act) shows just how far we have slipped into a police state.

The right to protest grievances is freedom of speech, expression and assembly, yet the FBI has taken it upon themselves to harass and intimidate those on the political fringe by spying on them, blacklisting them, and harassing them at their residence without suspicion of criminal activity, just as they did in the 60’s and 70’s during the conintelpro days

‘in Colorado and other states in the summer of 2004. A three-page report discusses the events of July 22, 2004, when two teams of JTTF agents, accompanied by Denver police officers in SWAT gear, appeared at two Denver residences on Lipan Street that are home to a number of young political activists, including Bardwell. Bardwell explained at the time that the JTTF agents demanded to know if she and her housemates were planning to commit crimes at the upcoming Republican and Democratic conventions and whether they knew anyone who was planning such crimes. They also threatened that failing to provide information to the FBI was a criminal offense.’ The harassment ranges from showing up to the houses of activists with a paramilitary force to conduct frivolous searches of residence for evidence of ‘material support for terrorism.’

You see a terrorist is an American citizen who visits certain websites and participates in certain political causes. Animal rights activists, environmentalists (called ‘eco-terrorists’ by the FBI), anti -war groups, and people who generally hold anti-government views are considered domestic terrorist threats by the FBI. Washington funded salafist militias like Ahrar al Sham, Jaish al-Fatah, and the FSA that burn down churches, massacre religious/ethnic minorities, and engage in extortion are not terrorists but ‘moderate rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters.’

As Benjamin Franklin once said “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.” We cannot have a free and democratic society if law enforcement is allowed to censor their critics and anyone who doesn’t fall in line with popular sentiment as prescribed by public schools and corporate media outlets.

Freedom from warrantless searches, surveillance, and seizures of private property or any unreasonable searches and seizures of private property

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It should be well recognized that the Bill of rights are not an exhaustive list of our rights but rather a list of limitations on the government’s power at both the federal, state, and local level, but especially at the federal level. The 4th amendment is not only a matter of constitutional law, but also moral law. The gradual erosion of our 4th amendment protections has been particularly devastating because the gatekeepers in msm don’t talk about it except for the controversial NSA prism program. What they don’t tell you is that this is done at the local and state level as well through stingray operations that indiscriminately collect cellphone data. They don’t tell you that FBI field offices basically have subpoena power through National Security Letters, which allows them to demand personal information, including phone records and browsing history, from any citizen’s telecommunications providers. They won’t tell you that the NSA can share the information they incidentally gather on citizens with domestic law enforcement with CISA, the latest congressional assault against the 4th amendment, which not only gives Tech companies immunity to share your personal information with the DHS and requires the DHS to further share your personal information with the NSA, DOD, and Director of National intelligence. Even the Supreme Court has joined the butchered ruling in Utah v. Strieff that the police can use evidence illegally obtained in court against a defendant, through parallel construction, if they weren’t aware that they have breached the 4th amendment at the time of a search or seizure: basically just an extension of ‘qualified immunity.’ The 4th amendment has not fared much better at the state level either. The Wisconsin Supreme Court completely nullified the 4th amendment, under their jurisdiction, in a recent ruling that officers may search homes and seize evidence without a warrant if they are exercising their ‘community caretaker’ function. The fifth circuit court appeals in Texas also decided to nullify the 4th amendment when they ruled that having religious memorabilia and air freshener in one’s vehicle constitutes probable cause of a crime. In New York and other major cities, the police departments have ‘stop and frisk’ policies that allow their officers to stop passing civilians and search their person with only reasonable suspicion, which only justifies temporarily detaining someone and questioning them; reasonable cause is required to justify a search.

Freedom from extrajudicial killings, arbitrary seizures of private property, and eminent domain seizures of private property for private companies

‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC USE, without just compensation.’ is the pertinent part of the 5th amendment that has been curtailed and the instances are numerous. Under the Obama admin, four american citizens, suspected of terrorist activities, were executed by drone strikes without a jury trial and grand jury indictment. It was the same admin that signed indefinite detention into law through the NDAA.

We should not expect to lose our freedom or property without a criminal or civil proceeding and recourse to appeal such decisions, but this is not the case. The terrorist watch list and no - fly lists allows the DHS to deprive any american of their freedom to travel and leave the country without a criminal proceeding and there is no way to appeal their decision.  These watch lists have become so commonplace that some people want to use it to deny anyone on these lists the right to buy a gun.

In the U.S. law enforcement have become the highwaymen of old, stealing more from Americans
than common criminals through civil asset forfeiture, which allows leos to seize property without charging the victim with a crime much less waiting for a criminal conviction; they just have to claim that the property resulted from a crime or is linked to a crime. The stolen property is usually used for their personal benefit and the spoils of robbery are shared with the feds.

Eminent Domain has always been explicitly restricted to taking private property for public uses (e.g. highways, bridges, canals, utilities etc), but this changed after the Kelo v. New London decision which gave private corporations like the New London Development Corporation and Pfizer the power to seize the property of private individuals for their own (rent-seeking) profit. The Supreme court justified this ruling using the typical neoliberal talking points about ‘job creation’ and ‘trickle down wealth.’ It’s important to note that exactly zero jobs were created in  the years following New London Development Corporation’s eminent domain seizure of people’s homes.

The exclusive right to control one's own body, mind and the product of one's labor.

Drug prohibition is not the only remnant from the 1970's. Draft registration is still compelled under penalty of law and was just recently expanded to include women. Although the draft hasn't been used in the past four decades, to even entertain the notion that a government should force its young adults to die for the profits of defense contractors is morally repulsive, and with a Clinton presidency looming on the horizon the reality of another draft grows increasingly more probable.
To make a long story short, the U.S. is a police state, and that is just part of the problem. This in itself should be a cause to protest It might not be a North Korea or PRC, yet, but it is by far one of the most authoritarian developed nations, ranked 20th on the Human Freedom Index. When people fume over Kaepernick's national anthem protest the old adage strain at a gnat and swallow a camel comes to mind. If Kaepernick's refusal to stand during the anthem upset you, ask yourself what freedoms are you celebrating? Americans are always so boastful about their supposed freedoms, yet they stay silent when these freedoms are taken away. The selective outrage is really a reflection of poor national character.

There are also many more frivolous laws that breach our natural rights, such as the anti-structuring laws that prohibit people from making multiple withdrawals or cash deposits of less than $10,000 from their own bank accounts. Of course, anti-structuring laws and civil asset forfeiture are the spawns of a much greater monstrosity called the war on drugs, a denial of self-ownership; the government decides what you can and cannot put in your own body. Though to speak frankly, the federal government is simply a tool in this regards; a means to further the ends of the pharmaceutical industry and the private prison industry. Millions have died and over a trillion dollars have been wasted to protect the cartelized pharmaceutical industry from non-patented substances, and if the DEA's latest ban on Kratom is any indication of current progress towards drug decriminalization, then there is no end in sight. 

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Haiti Open for Plunder: Neocolonialism in Haiti

Some things never seem to change. The manner in which multinationals plunder the resource wealth of third world countries and exploit their populace for cheap labor, enabled by institutions like the IMF and World Bank as well as Washington, is not much different from the colonialism that predominated Herbert Spencer’s time. The only difference is that it is now done under the pretense of ‘humanitarianism', a phony ideology cooked up in executive board rooms to justify egregious violation of moral law; it is the tired tactic of bypassing people’s rational faculties (lateral prefrontal cortex) by appealing to their passions (amygdala). Behind every self-proclaimed philanthropist is an ulterior motive, hidden from public view by the media’s omission. A more startling example of this could not be found outside of Haiti, which for the last century has persisted under the iron fist of Washington, and especially in the after math of the 2010 earth quake.

Out of the billions spent on the recovery effort, most of the funding went to for-profit U.S. contractors, U.S. NGOs, and foreign multinationals.The state department awarded the vast majority of rebuilding contracts to American instead of Haitian contractors and Washington spent $156,380,000 on development of Caracol Industrial Park and another $170,300,000 on its power plant and port, a quarter of the USAID budget for disaster recovery. The plan to build a venue for foreign manufacturers, especially textile and garment contractors, had been conceived well before the earth quake.

The World Bank, that bastion of neoliberal orthodoxy, along with the Inter-American Development Bank and a few Haitian officials rewrote Haitian mining laws, in a closed door meeting, to make extraction more convenient and cheaper. Specifically, they waived the requirement to have a mining convention ratified by parliament, privatized Haitian subsoils (previously considered the state’s domain) and removed environmental protections.

Canadian mining company Eurasian minerals has a license to 1,770 square kilometers or about 1/3 of Haiti’s North.

Another Canadian company, Majescor, and a small U.S. company, VCS Mining, and their subsidiaries have licenses or conventions for tracts totaling over 750 square kilometers.

Altogether, about 15 percent of Haiti’s territory is under license to North American mining firms and its partners. The price for being handed the privilege of controlling Haiti’s gold mining industry and 15% of its land is a paltry 2.5% royalty rate.

Before the industrial park was built, some 720 farm workers were evicted from their land, an aggregate of 246 hectares, without due process and only a pittance in compensation for lost wages. Evicting hundreds of farm workers to make room for the industrial park not only had the immediate effect of depriving them of both their present and future earnings, it also raised food prices in Caracol by making them more dependent on food imports, for which they already depend on for 50% of their food, and put downward pressure on all wages by lowering the margin of production, effectively creating conditions not far removed form their pre 1804 circumstances. To further elaborate on the last point, I’d like to bring to the readers attention that there is a very good reason why USAID, the State Department, and the World Bank, among other criminal enterprises, did not choose to build the industrial park on land devastated by the 2010 earthquake or any other less valuable site: two words, cheaper labor.

Cinic Antoine Iréné, a farmer who lost his land when the Caracol Industrial Park was constructed, said:“The land at Caracol was used for food production for all the North East – plantain and other food. They’ve taken these lands and put concrete on them. The industrial park is the biggest injustice done to the North East because they could have chosen other, less productive places”.

What this farmer does not understand is that by monopolizing all of the valuable land in Haiti, which includes the 15% licensed to mining companies, foreign corporations reduce the margin of production, the wages Haitians could earn working on rent free land. By the law of rent, wages are determined by the productive capacity of free land, and thus the margin of production is the floor for wages. The intended consequence of monopolizing the most valuable land is to reduce the bargaining power of labor, and thus wages. And despite what the Inter-American Development Bank and USAID have said about 65,000 jobs, the foreign manufacturers will eventually leave when wages rise and they find cheaper labor elsewhere, as they have historically done.

Evicting farmers from their land, agricultural dumping and allowing foreign companies to monopolize the most valuable land had the intended effect that anyone could have foreseen: higher food prices and lower wages for industrial workers. And that is exactly what unfolded, the current wage is $0.64 per hour ($5 per day), most of which is depleted by the cost of transportation and food. But even this low wage floor had to be mandated by Haiti's parliament, a mandate that USAID and then secretary of state Clinton fiercely opposed in favor of a much smaller increment of $0.31 per hour.  Add to these atrocities the fact that Haiti is currently under the foreign military occupation of 10,000 UN 'peacekeepers', keeping the 'peace' through rape and disease, one finds a frightening resemblance to the bygone era of European colonialism.

HRW asks Washington to stop arming the Wahhabi Terrorist State

Dear Alexander,

Markets, schools, and hospitals bombed. Hundreds of civilians—including at least 200 children—killed so far in unlawful airstrikes. Repeated use of internationally banned cluster bombs that have caused civilian casualties. These are just some of the devastating consequences of the Saudi-led coalition’s 18 month-long air campaign in Yemen. Yet… despite extensive on-the-ground documentation by Human Rights Watch of these violations, the US continues to fuel the conflict. After selling over $20 billion dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2015, some in Washington want to add another $1.15 billion dollars in arms sales. A bipartisan group of US senators are taking action to stop enabling Saudi Arabia’s to commit more abuses in Yemen. They have introduced legislation to slow this sale. Time is running out—the Senate will vote on this resolution as early as Tuesday, September 20. WE NEED YOU to tell your senators to support this critical resolution now.

If you want to understand the motives behind U.S. foreign policy, you should not ask what is the morally correct thing to do, but rather what will be the most profitable for the defense industry, lest we forget that political power is determined by concentrations of wealth. If you keep up with current events, you might have recently heard that the Obama admin signed a deal to allot $38,000,000,000 in military aid to Israel over the next decade, but the vast majority of these funds will be recycled into the coffers of U.S. defense contractors. A more accurate headline would read 'Washington provides 38 billion in corporate welfare for the defense industry.' Saudi Arabia is second only to Israel as a beneficiary of Washington largess, a relationship solidified by the petrodollar system that is especially profitable for the defense industry. As I pointed out in a past article, the Saudi coalition's bombing campaign in Yemen is a genocide by five of the six criteria set forth by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; this has been extensively documented by HRW, MSF, and other western NGOs working in Yemen. And while I generally agree with their cause, I don't think the bought out senate, who spend 30 hours a week soliciting campaign donations, is the proper channel to propagate the cause. Instead of taking this message to Washington, HRW should take it directly to the American people, and pressure msm outlets to cover the atrocities in Yemen because the only thing that will stop the further authorization of arm sales in its tracks is a critical mass of outraged voters during an election year. Senators generally won't change their vote unless it could potentially cost them their jobs.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Update on Dakota Access Pipeline protest

It seems my earlier remarks about the ongoing struggle between Energy Transfer Partners and the Standing Rock Sioux nation have only been reinforced by the latest developments. Keep in mind this is treaty land that the federal government acquired by breaking its own laws and the pipeline is planned to run across and under the Missouri river, the main source of water for the Sioux and Lakota people, not but half a mile from their reservation.

24 hours after the tribal nation's former historic preservationist surveyed burial sites and filed court documents concerning said burial sites, Dakota Access employees drove bulldozers 20 miles from the nearest construction site and razed the burial grounds. When protesters attempted to stop the razing of burial grounds, the hired thugs of Energy Transfer Partners unleashed attack dogs and assailed protesters with tear gas and pepper spray.

This pipeline protest isn't just about amerindians because ultimately all of our interests are at stake in Cannonball, North Dakota. If you are of the persuasion that rule of law and constitutionally limited government should be the order of the day, then which side you sympathize with should be a no brainer. If you are of the persuasion that countries should abide by international law and especially the UN Declaration of the rights of indigenous people, then which side you sympathize with should also be a no brainer. If you are a Stein supporting democratic socialist who believes renewable energy and protecting traditionally marginalized groups is the way forward, then which side you sympathize with is just as much a no brainer. Only neoliberal dupes or shills who like unabated corporate capitalism with government handouts to prop it up side with Energy Transfer Partners.

Monday, September 5, 2016

The Red Tape Times (article 8)

The DEA has placed a temporary ban on Kratom, making it a schedule 1 drug under the CSA.

If you want to understand the motive behind FDA and DEA policies, you shouldn't ask what is the morally correct thing to do, but rather what will be the most profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. The morally correct thing to do is to allow individuals exclusive control over what they put in their own bodies i.e. to not breach self-ownership. However, this is not the most profitable thing to do since medicinal herbs like kratom cannot be patented and sold at exorbitant prices like Oxycontin and other prescription opioids which, unlike kratom, claim thousandsof lives per year. We must also be mindful of the private prison industry's cut of the fleecing; their bottom line matters too. With violent crime rates at a 50 year low, the government must criminalize more victim-less activities to ensure that they meet lockup quotas, or else the private corrections corporations might sue them for breach of contract. And if you take a careful look at other industries and trades, you'll notice that a pattern will emerge that is not merely an accident, but is there by design. The capitalist system does not operate for the benefit of common people, but rather the political class at the expense of the common people.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Agents Provocateurs: How the FBI sets up patsies through sting operations to manufacture terrorism

In recent years, the FBI has increasingly resorted to sting operations to 'prevent terrorism.' During these sting operations, the confidential informants contact anyone who the FBI deems a potential terrorist, which usually takes nothing more than espousing 'extremism' on social media or visiting certain websites. The informants entice suspects to commit terrorist attacks usually giving them weapons, giving them explosives (either by buying it for them or providing the money for them to buy weapons) planning the attack and providing firearms training. The bust isn't made until the set up is complete. Since 2015, these sort of sting operations have been used in two-thirds of terrorism related prosecutions.

In Rochester, a paid informant went undercover and drove a man suspected of being an Islamic extremist, Emanuel Lutchman, to a Wal-Mart in December to buy a machete, ski masks, zip ties and other supplies for a would-be terrorist attack on New Year's eve. Because Mr. Lutchman, a mentally ill panhandler, had no money, the informant covered the $40 cost.

In North Carolina, an undercover agent pressed another suspect, Justin Sullivan, on whether he was willing to commit acts of terrorism for the Islamic State - "do you think you can kill?" the agent asked in one online message - before giving him a silencer for an AR-15 assault rifle in June 2015.

In Washington State, an undercover informant paid $1,100 to Daniel Franey, a former solider, for acting as a lookout on several trips to buy duffel bags filled with assault weapons for a possible attack last summer.

The FBI arrested all three suspects before any attack occurred, and has used similar undercover techniques to prosecute dozens of others it believes had ties to the Islamic State, court records show.

FBI informants also attempted to ensnare the Orlando shooter in a 2013 false flag terror attack.

A Human Rights Watch study of FBI's counterterrorism practices found that the FBI disproportionately targets suspects with mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities, low socioeconomic status; men who are as impressionable as children and not capable of plotting and carrying out attacks on their own. In the cases of Adel Daoud, Matin Siraj, Hosam Smadi, Rezwan Ferdaus, and the Newburgh four, the informants radicalized the suspects, provided the means, and created the plot. In such cases, the only substantial role the suspects had was driving a vehicle with fake explosives to certain buildings and pushing numbers on a cellphone, which they believed to be a detonator. In the case of Ferdaus, the FBI busted him by delivering weapons to him and photographing him holding a gun.

The motive for these police practices should be no mystery to anyone who is privy to the underlying racket, that is the war on terrorism. 

Thursday, September 1, 2016

The Red Tape Times (article 7)

Growing your own vegetables is a right and no you don't need a permit for that

The 11th circuit court judge of Florida, Monica Gordo, upheld a Miami Shores ordinance that prohibits residents from growing vegetable gardens in their front yard. The case was appealed by homeowners Hermine Ricketts and Tom Carroll, who had grown vegetables in their front yard for 17 years. In Monica Gordo's opinion growing your own food is not a 'right' and dictating aesthetics is a legitimate purpose of government.

The Bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of rights, in fact it is not really a list of rights so much as it is a list of restrictions on federal power. A right, if we are to be consistent, is not whatever the government says it is, otherwise the word would be completely meaningless; the number and definition of rights would change like the tides depending on whether any of them presented an inconvenience or nuance to the political class. A right is 1) a normative claim and 2) an implication of moral law: the law of equal liberty. An activity, like growing a vegetable garden in one's own front yard, is a right if it does not violate equal liberty, that is to say, it does not prevent others from exercising the same freedom to act as they wish on their own property. It is plainly obvious that growing a vegetable garden in one's own front yard does not prevent others from exercising the same freedom to act as they wish, in their own front yards or on the side walk or in the street, and therefore can be considered a right. Growing your own vegetables, in your own front yard, is not only a right, it is in the best interest of society that people should grow their own food instead of buying glyphosate laced food from subsidized agribusinesses. The legitimate purpose of government is the administration of justice not aesthetics. Leave aesthetics to the artists and philosophers.