How Does Government Score You?
Jan 11, 2016 Tyranny
The advances in technology over the years have made it much easier for the government to spy on its citizens. We know the NSA does it at the direction of the politicians in DC. We know local governments do it with equipment given to them by the federal agencies and we know they sign nondisclosure agreements to use the stuff.
We also know the government tracks cell phones and scoops up a lot of cell phone calls and it uses license plate readers to compile a lot of information disguised as a looking for bad guys mission.
These things would appear to violate our rights. We are supposed to be free people and the government does not belong sticking its nose in our business. Unless we do something wrong and are caught as a result of doing it (as opposed to being caught through illegal surveillance) we should be left alone
Now government has taken its intrusion to a new level. The police department in Fresno California uses a system that compiles a profile on people based on a number of things including criminal record, property records, and social media posts. The person is then given a score that tells the officer if you are not considered a threat, are a possible threat or are definitely a threat (those are my descriptions. The system calls you red, yellow, or green).
This has disaster written all over it. The company that developed this is the only entity that knows how it works so there is no telling how the score is derived or if there are errors in the design. How long will it be before a person’s residence returns a score that is red and officers arriving treat it as such and end up killing someone who is only watering his lawn in violation of the water ban?
I want to make it clear that I do not think the police should be using this kind of system to classify citizens and make decisions based on that. It is a violation of our privacy and it allows government to profile us according to criteria it wants. Some anti-gun moron could easily have the software provider code the system so that all gun owners are deemed a threat. It is just too open to abuse.
Now the police, well they say this is a must have. They need it to solve crimes and to serve the public. It is a “vital tool” that they need to make us safe.
Everything they need is a vital tool. We have to arm them with military gear because it is vital. We have to give them drones because it is vital. We have to give them the ability to scoop up all our cell phone calls because it is vital. Then when they abuse drones, act like they are attacking an enemy or abuse the phone information to solve crimes that were not part of the intended target we are told that if we are doing nothing wrong we should not have anything to worry about.
What is vital is the privacy, freedom and security of the people. There can be no justification for this. If you feel that the people need to give up some of their rights for security then you are sadly mistaken.
This is from the article:
In promotional materials, Intrado writes that Beware could reveal that the resident of a particular address was a war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, had criminal convictions for assault and had posted worrisome messages about his battle experiences on social media. Washington Post
How did it get all of this information? How does it know the person is a veteran and has PTSD? Did it pick up random posts from social media or is the federal government (the VA) feeding information into this thing?
This is supposed to make the reader believe that it helps the officer responding because it lets him know of the potential danger.
Does the system also score officers and look over how many complaints have been filed, how many reprimands he has gotten, how many shooting incidents, any off duty trouble, memberships in organizations, etc.? It would be helpful if the system scored the cop and called the person at the home to warn him that the cop responding has an itchy trigger finger and might blast away.
These kinds of things will eventually lead to problems (of course then the problem needs more training, more money and more surveillance) and the ones who get screwed are the citizens. Some cop will blast the veteran described above because he had the remote to the TV in his hand when he answered the door and the apologists will come out in full force, say there was a mistake, the officer feared for his life, good kill, go home nothing to see here.
Maybe if he did not have his head filled with information from Beware he might not have had a preconceived notion and he would not have been in fear for his life over a remote control.
What next America? Will we require every person who goes to a medical facility of any kind to be tested for AIDS to keep health care providers safe?
No, wait, we expect them to exercise caution with every patient.
Maybe the police Community could try that.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: beware, government surveillance, lies, police, scoring, veterans, vital
Obama The Tyrant Awakens Again
Jan 1, 2016 Second Amendment, Tyranny
Upon return from his refreshing tax payer funded millions of dollars vacation in Hawaii where he beat golf courses to death, Barack the Tyrant will head to the District of Corruption on Monday to discuss more gun control. Obama will meet with AG Lynch to discuss more laws that won’t do a damn thing, wouldn’t have stopped any of the previous shootings and will only hamper law abiding citizens and deny them their rights.
[note]I would truly like to see Obama lose all the armed guards who protect him. He should be required to go about his life without armed protection simply because of his stance on firearms. I certainly want to see his family stripped of armed protection.[/note]
Barack Obama is a lying tyrant who is working hard to undermine this nation and bring it to its knees. He despises everything we stand for and will work hard to change us.
His actions on gun violence do nothing to address the reasons people are murdered with firearms. Keep in mind that gun violence and mass shootings are down while gun ownership is WAY up. The problems is not firearms and it certainly is not this false narrative of easily obtained firearms because it is not easy to buy a firearm. Barack wants to close these alleged loopholes and require people who sell arms to conduct background checks (small volume, non regulated private sales). This is not going to work.
The first thing to realize is that these kinds of sales are a small part of the transactions that take place. Secondly, an investigation was unable to find any firearm sold without a background check used in a mass shooting. Third, Maryland has the kind of system in place Obama is discussing. All regulated firearms (the so called assault rifles, basically any rifle that is not rim fire or bolt action) and all handguns MUST be transferred through a holder of a federal firearms license or through the Maryland State Police. ALL transactions including at gun shows or between two neighbors that involve these regulated firearms MUST take place in this fashion. Maryland, with all this and its Draconian gun laws, has a city that is one of the most deadly in the nation. Baltimore had hundreds of gun related homicides last year. It has been shown time and again that those committing the crimes are not permitted to possess a firearm and yet they have them.
None of these laws affect criminals. We call them criminals because they do not obey the law.
Obama wants people to think that buying a firearm is as easy as buying a condom:
“The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone. The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in our defense of our kids.” The Hill
It is not effortless to buy a gun. Many private transactions do not require background checks but they are a small amount of the transactions AND they are not the kinds of firearms used in crimes. Obama is telling people it is effortless to get firearms and this is WRONG. I can understand how he might have this impression because he has been carelessly distributing firearms around the word. For those he supplies it is real easy to get guns.
For the rest of us, not so much.
Notice that Obama once again tugs at the heart saying we must do this for the kids. If you want to do something for the kids how about you end abortion which murders more children than guns?
How about you pass laws making it as difficult to get an abortion as it is to get a gun?
I mean if Obama is really serious about protecting children then he should do this NOW.
No, this sorry excuse for a human and waste of flesh fights to fund Planned Parenthood and to remove all barriers to abortion while going after law abiding citizens and their firearms. He does not care about children.
He cares about control and he will do whatever he has to in order to get it. That includes lying, cheating and breaking the law.
Just think how many more law breakers Obama can make by making laws that the responsible will NOT follow?
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: gun control, lies, lynch, Obama, tyrants
Freddie Gray Case Unravels
There is no doubt that police officers do bad things and get away with them. When these happen it erodes public confidence in the police and the public eventually strikes out at any officer for any act whether it was justified or not.
This seems to be the case with officer William Porter and the other five charged in the death of long time drug dealer and often arrested criminal Freddie Gray. Let me pause here to say that a person’s criminal history does not give the police the right to become judge, jury, and executioner. Every person is presumed innocent no matter how often that person has been in trouble. I get tired of seeing officers and those who support them write that it was good Gray died and that one more scumbag is off the street. While that applies when a criminal dies during the commission of a crime or in a direct confrontation with police there is no evidence Gray fit into that mold (what crime did he actually commit). The reality here is if Gray did something wrong he deserved his day in court but it is also a stark reality that if the judicial system had kept Gray behind bars where he belonged he might still be alive. I am not losing sleep over a dead drug dealer but the backlash of what happened has caused a lot of people restless nights to include six officers.
Porter and five others have been charged with the death of Gray. Each officer faces different charges but they are all charged with some portion of the alleged crime. The problem here is there does not appear to have been a crime committed.
It is possible that one of these officers did something to deliberately harm Gray but there is no proof that such a thing did in fact happen. Officers chased Gray, took him down and into custody. One can question if they had any reason to go after Gray in the first place but there is no evidence they harmed him once they did go after him.
[note]I am aware Gray had a knife (the legality of which is unclear) but it was not found until after they chased and caught him so it was NOT the reason they went after him and claims to the contrary are untrue.[/note]
The prosecution decided to go after Porter first because they believed it was their strongest case and that once he was found guilty he would turn on the others whose cases were not as strong. The prosecution, who rushed to judgement in the first place, had no reason to believe that it would not win a conviction. The thugs in Baltimore have been threatening to riot once again if any verdict other than guilty was returned. The prosecution was counting on fear to get the conviction.
But some brave jurors had other ideas. At least one juror was not convinced that Porter was guilty of the charges and the end result was a mistrial due to a hung jury.
This will have a domino effect. Porter now has to be the one to get convicted in order to have any hope of even trying to get the others.
You see, during his trial the prosecution claimed that Gray’s injuries happened IN THE TRANSPORT VAN. None of the officers who apprehended and arrested Gray were in that van. The prosecution cannot simply change its tune and now claim those officers harmed Gray. In reality, I can’t see how they can go forward with the prosecution of these folks in any event, with or without a Porter conviction. If the prosecution contends that Gray was harmed in the van (which is what they did and is part of the record) how can anyone who was with Gray BEFORE he got in the van be responsible for what happened to him?
The prosecution cannot have it both ways. It cannot simply change its tune and claim Gray was harmed during the arrest. I do not think they should have charged any of the officers but if they were dead set on doing so they should have charged those who had first contact with Gray and claimed he was harmed during the arrest. It would have made more sense to do it this way and then claim Porter ignored Gray’s requests for medical care.
By taking the route she did Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby ensured that in the event of a failure to convict Porter the entire case would unravel.
We are seeing that now.
Baltimore has remained calm so far as people wait to see what comes next. People are aware that Porter can be put on trial again and they are waiting to see if that is the case.
I can’t imagine the political troll Mosby will not retry the case. She wants a conviction, nothing less.
It is up to brave jurors to look at the evidence and take an informed decision. So far that evidence points to not guilty.
And then the riots will begin.
Mosby did this. She convinced the medical examiner to change the ruling on death from accidental to homicide. She has not been forthcoming with evidence and she is playing politics with the lives of six officers who, by all the evidence so far, did not harm Freddie Gray.
Facts do not matter in a mob ruled locality particularly when the desire is revenge not justice.
This is what you get when Democrats run things.
And Baltimore is getting what it deserves.
The real crime is that six officers are getting screwed over in the process.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: baltimore, Democrats, freddie gray, lawless, lies, mistrial, mosby, porter, riots
The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right
Dec 7, 2015 Second Amendment, Tyranny
A piece is posted at Bill Moyers.com by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.
[note]I do not agree with her but as an aside, where was her outrage when the Robert’s court, led by John Roberts, codified Obamacare by changing a penalty to a tax?[/note]
Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.
With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.
[note]If Ms. Samuels and those who think like her believe that only the militia should be armed then we need a lot more people carrying firearms. Title 10 US Code Subsection 311 defines the militia as;
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Cornell Law[/note]
Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.
Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:
It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia
Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.
There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.
So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.
People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.
It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.
All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, dorothy samuels, founders, individual right, lies, Second Amendment
MD AG Brian Frosh; Anti Constitution POS
Oct 1, 2015 Second Amendment, Tyranny
The Attorney General of Maryland, Brian Frosh, has sent a letter to Attorneys General in the other states (even the free ones) asking them to push for gun purchase laws similar to the ones he spearheaded when he was in the Maryland legislature. Frosh and US Congress critter Chris Van Hollen (a waste of human flesh) are working hand in hand as Van Hollen has introduced legislation to force these kinds of licensing schemes on the country.
Both of these men are enemies of the state and should be put in jail for their work against the US Constitution.
Frosh cites a study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The name should tell you all you need to know as this group is not in favor of gun ownership.
The study compared two states and drews conclusions that stretch things to say the least.
In any study of gun laws that affects all 50 states it is cherry picking to select only two for the study. This was done so that a conclusion wanted by the researchers could be obtained. It is a tortuous process but these anti-Constitutional morons have to find a way to lord over you.
Part of Frosh’s statement:
“We can only do so much,” Frosh said at a news conference in Towson. “People can buy guns in our neighboring jurisdictions and bring them across the state lines illegally, and it adds to the violence and deaths that we experience in our state.” The Baltimore Sun
Frosh did quite a lot to impose gun control in Maryland and the murder rate has not declined (in the areas where it has always been an issue, the rural areas have no such problems). People in Baltimore (a liberal run city where the Mayor gives rioters room to destroy the city and attack police) are being shot all the time and they are being shot by people who cannot pass a background check (a federal requirement) and who do not obtain firearms legally.
Though his reasoning is flawed because guns used for violence in Maryland do not, by and large, come from neighboring states (and those that do are obtained illegally by people who can’t legally buy or own them), Frosh’s statement shows that laws do not matter. He says that people can go to other states and buy guns and bring them here ILLEGALLY.
This import from other states is just not happening as people who are not otherwise excluded from firearms ownership do not complete these kinds of strawman purchases. Law abiding people are not breaking the law here, it is the unlawful who are doing so. So if they are already breaking the law how would another law change that?
Frosh is basically and idiot in human skin who suckles at the teat of government to get his paycheck. He is an elitist puke who thinks he can better determine how you should live your life than you can.
Brian ignores the fact that in the recent past while Americans have purchased over 170 million firearms violent crime has dropped by greater than 50%.
More legal guns means less crime.
Frosh has no clue as to what causes crime or why firearms are used. He has no clue as to how they are obtained. He wants strict control that will only affect those who actually obey the law.
But if he thinks I need a license to purchase a firearm I will be happy to show him mine.
It reads like this:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice the words OF THE PEOPLE and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Like I stated earlier, Frosh is not a supporter of the Constitution
He should be in Gitmo…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: anti constitution, brian frosh, gun control, lies, moron, statist