How Far Will Government Intrude Into Our Lives?
May 24, 2011 Political
The federal government under the watchful eye of Barack O’Bama (nobody is more Irish you know) is making sure that no one spreads lies about the Dear Leader. Now I don’t really care if the O’Bama regime is out there monitoring the Internet but I also know that the lies end up being anything they do not like about O’Bama. The one thing I want to know; is the person hired to work in the White House Communications Department to specifically build Obama’s online presence and squash negative stories paid for with taxpayer dollars? If Jesse Lee, the Director of Progressive Media and Online Response is being paid for with taxpayer dollars he better not be doing anything that deals with reelecting O’Bama, which is what this position is described as. Keep an eye folks, if your money is being spent on campaign items it is a violation of the law.
So with O’Bama’s spies watching to make sure you do not talk badly about Dear Leader, there is another intrusion into states rights and our lives by the federal government. The federal government wants to pass a law to force motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Before some loon liberal jumps in here let me make it clear. I think that wearing a helmet, just like wearing a seatbelt, is a smart thing to do but I also feel it is up to states to decide and if states do not take a decision then it is up to the individual. It is as simple as that. The federal government does not belong intruding into our lives this way. Like I said, I think it is smart to wear safety equipment but I feel it should be a state issue or an individual issue. The only thing I think regarding this is if people decide not to wear a helmet or a seatbelt and those people get injured in an accident then they should have to pay the costs that insurance does not and if they die their families cannot sue. Other than that, be free.
As if this is not bad enough, the federal government wants to install black boxes on all new cars.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is expected to issue new regulations next month that will require a black box style data recorder be fitted in all new cars. DVICE
The devices will record data about speed, seatbelt use, and brake application prior to accidents. The details being worked out now are who can access the data and when. This is a bad idea and it is Big Sis prying into our lives. There is no reason for them to know my speed, whether I used my seatbelt (see above) or how my brake was applied before I ran into something.
I understand that they can use the information to figure out what happened and who was to blame but that is not a good reason to allow the intrusion into our lives. If they had everyone’s DNA it would be easier to identify remains but that does not mean we should all provide a sample. Like DNA collection, the black boxes and the information they contain can (and will) be abused. The military collects DNA and when that program started it was ONLY for identification of remains as the result of conflict or other service connected deaths. Now the information is part of the national database.
How long will it be before the government decides to track our movements or issue speeding tickets based on information in the black boxes?
The federal government does not belong involved in our lives. How long will it be before the people push back?
Sadly, many will be silent as their rights are taken away and government intrudes into their lives.
And that kind of apathy is what allowed a group of people to be marched into gas chambers.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: black boxes, government lies, helmets, intrusion, Obama, Privacy, rights, seatbelts
Free Speech Gets Travelers More Scrutiny
Apr 17, 2011 Political
Be wary air passengers, the TSA is on the lookout for those of you who voice your disgust at the methods they employ in the name of safety. Part of their profiling system includes looking for passengers who are “[V]ery arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures.” In other words, if you express your opinion they get to decide if it is arrogant and full of contempt and then they can subject you to more invasive screening. Since these are arbitrary it is solely up to TSA to decide.
One civil rights group explains it as such:
“Expressing your contempt about airport procedures — that’s a First Amendment-protected right,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We all have the right to express our views, and particularly in a situation where the government is demanding the ability to search you.”
“It’s circular reasoning where, you know, I’m going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that’s evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it’s simply inappropriate,” he said. CNN
There is, of course, a difference between being unruly or disorderly and expressing dissatisfaction with how things are done. The TSA however, gets to decide on the matter and will use more in depth screening as a punishment (rather than a security tool) should a traveler decide to express an opinion about how the TSA is doing its job.
This is another attempt to silence the traveling public and get it to accept what is being done without uttering a peep. It is an effort to gain more acceptance of the loss of rights.
The Fourth Amendment is violated and now the First Amendment joins an ever growing list of individual rights that are being eroded by the government.
And if you don’t like it, armed people will surround you and force you to submit.
Just as my friend Ogre always points out.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, government tyranny, lies, rights, tsa
Rights-Free Zones
Dec 17, 2010 Political
I find it interesting, but also quite consistent, to note that another government agency has decided to set up an area where people do not have rights. This time it’s the Washington Metro. After all, claim the police, you don’t HAVE to use the Metro, so they’re not taking away your rights — instead you’re volunteering to give them away — to use a government service.
We have already created numerous places where you have no First Amendment rights — courthouses, public gatherings, places where government officials gather, and “free speech zones” during times of meetings.
We’ve created other zones where you have no Second Amendment rights — near government employees, post offices, banks, anywhere near schools or children, etc.
We now also have places where you have no Fourth Amendment — airports, courthouses, and now the Washington Metro. Why not?
Do you notice one of the similarities between all these places where you have to surrender your rights (voluntarily, of course)? Nearly all of them are places that are built with taxpayer dollars, and/or include people who are paid with taxpayer dollars. And that, of course, is the absolutely opposite of what was intended by the Constitution. But hey, the US Constitution hasn’t been used in decades, so why start now?
Side note: 5th amendment doesn’t apply any more — you can be literally deprived of liberty without cause (arrested without being charged with a crime); 6th amendment doesn’t apply: impartial juries are outlawed in many places today (see FIJA); 7th amendment varies, you can be “administratively” fined without jury; I could easily go on.
I do wonder why they skipped the third amendment. After all, we could save a lot of money if we’d just force people to quarter military members in their homes. I mean, have people “volunteer” to house soldiers.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: government, rights, taxpayers
Give Me Liberty…
Nov 26, 2010 Political
…Or give me death.
Immortal words from a speech given by Patrick Henry (published after his death).
Interestingly, there are many people today who choose something other than liberty and they make no bones about it. Jules Witcover, writing in the Baltimore Sun, has produced a piece in which he describes the enhanced security procedures of the TSA as a sacrifice for the security of our nation. Witcover equates this sacrifice to the sacrifices made by the people who fought or supported WW II and to a lesser extent Vietnam.
Witcover describes sacrifices made by people during those tumultuous periods of our history and then goes on to say that those who are squeamish about making sacrifices now can stay home on Thanksgiving and watch football (not a bad idea regardless).
But what Witcover fails to see is the distinction between personal sacrifice as in doing without or collecting for the war effort and the sacrifice of liberty.
During WW II Americans did without quite a bit in order to support the war effort. Food was rationed and people collected rubber and scrap metal to help the war effort. Americans bought savings bonds to support the effort. These are all admirable things and none of them involved sacrificing LIBERTY.
The enhanced screening done by the TSA is an invasion of privacy and an affront to our rights. We have a right to travel by air (as codified in the United States Code) and we have a right not to be searched without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects us against such invasions.
Witcover thinks that we should ignore our rights and acquiesce to the government because, to him, it is no big deal to have this disregard of our rights in the name of security. It is, as he points out, a sacrifice that we should make.
Americans are not dismissing the need for security at our airports though one could argue that the procedures in place are hit and miss and that anyone with ill intent could easily breach security. The issue with the enhanced procedures, as I see it, is not about security but about control (the process is a great example of the Overton Window). There are other non intrusive methods available that have proven more effective. The Israelis use a method of profiling that screens passengers and weeds them out to those who pose no threat and those who might. Those who might are given a more thorough look while those who are not are sent on their way.
The Israelis have not had problems with terrorists getting on their planes.
My message to Mr. Witcover and others who think like him is that we should never, ever give up our liberty in the name of security. We are not the enemy and we are not the threat. Those who are can be better identified and dealt with without subjecting the rest of us to intrusive searches.
We are Americans and we have rights and we should never abandon those rights in the name of security.
As Ben Franklin stated; “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Those, like Witcover, who would give up their liberty in order to have the temporary security on an airplane deserve neither liberty or security.
What do you say we actually work on targeting those who would do us harm and leave the non invasive screening for those who value their liberty?
Mr. Witcover, it is admirable to sacrifice during times of trouble and past generations have shown what sacrifice is but they did so without sacrificing their liberty. While one could argue that this generation is sacrificing little in the way of supporting the war effort, that should not be an excuse to demand that people sacrifice their liberty.
America is the land of the free because it is the home of the brave and that includes the brave people who stand up to tyranny from their own government. It includes those who refuse to allow their rights to be violated in the name of security.
I wonder where Mr. Witcover would stand if the government decided, in the name of security, that all articles from journalists had to got through the government to be censored. Jules, would you be willing to sacrifice in that instance or do you only value some rights?
The entire text attributed to Patrick Henry is as follows:
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Substitute the word security for peace in the quote and you will have my answer to Mr. Witcover’s request for sacrifice.
I don’t plan on dying anytime soon and I certainly don’t plan on giving up my liberty.
Remember, the only way you can lose your rights is to give them away.
And if that is the kind of sacrifice you want then you can count me out…
You can contact Mr. Witcover at juleswitcover@comcast.net
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: baltimore sun, ben franklin, jules witcover, lies, overton window, patrick henry, rights, sacrifice
Right to Travel?
Nov 19, 2010 Political
So, a simple question — do we, as American citizens, have a right to travel in an airplane? According to the TSA, no. According to Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, no. According to the head of Homeland Stupidity Security, no. According to US law, yes!
A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.
— US Code Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart i, Chapter 401, Section 40103.
Huh. Oh, I guess laws only apply when and where the law enforcement people want them to. And only to people who are not part of the government elite.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]