| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Respect My Authoritah | ||||
| ||||
Even liberals are now realizing Obama is not a man of the people.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Jon Stewart on Obama's broken civil liberties promises
Even liberals are now realizing Obama is not a man of the people.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Letter “P”
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You should recognize those words as the preamble to the United States of America. Preamble is our first “P” word. Exactly what is a preamble and the Preamble. According to Dictionary.com:
pre•am•ble
–noun
1. an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
2. the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3. a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: His childhood in the slums was a preamble to a life of crime.
4. ( initial capital letter ) the introductory statement of the U.S. Constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”
Like the Declaration of Independence sets forth and describes the purpose of our government, the Preamble to the constitution sets forth the general principles of out government.
Purpose is our next “P” word. Exactly what is the purpose of our government? That is a very easy question to answer it was spelled out in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Most people in government want more and more power have plainly persistently perverted the meaning of the constitution, and ignore the principles and purpose proposed and instituted by our forefathers for our government. They use the "general welfare" clause to validate social welfare and wealth re-distrubution. From the Preamble it is clear that government funded charity was never a principle espoused by our constitution or our forefathers. It was never a principle or duty or requirement of our government to provide for citizens, but always to promote their welfare by protecting individual rights.
Lets go back to dictionary.com and look at our other two "P" words, both are found in the Preamble.
pro•mote
–verb (used with object), -mot•ed, -mot•ing.
pro•vide
–verb (used with object)
–verb (used without object)
Obviously our forefathers knew the difference between promoting something and providing something. All the writings of our forefathers are consistent with the idea that the federal government was never given the power to provide charity. It is also obvious that they thought the government does and should have the authority to provide for the common defense, hence fund the military, which I believe includes providing for the health and well being of soldiers (even after they retire). Obviously they used the correct “P” word to indicate what they thought was the purpose and principles if government, and what government should promote and provide. Just because we have allowed our leadership over the past 70 years to slowly add more and more charitable provision for general welfare does not make it right.
Promoting the General Welfare does not and should not include providing for the specific welfare of individual citizens.
This message was brought to you by the letter “P”, which stands for preamble, principle, purpose, protect, promote and provide. If you understand the meaning of these words, you probably understand that we are in a mess because our elected leaders either don’t understand them, or choose to ignore them.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Equal Justice For All
Since a little kid I’ve been saying the pledge of allegiance, no doubt you have too; “I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic “… yada, yada, yada … “with Liberty and Justice for All.” Our elected leaders regularly reaffirm this pledge. The Supreme Court Building in DC has inscribed over its doors “Equal Justice Under the Law” Our Constitution starts out in the Preamble to “Establish Justice.” The Declaration of Independence is almost entirely based on the effect of the colonies not receiving equal justice from the King. When it was found that our constitution did not adequately provide equal justice for all we’ve added the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th, amendments. The people of this nation have not copied or tried to emulate other nations, but have set an example, worked and fought for Equal Justice for All.
The concept of Equal Justice for All is not new, The earliest reference I can find to is it from the Bible, Leviticus 19:14-16 "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly". Unlike virtually every other nation in the world, our country has tried to create a system of governance that upholds the idea of Equal Justice For All, or "rule of law." B.H. Obama clearly does not believe in equal justice. The concept may be dead with the current majority of leaders in our formerly great nation. The USA appears to be moving away from its constitutional foundation and towards some bastardized oligarchy.
Consider a regular person who’s made some bad financial decisions, too big a mortgage, racked up big credit card debts, and is paying for a car they can’t afford, so is forced into bankruptcy. The court sells off all the assets and repays the debts according to the law. Since the mortgage and car were secured by the assets in question they get paid off first, if there is any remaining the unsecured credit cards get what’s left. Consider GM’s bankruptcy, rather than follow the law, the Obama administration forced agreements which paid off the unsecured creditors (Trade Unions) first, and forced acceptance of minimal payments to the secured mortgage holders of GM property. This is not equal justice; this is political payback for union support. GM should have been held to the same standard every other person in debt in this country is held to.
Our system has been perverted by both parties. Instead of equal justice for all, we are now seeing a different set of rules for the rich and powerful than for the people. Our elected leader in Washington, Democrat or Republican, no longer take their direction from the people, but from corporate benefactors whose wealth and access shape policy. The current administration has openly offered political jobs in order to sway elections. Corporations and the super rich have made a virtual science of manipulating the system to protect themselves from competition and regulation and our self interested politicians fight each other to accommodate them. We end up with a system where profits are privatized and the debts are socialized. For the ruling elite it’s a great system, if your decisions are profitable you get to keep the profits, if your decisions are not profitable you get to pass your losses to the tax payers. The whole concept of “Too Big to Fail” is antithetical to the concept of Equal Justice for All. The banks and Wall Street, should have been allowed to fail just like main street. Forcing Main Street (you and I) to absorb and take the debt of the banks and Wall Street is not Equal Justice; It’s not free enterprise, it’s not capitalism, it’s not even socialism. We are starting to look not like a Democracy or Republic but a Kleptocratic Oligarchy.
Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to purchase GM and make it a government/union owned corporation at the expense of its investors and tax payers. Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to bail out banks which made very bad business decisions. Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to create a slush fund for the president to pay off political cronies. These are the actions of a Kleptocracy not a republic.
From Wikipedia
The concept of Equal Justice for All is not new, The earliest reference I can find to is it from the Bible, Leviticus 19:14-16 "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly". Unlike virtually every other nation in the world, our country has tried to create a system of governance that upholds the idea of Equal Justice For All, or "rule of law." B.H. Obama clearly does not believe in equal justice. The concept may be dead with the current majority of leaders in our formerly great nation. The USA appears to be moving away from its constitutional foundation and towards some bastardized oligarchy.
Consider a regular person who’s made some bad financial decisions, too big a mortgage, racked up big credit card debts, and is paying for a car they can’t afford, so is forced into bankruptcy. The court sells off all the assets and repays the debts according to the law. Since the mortgage and car were secured by the assets in question they get paid off first, if there is any remaining the unsecured credit cards get what’s left. Consider GM’s bankruptcy, rather than follow the law, the Obama administration forced agreements which paid off the unsecured creditors (Trade Unions) first, and forced acceptance of minimal payments to the secured mortgage holders of GM property. This is not equal justice; this is political payback for union support. GM should have been held to the same standard every other person in debt in this country is held to.
Our system has been perverted by both parties. Instead of equal justice for all, we are now seeing a different set of rules for the rich and powerful than for the people. Our elected leader in Washington, Democrat or Republican, no longer take their direction from the people, but from corporate benefactors whose wealth and access shape policy. The current administration has openly offered political jobs in order to sway elections. Corporations and the super rich have made a virtual science of manipulating the system to protect themselves from competition and regulation and our self interested politicians fight each other to accommodate them. We end up with a system where profits are privatized and the debts are socialized. For the ruling elite it’s a great system, if your decisions are profitable you get to keep the profits, if your decisions are not profitable you get to pass your losses to the tax payers. The whole concept of “Too Big to Fail” is antithetical to the concept of Equal Justice for All. The banks and Wall Street, should have been allowed to fail just like main street. Forcing Main Street (you and I) to absorb and take the debt of the banks and Wall Street is not Equal Justice; It’s not free enterprise, it’s not capitalism, it’s not even socialism. We are starting to look not like a Democracy or Republic but a Kleptocratic Oligarchy.
Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to purchase GM and make it a government/union owned corporation at the expense of its investors and tax payers. Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to bail out banks which made very bad business decisions. Our tax funds which could have been used for hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like were used to create a slush fund for the president to pay off political cronies. These are the actions of a Kleptocracy not a republic.
From Wikipedia
The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life.It’s scary how the effects of our current leadership resemble those Wikipedia describes as the effects of a kleptocracy.
In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy. The quasi-oligarchy that results from a kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Elites hate Citizen Journalism
The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.
The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.
Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).
The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.
The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).
Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?
It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
People in power really don't like that whole freedom of speech and press thing, as it can be used to expose them and to sway public opinion in ways they can't control. Lucky for them the freedom of the press was very costly; few if any people could afford a printing press, or as technology advanced a Radio Station, or TV station. Because exercising your right to free press and free speech, was relatively expensive, the rich and powerful maintained control of the message to which the masses of people were exposed. About the most any individual citizen could do to print a very limited number of hand bills and try to hand them out. This is effective and can work for small local elections, but for state and federal elections the cost of the press pretty much makes upper levels of politics a domain for the rich ruling elite. They like it that way.
The past 20 years have seen a revolution in information. The press, printing and disseminating information to large numbers of people has gone from being a hugely expensive undertaking to costing almost nothing. Now instead of a relative few people who can report news and opinion, anybody who wants to can. Virtually all of America walks around with cell phone that has instant access to free news, and includes a still or video camera in their pocket. This means that when the police or some other government agent days or does something, it can and is routinely reported by ordinary people, no longer does an “Editor” or somebody in charge decide to spike a story, or lie about it uncontested. With virtually everybody having the ability to almost instantly and for virtually no cost, verify the veracity of a news story, or politician’s claims, there is no question that the quality and truthfulness of news is better.
Dan Rather, arguably the most influential reporter in history, had his career ended because he was playing by the old rules, where what CBS said was fact, was treated as fact, and nobody had enough voice to challenge those facts. When he used what he knew to be forged National Guard documents, to try and end the Rino president G.W. Bush’s second term election bid. It was the internet, and dogged research by people outside of the “mainstream” news that ended up killing his career. The 24 year CBS Veteran, is now relegated to reporting for HDNet News LINK. As of this writing his web page at HDNet does have 261 people who like it. Even the Libertarian Party (of which I’m an active member), the small party that the mainstream press tries to make irrelevant, has around 55,000 people who like it. Obviously either mainstream press is very much in error on the LP or Dan Rather is virtually nonexistent as a news reporter (could be both).
The point is that the power elite people with money, be they Democrat or Republican can no longer dole out favors, bribes, and access, to control the press. The press is no longer just who can afford to Print a Paper, or Own a TV station. The Press is now anybody and everybody who wants to say “Look at what’s Happening!” Whether it’s a human interest story about a dog nursing a kitten, or the police violating civil rights or an established member of the “Mainstream” press spouting off anti-Semitic remarks, youtube, google, FaceBook, Yahoo, and the entire Blogosphere have given you and me a voice. The whole point of freedom of the press and free choice is that people are free to choose what news if any they want, where they get it, and what it’s worth both financially and credibly.
The powers in government and big business really really really don’t like this. June 15th at the National Press Club the FTC is having a work shop titled "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The FTC and the ruling elite seem to think that Journalism cannot survive without the help of Government. Because of this stupid internet the public, has been able to see their 47-page of draft recommendations titled, POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM . Since people read about it and started saying, “Woa, what about freedom of the press?” the FTC has had to release a press release saying that these are only “Ideas” and not really “recommendations” (LINK).
Some of the proposed Recommendations include “Drudge Tax” and “Licensing the News” the major goal is to keep the old print press in business and power, and make news “Publicly funded”. Once the government funds the news, don’t you think that the guy with the purse strings might just influence news. Look at NPR, they do quality work, but there can be no argument that NPR is unbiased. NPR has a clear agenda against conservative ideas, and even more ardent agenda against Libertarian ideas. This is what publicly funded news will look like. If the FTC and the big business big government pro-dual party ruling elite get there way, this very blog, where I posted this editorial, will no longer be legal. If you look at history, and other countries, you see that freedom of the press is directly proportional to individual freedom. China and other repressive countries insist on controlling the news and access to news. Control of what information people have access, makes controlling the people easier. Ask yourself why our government is trying to limit and better control who can and can’t publish news?
It really looks like politicians and rich communication business conglomerates wish the whole first amendment didn’t exist. The ruling elite do not want citizen journalism. They want to put news and opinion back in to the control of those with big money. All of the proposed “Policies” to “reinvent journalism” violate the 1st amendment. I don’t care if your Republican or Democrat (but I hope your neither), this is an issue that cannot go ignored, and I urge you to contact all your representatives and remind them that they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
An Apology to Liberals
This is a hart felt apology to all my liberal friends and acquaintances. I have often in the past entered into heated debates on health care, property rights, taxes, welfare, and the like. I've consistently presented historical evidence and libertarian views. Whether or not they realize it; virtually all these debates center on economics. I'm sorry; the research has confirmed what others have written about, and I failed to accept. Liberals do not, and possibly cannot, understand basic economics. In the Buturovic and Klein article in the Econ Journal Watch, Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans, it was shown that regardless of education level, liberals do not understand basic economics.
In his Wall Street Journal Opinion based on his research Klein writes
The huge disparity between liberals and libertarians cannot be ignored. Liberals do not understand economics. Now when faced with economic facts, not opinions, liberals dismiss the facts as irrelevant, because they desperately want a desired outcome, the will sacrifice freedom and liberty against all rationality to reach their desire. I found Buturovic’s and Klein’s conclusions about liberals in education to be compelling.
I dismissed a 2007 book by Psychologist Dr. Lyle Rossiter, because I thought it may be politically not scientifically motivated, I must also apologize to Dr. Rossiter. I was wrong. His observations were exactly correct, the Buturovic and Klein confirm his observations.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Obviously hammering liberals with facts, and trying to hold them accountable to logic and historical evidence is pointless. They simply cannot understand economic reality because the very neurosis that makes them liberal makes it impossible for them to comprehend the results of their actions. A prime current example is the talk of another Stimulus Package from the government in the wake of the demonstrable failure of both TARP, from liberal Republican G.W. Bush’s administration, and the Economic Stimulus Package, by the Obama Administration.
To all my liberal friends and associates, whose sensibilities and feelings I’ve hurt, I’m sorry, I didn’t accept the facts of your condition when they were presented to me. I now understand that it is beyond your ability to discern the normal responsibilities of adulthood, and accept individual responsibility and liberty.
In his Wall Street Journal Opinion based on his research Klein writes
Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.
Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.
. . .
In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.
The huge disparity between liberals and libertarians cannot be ignored. Liberals do not understand economics. Now when faced with economic facts, not opinions, liberals dismiss the facts as irrelevant, because they desperately want a desired outcome, the will sacrifice freedom and liberty against all rationality to reach their desire. I found Buturovic’s and Klein’s conclusions about liberals in education to be compelling.
I dismissed a 2007 book by Psychologist Dr. Lyle Rossiter, because I thought it may be politically not scientifically motivated, I must also apologize to Dr. Rossiter. I was wrong. His observations were exactly correct, the Buturovic and Klein confirm his observations.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Obviously hammering liberals with facts, and trying to hold them accountable to logic and historical evidence is pointless. They simply cannot understand economic reality because the very neurosis that makes them liberal makes it impossible for them to comprehend the results of their actions. A prime current example is the talk of another Stimulus Package from the government in the wake of the demonstrable failure of both TARP, from liberal Republican G.W. Bush’s administration, and the Economic Stimulus Package, by the Obama Administration.
To all my liberal friends and associates, whose sensibilities and feelings I’ve hurt, I’m sorry, I didn’t accept the facts of your condition when they were presented to me. I now understand that it is beyond your ability to discern the normal responsibilities of adulthood, and accept individual responsibility and liberty.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
111th Congress Assaults Civil Rights
Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr points out how the current contress is assaulting Civil Liberties at an alarming rate.
Pre-paid cell phones may be outlawed
June 7, 2010, by Bob Barr
This session of the 111th Congress has been one that will go down in infamy by virtue of its assault on privacy and other civil liberties. Several of these problematic provisions have not yet made it to President Barack Obama’s desk, but in today’s political environment, resisting them will be difficult. Many in the Congress still tremble as a result of the Times Square bombing attempt; even as many also remain gripped by the hysteria surrounding the as-yet unproven Toyota rogue acceleration problem.
The latest civil liberties victim of Times Square Brainiac Faisal Shahzad’s feeble attempt at terrorism fame is the pre-paid cell phone. This innocuous device, available now to virtually anyone wishing to buy a cheap cell phone useable for a limited period, represents perhaps the last opportunity for a person to communicate anonymously. Yet, these devices are being targeted for extinction by a pair of United States Senators simply because the failed Times Square bomber used one in his preparatory activities; and law enforcement discovered this not because the purchase of the cell phone was recorded in an accessible database, but because Shahzad made at least one call to a number already on a government list of suspected terrorists.
Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer now has teamed with his Republican colleague from Texas, John Cornyn, and introduced a bill that would employ the heavy hand of federal law to prohibit anonymous cell phones. Leaving aside the question of where the Congress finds authority in the Constitution to do this, it is certain that many of their colleagues will jump at this latest chance to prove they are as tough on terrorists as the next guy, whatever the cost to the rest of the citizenry.
While Sens. Schumer and Cornyn may believe that the only people who purchase prepaid cell phones are terrorists, the fact is, many average, law-abiding citizens use such devices regularly. Some people do so because they may not have the funds or the creditworthiness to buy a cell phone with a network plan. Others may do so precisely because of the anonymity such phones offer; something especially important for journalists to be able to protect communications with their sources from being revealed.
No matter to Schumer or Cornyn. To prevent one possible bad guy from purchasing a single prepaid cell phone, they’ll use their power as senators to prevent anyone from having one.
The Times Square incident is not the only reason the Congress is seeking to curb the rights and privacy of all Americans. The hysteria resulting from last spring’s Toyota recall has energized the Congress to accelerate a move to require “black box” computers in every new car sold in America. This legislation, which was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely fast-tracked for an election-year floor vote, not only will add to the cost of a new vehicle but raises a host of privacy problems for the owners and drivers of such vehicles.
In typical fashion, the House committee left it up to bureaucrats at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to decide what information the black boxes will monitor and record. The actual owner of the vehicle will not know what information about his car or his driving is being recorded, or who will have access to the data.
In perhaps the most outrageous assault yet on Americans’ civil liberties this Congress, the House recently voted (with no Democrats and only 32 Republicans opposed) to greatly expand government’s ability to forcibly collect DNA samples from persons simply arrested for alleged criminal behavior. The measure does this by giving taxpayer monies to any state that passes a law doing the federal government’s bidding in this regard.
One shudders to contemplate what the next Congress will do to match or exceed the anti-civil liberties record of this one.
Pre-paid cell phones may be outlawed
June 7, 2010, by Bob Barr
This session of the 111th Congress has been one that will go down in infamy by virtue of its assault on privacy and other civil liberties. Several of these problematic provisions have not yet made it to President Barack Obama’s desk, but in today’s political environment, resisting them will be difficult. Many in the Congress still tremble as a result of the Times Square bombing attempt; even as many also remain gripped by the hysteria surrounding the as-yet unproven Toyota rogue acceleration problem.
The latest civil liberties victim of Times Square Brainiac Faisal Shahzad’s feeble attempt at terrorism fame is the pre-paid cell phone. This innocuous device, available now to virtually anyone wishing to buy a cheap cell phone useable for a limited period, represents perhaps the last opportunity for a person to communicate anonymously. Yet, these devices are being targeted for extinction by a pair of United States Senators simply because the failed Times Square bomber used one in his preparatory activities; and law enforcement discovered this not because the purchase of the cell phone was recorded in an accessible database, but because Shahzad made at least one call to a number already on a government list of suspected terrorists.
Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer now has teamed with his Republican colleague from Texas, John Cornyn, and introduced a bill that would employ the heavy hand of federal law to prohibit anonymous cell phones. Leaving aside the question of where the Congress finds authority in the Constitution to do this, it is certain that many of their colleagues will jump at this latest chance to prove they are as tough on terrorists as the next guy, whatever the cost to the rest of the citizenry.
While Sens. Schumer and Cornyn may believe that the only people who purchase prepaid cell phones are terrorists, the fact is, many average, law-abiding citizens use such devices regularly. Some people do so because they may not have the funds or the creditworthiness to buy a cell phone with a network plan. Others may do so precisely because of the anonymity such phones offer; something especially important for journalists to be able to protect communications with their sources from being revealed.
No matter to Schumer or Cornyn. To prevent one possible bad guy from purchasing a single prepaid cell phone, they’ll use their power as senators to prevent anyone from having one.
The Times Square incident is not the only reason the Congress is seeking to curb the rights and privacy of all Americans. The hysteria resulting from last spring’s Toyota recall has energized the Congress to accelerate a move to require “black box” computers in every new car sold in America. This legislation, which was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely fast-tracked for an election-year floor vote, not only will add to the cost of a new vehicle but raises a host of privacy problems for the owners and drivers of such vehicles.
In typical fashion, the House committee left it up to bureaucrats at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to decide what information the black boxes will monitor and record. The actual owner of the vehicle will not know what information about his car or his driving is being recorded, or who will have access to the data.
In perhaps the most outrageous assault yet on Americans’ civil liberties this Congress, the House recently voted (with no Democrats and only 32 Republicans opposed) to greatly expand government’s ability to forcibly collect DNA samples from persons simply arrested for alleged criminal behavior. The measure does this by giving taxpayer monies to any state that passes a law doing the federal government’s bidding in this regard.
One shudders to contemplate what the next Congress will do to match or exceed the anti-civil liberties record of this one.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Patrick J. Michaels : More Political Climate Science - Townhall.com
Just more evidence that Man Made Global Warming theory is about power not science and the politicization of academics. Of course that's not new ask Galileo.
Patrick J. Michaels : More Political Climate Science - Townhall.com
Patrick J. Michaels : More Political Climate Science - Townhall.com
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Jail for Email
Widely reported on the internet, but absent the Alphabet Media, we find that the first amendment is dead, no longer valid, and expressing your dissatisfaction with a duly elected federal government official can earn you an indictment.
Bruce Shore, watching the Senate in inaction on C-Span, was angered when Bunning complained that, gosh, he has missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because he had to be in Congress to debate an unemployment-benefits bill. His Feb. 26 email in part said "Are you'all insane[?] No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?"
The results are that on May 13, U.S. marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment. He was indicted because Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."
Use a telephone, email, blog, tweet, etc. to "annoy" the person who receives the communications and you can go to jail. That's right send an email or fax to your duly elected official and if it annoys that official you too can be indicted by a grand jury.
To quote the infamous commentator Earl Pitts, "WAKE UP AMARICA!"
The government can make an example of one or two to try and shut up the American people, but 10 or 20 million of us will make it impossible for the government to do anything. Regardless of your political affiliation, this is an affront to your right to free speech. If they can send you to jail for an angry email to your congressman, then we have no freedom. We need to overwhelm the government, I urge everybody to send an email to all their federally elected officials saying "Are you'all insane?, DO YOU GET IT? What you’re doing effects me."
Bruce Shore, watching the Senate in inaction on C-Span, was angered when Bunning complained that, gosh, he has missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because he had to be in Congress to debate an unemployment-benefits bill. His Feb. 26 email in part said "Are you'all insane[?] No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?"
The results are that on May 13, U.S. marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment. He was indicted because Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."
Use a telephone, email, blog, tweet, etc. to "annoy" the person who receives the communications and you can go to jail. That's right send an email or fax to your duly elected official and if it annoys that official you too can be indicted by a grand jury.
To quote the infamous commentator Earl Pitts, "WAKE UP AMARICA!"
The government can make an example of one or two to try and shut up the American people, but 10 or 20 million of us will make it impossible for the government to do anything. Regardless of your political affiliation, this is an affront to your right to free speech. If they can send you to jail for an angry email to your congressman, then we have no freedom. We need to overwhelm the government, I urge everybody to send an email to all their federally elected officials saying "Are you'all insane?, DO YOU GET IT? What you’re doing effects me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
