Nov 20, 2013 General
People in Fort Worth Texas were funneled into a single lane and then they were asked to move into a parking lot. There were contractors working on some government program to collect DNA to see the number of people on the road who were driving with an intoxicating substance in their system. People could give a mouth swab, blood or do a breathalyzer.
All of this was voluntary and there were plenty of signs indicating so and people were paid if they gave a mouth swab or blood.
BUT, it did not feel voluntary. People who read the signs and did not want to participate were still forced to pull into the parking lot by Fort Worth police officers. People indicated that they were told it was voluntary but it did not feel voluntary. They were detained even if they did not want to participate.
One of the handouts indicated that the air inside the car was passively monitored for alcohol (this is done with small machines that sample the air which contains the exhaled air of the driver). No one volunteered for that but it was done as part of the process that forced them off the road and delayed them.
It does not matter if the entire exercise was voluntary if the police did not act like it was voluntary. If people believed they were being compelled to participate and if they indicated they did not want to participate and their car’s air was sampled and they were delayed then their rights were violated.
I hope those who did not agree are able to get this resolved with perhaps some sort of legal action. I am not normally a sue them first kind of person but government and its police state is getting more and more brazen in the way it violates our rights.
If we make it hurt by taking their money then perhaps they will get the message and stop violating our rights.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 22, 2013 Political
Jeremy Choate at Sufficient Reason has written a brilliant letter to liberals entitled “Dear Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile” and it is spot on. The portion dealing with people’s rights is well thought and clearly explained so that anyone should be able to understand.
Here is a snippet:
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above [Bill of Rights] require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.
The entire letter is here and I highly recommend it.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 1, 2013 Political
The government swears (and we can trust them) that they are not looking at our stuff. Why, they only collect metadata and only worry about terrorists and people with overseas connections. They are as pure as the driven snow and would never violate the privacy of the citizens of this great nation.
The head of the NSA said so and we can trust a guy whose job is to keep secrets and do spy stuff that no one is allowed to discuss.
Edward Snowden claimed that the government is reading all kinds of stuff and has invasive programs that can snoop through all kinds of things. He said that he, as an analyst, could do it from his desk. It looks like an article in the Guardian confirms what Snowden told us. The government has a program known as XKeyscore which makes available everything you’ve ever done on the internet. We will pause while you think back to what you might be worried about.
OK, XKeyscore searches your browsing history, searches, email content, online chats and your metadata. The very things Snowden said the government could do and the very things the government has denied.
Think the government is not spying on you? A family was visited by the police after the wife searched for pressure cookers and her husband searched for backpacks. While there might be a problem with this and they might be planning something bad the reality is that both items are legal to purchase. The bigger picture item is; how did the government know what they were looking at online?
Let that sink in. There are probably ways that this could have been discovered BUT now that we are aware of the snooping that takes place and its extent one must wonder how government knew this information.
The government continues to deny many things and promises us that it is not invading our privacy but more and more we are seeing that this is not the truth.
As for the XKeyscore program, we are assured that safeguards are in place and it is not used to spy on people.
You mean like the safeguards in place to prevent the IRS from releasing data to other agencies, or being used as a political weapon against certain organizations? Or perhaps like the safeguards in place to keep voters from being intimidated like happened in Philadelphia? Or maybe the safeguards put in place to ensure guns did not get in the hands of criminals under Fast and Furious.
Let’s just say the government has given us no reason whatsoever to trust the alleged safeguards designed to keep our information private and to keep us from having our rights violated. It appears as if the only safe place is wherever Obama’s birth certificate and college transcripts are housed.
One has to wonder if XKeyscore found anything on Chief Justice Roberts. That would explain why he allowed Obamacare to stand by rewriting the law.
In any event, they are spying on us all the time. Keep that in mind. No matter what they say to your face they are spying on you behind your back.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 2, 2013 Political
Washington DC has very strict gun laws, in fact some of the strictest in the nation. Politicians who pass these gun laws tell us that they will keep us safer in spite of the fact that criminals do not obey the law. Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington DC even though he was surrounded by armed guards and there were even striter laws at the time. This proves beyond a doubt that criminals do not obey the law and even the most protected are vulnerable to a determined criminal.
Recently in DC, a man was carjacked and forced, at gunpoint, to sign his vehicle over to an evildoer. The man advertised his 1998 van for sale and agreed to meet a prospective buyer at a location other than his house. The prospective buyer and another person met the seller and took the vehicle for a test drive. The prospective buyer had a wad of cash and a gun. The seller asked why he had a gun and the man nodded to his friend in the back of the van.
Both men pointed guns at the seller and forced him to sign the title to the vehicle over to one of them.
You can read the whole account of the story here.
The point of this post is to ask how could this happen? How could two armed men force another, at gunpoint, to sign a title over in a city that does not allow people to carry guns?
If gun control is the answer to the problem of gun crime then how did this happen in a place that has such strict gun control?
The Democrats in Maryland passed a new gun control law in order to reduce gun related crime so they should take note of what happens in places like DC. The gun laws do not stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes.
The only thing gun laws do is make victims out of law abiding citizens.
Gun control laws do not work, they do not stop criminals from using them and they do not reduce crime. Maryland has tough gun laws now and Baltimore is the City that Bleeds. Things will get worse when the new laws take effect.
Just like they are in DC and every other place where people are denied their Constitutionally protected right to keep and BEAR arms…
Wake up America and wake up People’s Republik of Maryland.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 15, 2013 Political
Liberals who want more gun control will tell you they support the Second Amendment. They will tell you that nothing they are doing will interfere with people and their right to keep and bear arms. This is a lie because the things they enact infringe. Maryland is a prime example where the Nazi Governor and his minions have imposed unconstitutional gun laws that restrict law abiding people. The tragedy is that these gun laws will do no good which will lead to calls for even more gun control.
Liberal logic (if you can call what liberals use logic) demands supporting the Second Amendment.
In light of this week’s revelation that the Department of Justice has obtained phone records from the AP the media is up in arms and there will be backlash. The first thing to note is that what Justice did might not be illegal under the law.
But what they did is much larger in scope than anything that has happened before and though the reason given is to find the source of a leak the reality is it gives the appearance that the First Amendment right of the media has been violated. It looks like Justice is trying to intimidate the media (in this case specifically the AP but indirectly all media) and is sending a message that it will go through huge amounts of records to get what it wants.
The media are out discussing how this took place and expressing their outrage while those at the AP have expressed anger, shock and disbelief. They feel their communications are being monitored and that their rights have been violated.
They have the support of conservatives who are also wary of these kinds of government tactics. In other words, conservatives support these organizations in their belief that even if it is legal to do (and that is a questionable thing right now) the idea of trampling on a right is sickening.
I only wish the media and other liberals outraged by the AP records scandal felt the same way about other rights. When other rights are violated, particularly if the violations affect conservatives, the liberals say it is OK and justified. Look at how the former head of the NAACP and others have reacted to the IRS violations of the rights of conservative groups. They have said that it is OK because those groups are racist. First of all, they are not racist BUT even if they were they have the same rights as everyone else.
Racist groups like the KKK, the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers all have rights and those rights should not be violated just because we do not agree with the message.
Once we start rationalizing the violation of our rights it becomes easier to rationalize other violations until pretty soon we have no rights left.
The left loves to push gun control even though most gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. They rationalize that it is for safety or for the children or that no one needs certain types of firearms. This allows them to continue eroding our Second Amendment right until the judiciary is comfortable removing those rights based on what we have allowed to creep in.
I wish that these liberals would be as outraged by the violation of the Second Amendment as they are at the alleged violation of the First. We on the right support ALL rights and do not like when any of them are violated. It is high time the left jumped in and supported us the way we are supporting them.
Perhaps they now know how those of us who believe in and support the Second Amendment feel each and every day as we battle the forces of evil that are hell bent on denying us that which has been endowed by our Creator. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath.
So the AP scandal shows that liberals, if they actually had any integrity, would fight for the Second Amendment (and all other rights) as hard as the one that affects them the most.
Interestingly, the Gosnell abortion/murder case gave Harry Reid the chance to show why there should be less gun control instead of more.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor who murdered babies born alive and performed late term abortions in violation of Pennsylvania law. He was found guilty of murder and a number of other charges and will spend the rest of his life in jail.
Harry Reid wants us to believe that pro life supporters have forced women to go to clinics like the one run by Gosnell. He says that people have been pushed into holes like that clinic because of people who picket abortion clinics. Reid also blamed this all on restrictive laws.
He believes that having less restrictive abortion laws would have prevented the murders Gosnell committed.
Interestingly, Reid and his ilk are the ones who think that MORE restrictive laws will curb gun violence. Yes, to Reid and other gun grabbers more restrictive laws will stop gun crimes but less restrictive laws will end the crimes like those committed by Gosnell.
If we were to apply Reid’s logic to gun ownership (and publicly carrying them), then we can conclude that less restrictive laws will prevent more gun crimes. In fact, this has actually been proven time and again.
Reid is incorrect about Gosnell. We do not need less restrictive laws for abortion. The crimes committed by Gosnell had nothing to do with laws being too restrictive. They had to do with this; First Gosnell is a monster. Second, Gosnell performed late term abortions (after the time PA says they can be performed) so women who waited too long or did not know went to him because he would do it. They went to him because he would skirt the law.
His clinic was not filthy because of laws that are too restrictive and he did not have all those aborted kids in containers because the law was too tough.
His clinic was in that condition and he was doing what he was doing because it was not inspected by the government agency responsible for ensuring medical businesses are clean and operate according to established law (and medical standards). The Health Department (or whichever agency PA has given the task) did not make unannounced visits to ensure his clinic was clean and up to standard. Less restrictive regulations would not correct this and it did not happen because people protest abortion clinics. It happened because the laws in place were not followed; the laws requiring health inspections as well as the laws regarding late term abortions. Any inspection at any time would have caught these problems early on.
Keep in mind; they were only brought to light because a woman died at his clinic because of his negligence.
Harry Reid is wrong because his root cause analysis is wrong. He is right that less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems if this were applied to gun control because that has been shown time and again. Criminals do not obey the law.
Gosnell got away with his crimes because the state did not enforce the law (which, by the way, is why many gun crimes happen).
So the media is now positioned to defend rights. Good, defend them all and apply the same standard to the Second Amendment as to the First.
Harry Reid is now on record saying less restrictive laws would lead to fewer problems. Good, beat him and the other anti gun zealots over their heads with Reid’s words. Make them apply the same standard he wants to apply to abortion. He might be wrong about why they happened but there is no doubt he believes fewer laws would mean fewer problems.
It is ironic how all of this has come to light at this time.
I think it is quite possible that these items (including the IRS scandal) were made public (and Reid commented on Gosnell) because they want to draw focus away from Benghazi.
I have read a lot of liberal sites where they are calling the AP scandal the only real scandal of the Obama regime. If the left can get the public to believe the AP phone records scheme is the only scandal and then later show Justice acted legally then the other scandals (which are REAL scandals) will be swept away.
I do not put anything past these criminals but we should use their words and deeds to our advantage. Who knows, maybe we can change their minds and get them to see where they have been wrong. We might be able to make them leave the liberal plantation.
Hell, a few pro abortion folks have changed their views after the horror of Gosnell.
Never surrender, never submit.