A headline at the Daily Caller reads; “Gun crime continues to decrease, despite increase in gun sales” as if the expected outcome of more guns is more gun crime. What it should read is; “Gun crime continues to decrease, because of the increase in gun sales.”

It has been shown time and again that an increase in gun ownership results in a lower rate of gun (and most other) crime because criminals don’t know who is armed and who is not. People in Texas are less likely to be the victims of crime than are the people of Massachusetts or Maryland because people in Texas own (and carry) weapons. Their state does not infringe upon the people’s rights like other states.

People are victims of crime because their government enables criminals and places citizens at a disadvantage. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Liberals will ignore the facts and discount the reality that more guns means less crime. That has been shown in many states where guns are readily available and where lots of people own them and liberals still don’t get it.

No, it will no doubt be attributed to Obama and his leadership.

Come to think of it, more people own guns because of Obama so maybe he is responsible for the decrease in crime.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The TSA has been X-Raying, metal detecting, searching, feeling, groping, and molesting for a long time now and has not caught one terrorist. Big Sis tells us we need this invasive security to ensure we are safe on the planes, we have to fly safely you know.

A man smuggled a knife onto a plane and threatened to slit the throat of the person in the next seat.

A Salt Lake airline passenger faces federal charges for allegedly carrying a knife onto an airplane and verbally threatening police and FBI agents.

Shortly after taking his seat on a Delta Air Lines flight from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas on Sunday, David Alan Anderson, 60, began elbowing the passenger next to him to “claim” the armrest, according to a federal complaint. He then put his foot on the passenger’s leg. Deseret News

Why do we have all this security if the TSA can’t find a knife? How can they claim that molesting us ensures safety when they can’t find a knife?

How is it they can screw with people who have medical devices, the elderly and wheelchair bound but they can’t find a knife?

The TSA is a waste of money and should be replaced by private companies who use profiling to find bad people.

Of course we will likely have some new screening method put in place because of this thus violating our rights even more. Pretty soon they will make us strip naked to go through security.

And TSA will still miss dangerous items.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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.

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.

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.

…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.

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.

Who said these things?

• A: Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read ‘em their rights.
• B: Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.

The answer to A is Sarah Palin at her acceptance speech in St. Paul.

The answer to B is Barack Obama in March 2009 on 60 Minutes.

So why are we now reading the terrorists Miranda Rights? Palin told us Obama was worried about it but Obama said they did not deserve them so why are we reading the Miranda Rights to the terrorists?

…For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. [emphasis mine] The Weekly Standard

It looks like Obama paid lip service to the idea that terrorists do not deserve Miranda Rights.

It also looks like Sarah Palin was correct.

Quotes A and B from Rush Limbaugh’s website.

Apparently that is as many as you need to get minority legislation passed in favor of yourself, so you can feel entitled and good about yourself, and as I understand it, this is necessary to life- it’s probably a “right”, right? I mean, if feeling good about yourself isn’t a right, it should be, because we are a minority, and we are entitled.

What bullcrap- nowadays, we have been hijacked by a plethora of “minorities” or “oppressed” peoples, each with their own litany of complaints and demands, like a spoiled child who needs his backside warmed to remind him that he is NOT the center of the universe.

This used to be the country where the majority ruled- because it makes sense to go in the direction that the most people are headed. But  we are compassionate people. We have, in the past, accommodated others who might not be of the same faith (other than Christian), of the same dietary needs, people who are, let’s face it, the minority. These are people who make the tapestry that is America much richer for their contributions.

But in recent times- say the last twenty- five years or so, we have bent over backwards to assist others in assimilation into this society, with the aim that they would begin to conform more to the majority in behavior.

Instead, we have begat a segment of society that does not care to assimilate, and doesn’t want to compromise, as if it is they, and not us , who are in the majority. What arrogance on their part. Here’s an example:

The lovely-looking restaurant and bar The Breslin begins lunch service tomorrow, and co-owner Ken Friedman (The Spotted Pig) is planning on serving alcohol despite objections from the Masjid Ar-Rahman mosque across the street. Earlier this month the mosque’s leaders called a meeting with Friedman at The Ace Hotel, where The Breslin is located, and asked, “Can you move the bar?” Friedman’s response makes us want to hurry over to The Breslin right now for a dram of Laphroaig to show our support (and drown out the voices):

I said, “This is the United States of America and we’ll do whatever the f*ck we want.” He said the mosque had suggested it couldn’t control the behavior of “a few bad eggs”; i.e., we could get a brick through our window.

gothamist.com

These muslims sincerely believe that our citizens should conform to their standards- what gross stupidity on their part, but it does illustrate how horribly skewed our society has become when these types of “entitled” spoiled brats actually think they can do this. Our compassion at this point begins to dry up when confronted by supercilious attitudes such as these.

Friedman notified police of the threat, but just to show he’s not a hard-hearted man, that it’s not all dollars and cents, he agreed to put a curtain over the windows so devout Muslims wouldn’t be corrupted by the sight of infidel inebriation. But the curtain hasn’t arrived yet, so over the weekend he actually taped paper over the windows to hide a gay wedding. A volunteer at the mosque says city law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that “not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar.”

But Ace Hotel developer Andrew Zobler tells The Observer, “The law is clear that in order for that to apply it has to be an exclusively dedicated house of worship, and at their space they have both residences and a restaurant, so basically, because of those uses the law allowed there to be a bar within 200 feet. Everyone was aware of that when the liquor license was granted.” And Friedman adds, “They can threaten, but they can’t really stop us.” Yeah, heh, what are these devout, pissed-off Muslims gonna do?

gothamist.com

What are they going to do indeed? One never knows, but the greater question is who the hell do they think they are? Granted, I would never think of wandering into their mosque sipping a bottle of Bushmills Black label (although I have heard that it is a rather out of this world experience when you sip enough), because I do care somewhat about their sensibilities- at least enough to be polite, but when spoiled people try and dictate their whims to the majority, they begin to act like children in need of discipline, or worse, like liberals.

The solution to either is the same- slap the snot out of them- it will set them on the road to sanity, and in twenty years or so, after they have grown, they will thank you for that guidance.

And perhaps they will have a mature outlook with which they deal with people.

And, for God’s sake not whine so much about non existent “rights”.

If you want rights, look in the Constitution.

The newest version of the health care takeover bill making its way around has a provision to fine families up to $3,800 for not obtaining health insurance. The geniuses working on this plan figure that they can solve the problem of people not being able to afford health insurance by fining them. This is like a bank charging you $35 for an overdraft check. They fine you what they know you don’t have. For those who can afford it and choose not to get it, power to them.

There are plenty of things wrong with this whole idea. The first is the idea that you can be forced to buy health insurance.

The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.

Auto insurance is only mandatory if you decide to get a vehicle. If you do not want to pay for car insurance you have the option to not get a car. In other words, you have the freedom to choose whether or not you want to incur this expense. Health insurance is quite different because you have no choice in the matter. You can opt out of car insurance by not driving. The only way to opt out of health insurance is to stop living. While that might make the government happy, it will not be good for you. While we are on the comparison to auto insurance perhaps we could make health insurance like auto insurance in that you have to pay for routine check ups. You have car insurance but it does not cover new tires and oil changes. When you go to the doctor you should have to pay for the routine stuff. That would lower the cost of premiums.

I also note that even with the mandatory requirement for auto insurance (if you have a car) there are still plenty of people driving around without insurance. A huge number of them are ILLEGAL aliens and they have a lot of accidents. Perhaps if they wanted to charge fines for not having insurance they could do it in the auto insurance arena. That would be much more productive.

Another issue here deals with our basic freedoms. We have the freedom to choose (just ask any pro abortion zealot) and should have that freedom when it comes to health insurance. You have every right NOT to buy insurance. My only thing in that regard is, if you get hurt then you pay the bill out of pocket or over time but you have to pay it. If you don’t then they get to come take your stuff to satisfy the bill. I really don’t care if you lose all your worldly possessions because you decided not to get health insurance but I will fight to my death defending your right to take that decision.

The last thing here is the heavy handed approach the government is taking. What it is basically saying is; “Either you will do exactly what we want and buy something that we say you have to have or we will heavily fine you.”

I have stated many times that this is about control. The health care bill is not about health and it is not about care, it is about government control over your life. They will make a rule that you have to buy insurance or you will be fined. Later on they can say that if you don’t have a certain kind of insurance you will be fined. Then they can change some other rule under the threat of a fine.

What next? Will they fine you if your Body Mass Index (BMI) is too high? Will they fine you if your cholesterol is elevated? Will they decide that every American must join a gym and attend three times a week or be fined?

Where does it end?

Can someone explain why we allow the government to do this? Why do they have a say in how we live our lives? Why are so many willing to let them have near total control over their lives?

I would also like to know how it is that a woman cannot be denied an abortion. States keep working on anti abortion laws but liberals are against all that. They are even against parental notification. It is not the role of government, they say, to impose these things on women thus denying them their right to choose. So what gives government the right to choose for the rest of us? What gives it the right to take decisions on our behalf and to force us to do things we might not want to.

Where is our right to choose?

We need to defeat this health care bill completely. They need to start from scratch and keep it simple by fixing what is broken and leaving the rest alone.

They also need to stop attempting to violate our rights by fining us for choosing how we live our lives and what we do and do not buy.

Vote them all out in 2010. We must end the redundancy of incumbency.