Too much privacy advocacy is done by a self-appointed expert class who, believing their own preferences to be universal, beseech legislators and regulators to mold or even remake the information economy. I have nothing against self-appointed experts—I am one, and some of you have been falling for my schtick for a decade. But the hubris of claiming to know how things should come out? That’s too much.
So the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Who Has Your Back?” report is real stand-out. Using a clear, six-star grid, they assess how well major Internet companies and ISPs do when it comes to key dimensions of privacy protection. (Jim Harper/Cato@Liberty)
It’s worth going to the link above and determining who (or if) your ISP has your back. Remember a couple years back when *blog name redacted* had his Internet service terminated, and his home raided w/o benefit of a warrant because of potentially inflamatory statements he made in his blog? It was Massachusetts, so, the State revoked his gun permit and confiscated his firearms, too! With no due process involved and the full cooperation of his ISP with the authorities.
So much for protecting the customer…
Go check out the grid, and be enlightened.
Arizona House Bill 2326 ALSO signed into law by Governor Brewer, as follows:
House Bill 2326, sponsored by state Representative Eddie Farnsworth (R-12), restricts the ability of any political subdivision from requiring or retaining a record in any form, whether permanent or temporary, of any identifying information of a person who owns, possesses, purchases, sells or transfers a firearm.
In other parts of the country, anti-gun media outlets have abused their privileges under the Freedom of Information Act and have jeopardized the safety of law-abiding citizens by publishing the names and addresses of registered gun owners. Contrary to their claims, these media elites have not increased public safety and have instead simply provided a roadmap for criminals to use for their next burglary and firearm theft. HB 2326 will prevent this from happening in Arizona.
I don’t always agree with our Governor’s actions, but on this and the previous bill enacted, I applaud. Good Job!
(my apologies to The Onion)
As my regular readers know (as well as those suffering digestive distress) I surf the Internet looking for news, opinion, rights violations, and fellow libertarian travelers (to
steal borrow from), especially when the guffaw well is dry.
Today is one of those posts.
I especially like finding stuff that mocks the control freaks – the Feinstein/Bloombergs of the World. And, thankfully, we STILL have the right to do so! (as of this writing)
It occurred to me that I’d not shared a particular find with you – The People’s Cube!
They lampoon all that is Left with the World, and do it well. Apparently, the main writer is a former commie who saw the liberty, free-market light.
But, there is a serious side, as well. Go and peruse. And also be amused.
Dear Americans, these are some questions I have collected in 16 years of living in your country. Please see if you can answer them for me:
If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?
Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?
If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?
Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?
Much of it is reductio ad absurdum, but funny, and pointed, regardless…
I wasn’t even going to make a passing comment on today, the so-called Earth Day. I remember in high school (in 1970) when a bunch of like-minded college folk decided to create a holiday to support recycling, and not fouling the environment. One of my pals (another David – David Mitchell, where are you?) even put a bumper sticker on his 1966 Chevy Nova which read “Ecology NOW!”
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not for intentionally fouling the Earth’s water, air or resources. And I do believe we are stewards of the planet. But, when our friend the government gets involved, buoyed by persons with an agenda, we have political forces far beyond a few Earth-friendly hippies trying to get us to think about waste and pollution. Think Nixon’s EPA…
We end up with green fascism. Tried to purchase a 100-watt incandescent light bulb lately? Or throw out one of the new, squiggly ones-made poorly in China? With mercury? Or seen photos of Al Gore’s energy gobbling/carbon spewing house in California?
Do as I say, not as I do come to mind?
The Silicon Graybeard shares his opinion with us of the farce that is Earth Day.
As for me, I’m having a bumper sticker made:
(What follows has some language that is Not-Safe-For-Work. I thought it best not to edit or censor it, to give it it’s full impact - Guffaw)
This is the crux of the libertarian, Constitutional argument. Why are we so against all these ubiquitous encroachments on our civil liberties? And why we should continue to be.
Every time I see something like this, be it use of a no-knock warrant (or no warrant at all), surveillance cameras everywhere, GPS on modern cell phones that we cannot disconnect, institutionalized warrantless searches at airports (and elsewhere) or beating a confession out of a suspect, I recognize we have lost something beyond price. And, I know we probably won’t get these liberties back without a fight.
Kent’s “Hooligan Libertarian” Blog touches on the most recent of these issues. The lock-down and methodical search of an entire city to locate a terrorism suspect. He says, in part:
The same goes for imposing a police state and illegally/unethically/immorally locking down a city and invading homes to catch a suspect. Every cop who entered any property without the explicit permission of the owner/renter deserved to be shot dead. Immediately. Good thing for those stormtroopers that the “people” there gave up their responsibility and guns long ago, and are cheering fans of Big Brother. Makes me furious to even think about.
Follow this up with Lurking Rhythmically’s screed regarding some folks disdain for an individual’s natural rights. She says, in part:
From a comment on my previous post:
You know, I like most of what you post, and followed you even though I disagreed with you on your position on so-called “gun rights”.
Oooh. Isn’t that just delicious contempt ? It’s so thick and creamy you could drizzle it on a pancake. I especially like the one-two punch of so-called and the scare quotes. They aren’t rights, they’re “rights”. That’s quality passive-aggression right there.
Here’s the lovely thing about rights: They aren’t up for a vote. That’s why they’re rights.
Let’s put it another way:
Are you offended yet? You should be. You should be screamingly furious that anyone would diminish these rights with the phrase “so-called”.
And yet my inalienable right to defend myself with the most effective means possible is threatened because one, ONE asshole out of 10 million law-abiding gun owners decided to commit a raft of crimes that another law would not have stopped.
You say, “Compromise.” I say, ”Fuck you, you mewling cowards. I will not embrace victimhood. I will not willingly disarm. If you demand I give up my life just to make you feel better, you are selfish on a level that is beyond comprehension.”
I believe this is how most of us feel, even if we can’t quite put our feelings into words. Individual rights are individual rights. Whether ‘natural’ or ‘derived from our Creator’, it doesn’t matter. They are not up for debate or vote. Period.
And to allow them to be voted on is yet another encroachment.
Go and read the entire Declaration of Independence, and then the two links above. Then look at the news, and read what we accept as a normal course of government business every day.
Then, perhaps become angry about the state of our Nation. And cry a little.
“No Good Cops”
That’s what Kent’s Hooligan Libertarian Blog says…
He suggests that any cop doing his job (i.e. enforcing current non-libertarian laws) is simply a tool of the State, not unlike the folks who ‘did as they were told’. The Nuremberg Defense. To wit:
But then consider: Has this person ever enforced a single counterfeit “law”? Any anti-drug ”law”, anti-gun ”law”, “tax law”, speed limit, seat belt enforcement, property “code”, asset forfeiture, etc.? If so, the person isn’t a “good cop”- certainly not a good person while acting as a cop.
Some cops may be less evil than others; I certainly hope so. But “less evil” falls very short of “good”.
I come from a family of cops, with a cop (and Marine) history. I know they enforced the laws as written, including those laws with which they may have personally disagreed. They took an oath.
Of course, much of the legislation with which Kent disagrees hadn’t been passed, yet, when they were ‘on the job’. And I know some ‘street justice’ also occurred. Contempt of cop and all that.
But, I do believe they were good and honorable men. Here Kevin and I disagree.
This got me to thinking. Do we hold those persons who took an oath to the letter of said oath?
Senators and Representatives?
United States Constitution under Article IV it states:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…“
(U. S. Constitution 1787)
The American Dictionary of the English Language, define an oath as:
“A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false,or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.“
(Webster Dictionary 1828)
The presidential oath of office is required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch and outlines how the president is elected. In part, it reads:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
HAVE ANY OF THESE CLOWNS IN WASHINGTON EVER TAKEN THEIR OATH SERIOUSLY? WILL THE STREET COP, WHEN ORDERED TO DISARM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, DO SO WITH IMPUNITY? WHAT ABOUT THEIR OATH? HOW MANY PRESIDENTS WERE/ARE IMPEACHABLE FOR DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ESSENCE OF THEIR OATH?
What ARE we doing?
We have a court system for bad cops, and a Constitutional system to remove bad politicians. Including Presidents. When do we hold their feet to the fire?
Why are we dragging our feet?
Part of my morning routine, after doing my blog post thing, is to peruse other blogs on my blogroll, The Gun Blog Black List, and elsewhere. And I read the ‘news’ (such as it is.) To search for blogfodder, jokes, and to see the state of the World.
Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Remember all those who denied that firearms confiscation as a result of New York’s new gun laws was too “insane” to even consider?
That it was strictly in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the “it cant happen here crowd”?
Those were and remain some of the standard replies to anyone who even thought about the possibility, let alone gave voice to it, despite the fact that Gov Cuomo and numerous other officials made public comments about such a plan, as I discussed in my article “Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back” .
Elected Officials, the media, various Gun Control Groups and their zealous forced disarmament supporters, even some firearms owners themselves all insisted it was to crazy to even consider.
There’s just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!
It seems those that tried desperately to warn of such an insidious plot had hit the bullseye with their warnings after all. News came from multiple NY State based firearms enthusiast websites late Friday that confiscations of Pistol Owner ID Cards, as well as firearms and accessories has commenced in NY under the provisions of the horribly flawed, draconian and blatantly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act.
Those folks having their weapons and FID cards confiscated have been discovered to have been prescribed multiple different types of psychotropic drugs, such as those for Depression or Anxiety.
These are known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) class drugs and have the potential to cause serious and adverse side effects, something I wrote about extensively last week in an article that went viral in days and caused multiple Anti Gun and Progressive News Groups to initiate a concentrated denial of service hacker attack against Ammoland Shooting Sports News (see Daily KOS ” Keeping Track Of The RKBA Crowd” http://tiny.cc/ug67uw), in an effort to keep the information from the public.
From NY http://tiny.cc/nyfirearms
“John Doe, an upstanding professional with no outstanding criminal convictions and no history of violent action received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history. The New York State Department of Health is apparently conducting a search of medical records to determine who is being treated for anxiety drugs and using this as a basis for handgun license revocation.
Those are the facts. Nothing more, nothing less.”
We’re in for a truly bumpy ride, folks!
h/t Brock Townsend
Old NFO lets a little-known secret regarding the United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty out of the bag. To wit:
Individuals 55 and older would lose their right to keep and bear arms under a provision that’s expected to be included as part of a comprehensive United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty.
Seriously? Ban Ki-moon further said:
“But also, the international community believes segments of the population that present a danger to themselves and others, chiefly individuals deemed or adjudicated mentally defective and persons with attenuating cerebral faculties, should be added to that list.”
So persons determined to be mentally defective, and persons with attenuating cerebral faculties are on ‘the list’! What exactly does THAT mean? Older? As in over 55?
No wonder the Obama Administration is pushing so hard for a mental health component for background checks, universal background checks, etc. If the government determines you are mentally defective (whatever THAT means) or have attenuating cerebral faculties (i.e. getting older) you can be included in the ban regarding possession and ownership of firearms.
I’m reminded of the scene in the film Jurassic Park, wherein it’s observed the velociraptors are noted to be continually testing the fences for weaknesses; never the same place twice. The folks who love to control your rights will keep testing the fences.
h/t Old NFO
Addendum – Rev. Paul says this was initially reported as an
April Fool’s Joke!
I certainly hope so!
(Not that the U.N. treaty isn’t troubling enough! – Guffaw
For my good friends who voted for the President (even though they are responsible, legal gun owners) because they just couldn’t stand Senator McCain’s RINO waffling, or four years earlier, because they saw President G.W. Bush as evil or inept (or both), I give you the following…
In addition to all the Administration-supported pending legislation against our natural rights, and The Bill of Rights, Amendment the Second…
While reading the transcript of President Obama’s gun control speech this morning, I came across this shocking statement:
A background check before CHECKING OUT a gun show? This is guilty until proven innocent on steroids and a Constitutional violation of epic proportions.
Folks, it’s become perfectly clear that this isn’t about reducing gun violence, it’s about restricting as many of your Constitutional rights as possible. I can’t help but ask myself why President Obama and his band of anti-rights, gun grabbers want to make it as difficult as possible for responsible and law abiding citizens to even look at a firearm? I’ll let you decide for yourself, but I can’t come up with an answer that isn’t truly terrifying.
The President has consistently been for tighter controls on civilian gun possession and ownership, ammunition restrictions, magazine bans, and universal background checks for all purchases, public and private. When the criminals are constrained from completing BATFE 4473, because doing so would violate their 5th Amendment rights!
NOW, he adds THIS to the mix? Can you see the First Amendment next? Licenses/background checks for newspapers? Bloggers?
Don’t laugh. Such a thing is being seriously considered in the UK.
Welcome to the New World Order. Or, as he said it, fundamental transformation.
I like it. NOT!
PS – It occurred to me after posting this that we already have the TSA. Fourth Amendment be damned! – Guffaw
h/t Great Satan, Inc.
I LOVE History. Especially American. Especially Twentieth Century – post War era. Film(s) noir, depicting such a period. And stuff based on real events.
The Hat Squad was a loose team of L.A.P.D. detectives, roughly from the late 40s to the early 60s. Popular culture has used them in such films as The Hat Squad, Mullholland Falls, and L.A. Confidential. And Stephen J. Cannell (of The Rockford Files and about 20 other shows) even pegged a short-lived television show on them.
But the real Hat Squad was something much more than lauded in West Coast crime fiction. They were real men who lived by a code – not the code of Mulholland Falls, but not the police department service manual, either.
LOS ANGELES – In this city where everything and everyone can be reinvented, true crime has long become true drama.
The Los Angeles Police Department stars in both.
The LAPD Hat Squad of the 1940s and ’50s starred four detectives in crisp fedoras and matching suits costing two weeks’ pay.
Publicly revered, the squad became known for its more secretive duties, including getting rid of Eastern mobsters seeking to expand business. According to legend, the Hat Squad discouraged visiting gangsters by meeting them at the airport and beating the wanderlust out of them.
Two of the detectives later became judges. None was ever disciplined.
“They were so feared and respected that when we’d announce such-and-such a case had been turned over to the Hat Squad, many of the suspects in those cases would voluntarily give themselves up,” department veteran Dan Cooke, now dead, told a local newspaper in 1987.
Inevitably, a movie depicted the well-dressed quartet. In 1996′s “Mulholland Falls,” Nick Nolte played its leader. In an early scene, a bloodied don is about to be tossed from a canyon ledge.
“You can’t do that, this is America,” the gangster squeaks.
“This isn’t America, Jack,” says Nolte. “This is L.A.”
And here, fact and fiction continuously blend.
I don’t think anyone had done a definitive work on them. Perhaps they are afraid. Just like no one will touch the FBI’s Cointelpro program with any depth. Funny, they’ll do the NSA’s MK Ultra…?
We need to look at the triumph and tribulations of our police past to make certain history doesn’t repeat itself on a
national federal scale.
Perhaps it already has.