Is Public Saftey Important?

I enjoy getting comments on my writing.  Two people called for clarification on my letter last week; they followed the theme, “Is any public safety important?”  My comments could have been taken to mean no attention to public safety is necessary.  That isn’t what I meant.  So let’s take this apart a little more.

What did the Pilgrims move to America for?  Was it for: better streets, better neighborhoods, safer environment, better working condition laws, improved sewer system, better police protection, etc?   No, they moved to no streets, an unsafe neighborhood, maybe environmentally safer if you don’t count wild Indians and wild animals, worse working conditions, no sewer system, no police protection.  So what did the Pilgrims value above public safety?  The answer is Liberty.

They moved to a distinctly risky environment, with no public (governmental) amenities or services.  They moved from an area of increased public safety and tyranny, but minimal Liberty, to an area of substantially greater risk for something we call Liberty.  The Pilgrims cherished Liberty above all of the previously stated government ‘services.’ 

Our Founders did not fight a war for independence for the purpose of gaining increased public safety; they fought a bloody war for increased Liberty.  What we find as we delegate more and more importance to a host of bureaus to increase public safety and security is that each one removes one more piece of Liberty.  So where does it end?

This week in the news we find a school in Florida is contemplating putting in cameras to see if students throw away their veggies in the school lunch program.  At what point will the powers that be decide to penalize adults if they eat too much of the wrong food, like say pizza, and not enough broccoli?  With the advent of Obamacare the government now has a vested interest in seeing what you eat, how much you eat and whether or not we are in full compliance with the recommended daily hygiene list. 

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “that government governs best that governs least.”  So what government services are absolutely essential?  Do I want to do without peace officers?  Well no, not really.  What about OSHA?  All I can say is Liberty has an element of risk.  Do I need government inspections to see if my business is clean enough for its intended purpose?  No, the public will determine that.  The People will vote with their dollars by taking them elsewhere, if my business doesn’t suit them.  If your eating establishment is filthy, don’t count on me eating there. 

A few weeks ago my son was badly injured in a horse accident.  He was transported to the hospital for emergency treatment and examination.  His pain was so great that morphine was administered for the pain.  However inadvertently the amount of morphine he was given was well in excess of what should have been given.  He became violently sick and was sick for several days from the overdose.  Now I don’t say that we should “outlaw” morphine, I would recommend that the overdose be corrected to an amount that is beneficial without harming the patient.  Another example is Warfarin or “rat poison,” administered in judicious amounts it can be beneficial.

The same is true for what I have called “Governmenticin.”  A judicious level can be good, too much and you have an overdose.  I say that we currently have an overdose in our country of Governmenticin.  That overdose is producing a very sick economy and a culture of people who have become dependent or addicted to Governmenticin and are very ill economically and/or socially because of it.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

A Comment from Blackstone

Our Founders read and studied writings by Sir William Blackstone.  He wrote a four volume “Commentary on the Laws of England.”  Blackstone had a gift for clarifying the laws and the reasoning behind the laws.  I have been fortunate to acquire the four volumes.  I have not been able to completely read them and digest all of the ‘arcane’ language. 

This particular quote from Blackstone caught my interest lately: 

“… that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole: or, in other words, that community should guard the ­rights of each individual member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it was impossible that protection could be extended to any.”

Now this is interesting because on first reading it would appear that the People should be “obedient” to all the laws.  Then Blackstone turns around and clarifies by saying the community or whole should guard the “rights” of the individual.  Obviously after studying this we can see that the whole can only pass laws which do NOT steal or usurp the fundamental, God given rights of the individual.  Therefore it would appear to me that in order for a law to be just it must also refrain from infringing on a fundamental right.  Natural law does not infringe fundamental rights and would include such laws as: do not steal, do not murder, do not rape, etc. 

With that mouth full we can see that it is the responsibility of the legislator to see that he/she passes only those laws that are absolutely necessary for society to function without infringing the rights of the People.  We also need to remember that the true function of government is to secure the rights of the People, not to make sure they have safe food and safe jobs (OSHA) etc.  We are more likely to lose our fundamental rights from bureaucratic notions of public safety.  The theft of Liberty tends to come with all the thousands of so called “necessary” little stuff.  If they were so necessary then how could America have even gotten started without them?

We need to review, once in a while, the list of reasons in the Declaration of Independence that led to the American Revolution.  One stated reason to think about for today as a most important reason is:  “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass (sic) our people, and eat out their substance.”

Thankfully we do not, at least as far as I know, have any officers close by wanting to pass laws against selling politically incorrect drinks larger than 16 ozs.  You can guess it could be coming though if some zealous bureaucrat could get away with it.  I believe if we guard our Liberty, then peace and safety of society will follow.

I have had several attorneys tell me there is no such thing as society with absolute exercise of fundamental rights.  That may true, but I say, “There is no such thing as a society with absolute safety,” which is what so many of the useless Liberty stealing laws in the real world attempt bring about.

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

The Question...

As our national elections heat up and the fight starts to get downright ugly, I keep hearing that the question asked, “Are you better off in your wallet than you were four years ago?”  That is a good question and for most the answer is no.  However I would like to say that a far more important question is, “Do you have more Liberty now than you had?” 

With the addition of hundreds of new “programs” on the federal and even state level I would have to say no.  That can be said of each successive president that has come along since the turn of last century, and even before.  I will say that the seated president has, at least in my opinion, taken the formation of new levels of bureaucracy to an unprecedented high, or maybe I should say a new low.  Each of these programs will have new bureaucrats writing new regulations which are equivalent to law.  Each and every American is responsible to not break any of these laws.

I recently was having coffee with a man who is now retired from the “system.”  His comment was that they were considering passing a regulation that stated, in essence, that “everything is illegal unless we say it is legal in his particular department.”  So if you don’t know, or are not sure, about the exercise of some particular thing, just assume it is illegal until you find out that it is not. 

So my question for the public is, “do you feel more free or less free?”  Do you feel like the government at all levels is preserving your freedoms or taking your freedom?  Does it make you sleep better at night to know the government feels like it is more important to keep a tighter watch on its own Citizens than on the borders, or embassies, or the terrorists?  Do you feel like the best thing the government can do is prevent Americans from owning the means of self defense without the blessing of government?

Personal responsibility and choice remain the hallmarks of Liberty.  These have an element of risk.  When you make a mistake it hurts.  Liberty, it is what has always separated America from the rest of the world.  Will we be able to keep Liberty?  Maybe, but only if we begin to repeal some of the chains that the bureaucrats have wrapped us in.  The new question should be how did we build our country and survive without the Department of Blank?  You fill it in.  God bless.

Smile, the Government Is Watching: Next Generation Identification

I ran across this excellent post by the Rutherford Foundation.  Their material is well researched and based on fact not conjecture.This little piece might give many Americans a nice warm fuzzy feeling, but for me it makes me go cold...

By John W. Whitehead
September 17, 2012

“You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement was scrutinized.”—George Orwell, 1984

Brace yourselves for the next wave in the surveillance state’s steady incursions into our lives. It’s coming at us with a lethal one-two punch.

To start with, there’s the government’s integration of facial recognition software and other biometric markers into its identification data programs. The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system is a $1 billion boondoggle that is aimed at dramatically expanding the government’s current ID database from a fingerprint system to a facial recognition system. NGI will use a variety of biometric data, cross-referenced against the nation’s growing network of surveillance cameras to not only track your every move but create a permanent “recognition” file on you within the government’s massive databases.

By the time it’s fully operational in 2014, NGI will serve as a vast data storehouse of “iris scans, photos searchable with face recognition technology, palm prints, and measures of gait and voice recordings alongside records of fingerprints, scars, and tattoos.” One component of NGI, the Universal Face Workstation, already contains some 13 million facial images, gleaned from “criminal mug shot photos” taken during the booking process. However, with major search engines having “accumulated face image databases that in their size dwarf the earth’s population,” it’s only a matter of time before the government taps into the trove of images stored on social media and photo sharing websites such as Facebook.

Also aiding and abetting police in their efforts to track our every movement in real time is Trapwire, which allows for quick analysis of live feeds from CCTV surveillance cameras. Some of Trapwire’s confirmed users are the DC police, and police and casinos in Las Vegas. Police in New York, Los Angeles, Canada, and London are also thought to be using Trapwire.

Using Trapwire in conjunction with NGI, police and other government agents will be able to pinpoint anyone by checking the personal characteristics stored in the database against images on social media websites, feeds from the thousands of CCTV surveillance cameras installed throughout American cities (there are 3,700 CCTV cameras tracking the public in the New York subway system alone), as well as data being beamed down from the more than 30,000 surveillance drones taking to the skies within the next eight years. Given that the drones’ powerful facial recognition cameras will be capable of capturing minute details, including every mundane action performed by every person in an entire city simultaneously, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, short of living in a cave, far removed from technology.

NGI will not only increase sharing between federal agencies, opening up the floodgates between the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, but states can also get in on the action. The system was rolled out in Michigan in February 2012, with Hawaii, Maryland, South Carolina, Ohio, New Mexico, Kansas, Arizona, Tennessee, Nebraska, and Missouri on the shortlist for implementation, followed by Washington, North Carolina, and Florida in the near future.

Going far beyond the scope of those with criminal backgrounds, the NGI data includes criminals and non-criminals alike—in other words, innocent American citizens. The information is being amassed through a variety of routine procedures, with the police leading the way as prime collectors of biometrics for something as non-threatening as a simple moving violation. For example, the New York Police Department began photographing irises of suspects and arrestees in 2010, routinely telling suspects that the scans were mandatory, despite there being no law requiring defendants to have their irises scanned. Police departments across the country are now being equipped with the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, or MORIS, a physical iPhone add-on that allows officers patrolling the streets to scan the irises and faces of individuals and match them against government databases.

The nation’s courts are also doing their part to “build” the database, requiring biometric information as a precursor to more lenient sentences. In March 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law allowing DNA evidence to be collected from anyone convicted of a crime, even if it’s a non-violent misdemeanor. New York judges have also begun demanding mandatory iris scans before putting defendants on trial. Some Occupy Wall Street protesters who were arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct were actually assigned bail based upon whether or not they consented to an iris scan during their booking. In one case, a judge demanded that an Occupy protestor, who was an unlikely flight risk, pay $1,000 bail because she refused to have her iris scanned.

Then there are the nation’s public schools, where young people are being conditioned to mindlessly march in lockstep to the pervasive authoritarian dictates of the surveillance state. It was here that surveillance cameras and metal detectors became the norm. It was here, too, that schools began reviewing social media websites in order to police student activity. With the advent of biometrics, school officials have gone to ever more creative lengths to monitor and track students’ activities and whereabouts, even for the most mundane things. For example, students in Pinellas County, Fla., are actually subjected to vein recognition scans when purchasing lunch at school.

Of course, the government is not the only looming threat to our privacy and bodily integrity. As with most invasive technologies, the groundwork to accustom the American people to the so-called benefits or conveniences of facial recognition is being laid quite effectively by corporations. For example, a new Facebook application, Facedeals, is being tested in Nashville, Tenn., which enables businesses to target potential customers with specialized offers. Yet another page borrowed from Stephen Spielberg’s 2002 Minority Report, the app works like this: businesses install cameras at their front doors which, using facial recognition technology, identify the faces of Facebook users and then send coupons to their smartphones based upon things they’ve “liked” in the past.

Making this noxious mix even more troubling is the significant margin for error and abuse that goes hand in hand with just about every government-instigated program, only more so when it comes to biometrics and identification databases. Take, for example, the Secure Communities initiative. Touted by the Department of Homeland Security as a way to crack down on illegal immigration, the program attempted to match the inmates in local jails against the federal immigration database. Unfortunately, it resulted in Americans being arrested for reporting domestic abuse and occasionally flagged US citizens for deportation. More recently, in July 2012, security researcher Javier Galbally demonstrated that iris scans can be spoofed, allowing a hacker to use synthetic images of an iris to trick an iris-scanning device into thinking it had received a positive match for a real iris over 50 percent of the time.

The writing is on the wall. With technology moving so fast and assaults on our freedoms, privacy and otherwise, occurring with increasing frequency, there is little hope of turning back this technological, corporate and governmental juggernaut. Even trying to avoid inclusion in the government’s massive identification database will be difficult.  The hacktivist group Anonymous suggests wearing a transparent plastic mask, tilting one’s head at a 15 degree angle, wearing obscuring makeup, and wearing a hat outfitted with Infra-red LED lights as methods for confounding the cameras’ facial recognition technology.

Consider this, however: while the general public, largely law-abiding, continues to be pried on, spied on and treated like suspects by a government that spends an exorbitant amount of money on the security-intelligence complex (which takes in a sizeable chunk of the $80 billion yearly intelligence budget), the government’s attention and resources are effectively being diverted from the true threats that remain at large—namely, those terrorists abroad who seek, through overt action and implied threat, to continue the reign of terror in America begun in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Take a Stand!

Amazing!  There are some individuals in government who will take a stand from time to time.  It takes a tremendous amount of courage to stand in the face the status quo and choose to say, “I will not enforce unconstitutional law against otherwise law abiding citizens.”  This is what State’sAttorneys (SA) Ron Dozier from McLean County, and Mike Valentine,Edwards, County, Illinois, have chosen to do (Press Release).  

Dozier clearly stated that,

"Every SA is expected to prosecute persons who violate the criminal laws of the State of Illinois within his or her jurisdiction. However, there are literally thousands of criminal laws on the books, ranging in seriousness from extremely minor to extremely serious. Because of both budgetary and time limits, every SA must set priorities on which cases to prosecute and which to not prosecute. The pursuit of a just result and the wise use of taxpayer dollars are major factors in setting those priorities."

He also quoted: 

“The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” [Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8. See also Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.C. 629, U.S. Supreme Court, 1935]

and,

“The SA is not merely a ministerial officer but is vested with a large measure of discretion. In the exercise of that discretion, he has the responsibility of determining what offense should be charged.” [Marcisz v. Marcisz, 65 Ill.2d 206, Illinois Supreme Court, 1976]

The Chicago Machine continues to stick its finger in the face of the Supreme Court and continues to rule Illinois with an Iron Fist against the wishes and rights of most Illinoisans.  The elected State officials have the choice as to whether they are going to enforce these blatantly unconstitutional laws.  Mr. Dozier's comment was, "So far, the City of Chicago and the State have done everything possible to defy, obfuscate and ignore the Court’s substantive rulings."

As I have quoted many times, "... the right of the People to Keep and Bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."  Need any more be said than that?  It is time to confront present office holders and those running for office and ask them, “what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?  Are you going to support these words on their face as intended by the Founders, and as made clear by the highest court in the land?”

Mr. Dozier also implied that cases will always require specific review on a case by case basis, but that otherwise law abiding citizens will not be prosecuted.  Another statement that is particularly poignant, "We are the only State to have a draconian FOID law that makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong except exercise their constitutional right to own a gun."

Dozier goes on to make it clear that, "Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families." [Emphasis in original]

He encourages other SAs to join with him in returning our state to founding principles.  I personally applaud his effort.  It is time that We the People remove ‘offending’ (nice term) SAs across this state from their offices and replace them with people who realize their oath of office is to first and foremost, to uphold the constitutions of the United States and Illinois and to provide a frame work for justice, not just convictions.

These men and women and can help to bring justice to Illinois by neutering the Chicago Machine as they try to rule from their high rise ivory towers.  One article stated that Chicago, even with its draconian gun laws, now has the dubious distinction of being the “Murder Capital” of the world.  The Huffington Post had a recent article claiming that Chicago homicides outnumber troop killings in Afghanistan.  All these numerous gun laws have done is cause the law abiding citizen to be helpless sheep with the wolves preying on the flock.  The nice thing about it, if you are a ruler you can take training and carry.  The rulers definitely have it figured out!

So my solution is to ask the not so hard questions;

1. Will you join with other SAs and not prosecute otherwise law abiding citizens for gun laws which defy the constitution, such as FOID and carrying in public?
2. Will you go on record with your answers?

That shouldn’t take too much courage, after all someone else is already leading the way, all the other SAs have to do is get on board the train and win by sheer numbers.  That does not stop them from evaluating on a case by case basis, but at least it shows you will take a stand and that your heart is in the right place.

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Liberty; It’s a Matter of Choice

 

The world in which we live has become cluttered with some people trying to rule other people. This is done through passing law after law that restricts certain behaviors. It is done in the name of saving the children, or the helpless or in the name of the public safety; in some cases with religious fervor.  The problem is so many of these laws, rules, mandates or regulations prohibit behaviors which are victimless crimes.

If we define breaking the law as a crime then: not wearing a seat belt in a moving motor vehicle is now a crime. Buying too much of a certain cold remedy is now a crime. Carrying a certain weapon for self defense is a crime. Opening an eating establishment without government blessing is now a crime in Pike County, for example a sidewalk lemonade stand. In New York City selling certain drinks in excess of 16ozs is now a crime. Having an excess of lights on a running board of a vehicle is a crime. The list is essentially endless. How ‘bout someone willing to take a job for $6 per hour instead of $8.25, the so called government mandated amount.

Libertarians, on the other hand, attempt to make it clear that fiscal responsibility is imperative and essential to Liberty. “That government governs best which governs least,” being the rally cry. The most fuss from the so called mainstream is that, “those Libertarians are in favor of vice and drugs and all sorts socially unacceptable behaviors.” That really isn’t correct. What the Libertarian would prefer to say is we are in favor of choice. Choice is the difference between a free man and a slave. I personally would prefer that my kids choose not to sample alcohol, or mind altering substances or get entangled in the behaviors which I consider to be bad choices, but remain victimless crimes.

The slave has no choice, he is ruled by his master and must ask permission before he commits any act. In my opinion, while I personally would not condone poor choices for anyone, and especially for my family, I do not feel that once my child has reached an age where he should be able to make ‘right’ choices, that it is my business or “right” to able to pass a law against him or anyone making a poor choice. I consider it a poor choice to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, but my wife has made that choice 7 times. It is not my business to rule my wife or my neighbors via government decree, at least for victimless behaviors.

It cannot be the job of my neighbor to inflict his beliefs on me nor mine on him until, and unless, his bad choices affect me. At the point his poor choice affects me then I might have cause to pursue a remedy in law, but until then I have no call to rule my neighbor. For instance if my neighbor lies in his house in an intoxicated stupor then what is that to me. If he gets in his car and begins to drive it while not in control of his faculties and endanger me and mine, then things change. Till then it is none of my business.

There is no end to passing laws that prohibit behaviors of various types. Some of these behaviors are disgusting to any average person, however part of the price of Liberty is that if we are to be free then we must allow all to be free to make choices. Some of those choices may be repugnant to people who are of common social morals. Anything less leads to really bad crime. There was no “organized” crime until prohibition. Prohibited victimless behaviors lead to crime. Crime leads to injury and lack of safety, which requires more Law Enforcement Officers and more laws prohibiting more behaviors which need more monitoring of bank accounts, phone calls and texts and on and on.

So the Libertarian philosophy is not one that encourages poor social choices, rather it is a philosophy that says government must remain neutral on victimless issues because that is necessary to maintain Liberty. Where there is no choice, there is no Liberty.

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.