Posts Tagged ‘Affirmation in law’

Snail-Mail Snoopers – LewRockwell

July 7, 2013
Snail mail

Snail mail (Photo credit: DazMSmith)

The spymasters are yet again caught with their pants down. While they are down, we shall have to see if Americans will live up to the “exceptionalism” we keep hearing about and give those spymasters the figurative caning they deserve, and dismissal from their jobs, together with the entire surveillance state.

Snail-Mail Snoopers – Lew Rockwell:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/joe-wolverton-ii/snail-mail-snoopers/

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is no Supreme Court decision, no Executive explanation, no Congress, that can hide from us what that paragraph means, no matter how much legalese and torturing of non-logic they pour on it.

Advertisements

What Prism Knows: 8 Metadata Facts – Security – Government and

June 21, 2013

What Prism Knows: 8 Metadata Facts:
http://www.informationweek.com/security/government/what-prism-knows-8-metadata-facts/240156956?pgno=2

This paragraph in particular caught my attention, and I don’t think it even includes the IRS-written additions to the tax code as passed by Congress:

With persistent surveillance, Marlinspike said one fear is that by capturing so much information on U.S. citizens, a determined investigator could likely find some type of charges to file against a suspect, given that legal experts estimate that on the books. “If the federal government had access to every email you’ve ever written and every phone call you’ve ever made, it’s almost certain that they could find something you’ve done which violates a provision in the 27,000 pages of federal statutes or 10,000 administrative regulations,” said Marlinspike. “You probably do have something to hide, you just don’t know it yet.”

And get this juicy bit, notice how this Mr. Lewis makes a real sneaky case, like an illusionist trick I’ll explain:

How much metadata should the government be allowed to capture or use? “The drafters of the Constitution did not propose some absolute right to privacy; they … saw privacy as a means to achieve a larger goal, to protect political liberties,” said James A. Lewis, a senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a blog post.

His argument: if it safeguards people’s political liberties, then capturing metadata is a useful technique. “The essential political rights are freedom of expression and assembly, freedom from arbitrary detention, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” Lewis said. “If these four rights are protected, surveillance is immaterial in its effect on civil liberties.”

He points to four essential “political liberties” as if they are the ones that count, as if they are the only ones that count. Note that he left out another very important one, the one that is DIRECTLY violated by the NSA practices (and no doubt by every

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html

Massive metadata collection is absolutely UNREASONABLE. We all know that. Blabbing on about these other four “rights” reminds me of the rich young ruler that obeyed four commandments, but he failed on the biggest one, because he loved his riches more than God.

Contraception rule is attack on freedom, distracts from hated nationalized medicine

February 22, 2012
English: A map of the 12 districts of the Unit...

Federal Reserve System districts

How Would a Patriot Act?

Image via Wikipedia

And it is a brilliant attempt to divide the clergy from the parishioners too.

I had to answer this backwards, upside-down view of the forced-contraception-coverage rule:

http://kepdavis.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/contraception-is-not-about-women/

In my doctrine as a Christian the woman herself with her man should use or not contraception “according to her faith”, although every conception is a gift.

That said, a person has no natural right to forcibly take the goods of another or the fruits of their labor. The cost for providing contraception will not be free no matter how they word some stupid rule, but the semantic acrobatics in the “compromise” fully expose the semantic bankruptcy of the whole thing. If you want the truth, you can see it. The insurance companies will charge the cost to its customers, even if it’s hidden inside all the rest of its overhead of doing business. Everybody knows this. Everyone.

My right to the free exercise of religion does not give me the “right” to take your money to support my pastor, or my religion, or for any other of my own purposes, no matter how sacred a right it is. Especially if it’s against your own religious doctrine, whatever it is, whether you’re a Catholic, Presbyterian, Jew, Moslem, or atheist, even if your doctrine says women should have a “right” to contraception.

THE RULE IS A SCAM TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM WHAT AMERICANS HATE.

The whole ridiculous forced contraception coverage rule is a scam anyway.

It’s meant to distract from the most outrageous violations of liberty since the Congress ceded a currency monopoly to a cartel of private bankers, the Federal Reserve, ruled by the kings of Wall Street.

The people of America HATED and still HATE the TARP bailouts that continued from the Bush era to the Obama administration, they HATE the secrecy of who got what money, they HATE the coverup on who got what, they HATE the “stimulus” that only stimulated more DEBT, they HATE the deficits that BOTH parties have pushed upwards for decades even though most of them don’t realize the national debt is a theft from the poor and middle class. They HATE the Patriot Act and the NDAA and SOPA and PIPA and ACTA and they HATE the fact the president wants the power to finger anybody he wants to in the whole world for indefinite detention, secretly, and for assassination. And they HATED this nationalization of centralized control over the best medical care system known to the entire world, bar none, despite the warts caused mostly by government meddling itself.

Nationalizing the medical industry and private care is an intrusive assault on privacy, the right recognized, not “given”, in the 4th Amendment, to “BE secure in” our private affairs from intrusive monitoring by government:

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That’s besides the fact that the whole thing violates the 10th amendment that forbids the federal government from any authority that is not expressly given in the Constitution.

Defining state markets as interstate markets for the purpose of micro-managing our lives, as was one of the excuses in a recent debate on CSPAN on the subject, has no boundaries. Every intra-state market in any good or service, under that ridiculously expansive justification, might affect the market in another state, and –hello?– that is good, that is the whole idea!

States and nations should compete with each other, they should not have to follow the same centralized economic planning dictates, a practice which has proven time after time and time again to totally brutalize the poorest of the poor that is cynically used to justify their economic and political oppression!