Monday, May 31, 2004
The province of Quebec in Canada has a group of zealots known affectionately or derisively, depending on one’s side of the argument, as “The Language Police.” Throughout Canada, all public signage is in both English and French, because the languages are considered equally important. But in Quebec, French is more equal than English, so the Language Police take it upon themselves to measure signs in windows to ensure that the French signs are bigger than the English signs, if there are any. Violations are recorded, and reported to the authorities.
In the US, since most Americans are only vaguely familiar with a single language, the zealots here focus their attention on religious symbology that is displayed on public property. One of the most recent “outrages” is the discovery of a small cross depicted among the stars on one panel of the flag of the County of Los Angeles, and the zealots want it removed. It makes no difference that it is part of the history of the area; after all, it was founded as a mission by priests.
Why stop there? The very name “Los Angeles” means “The Angels.” Isn't that blatant religious symbology? They should be required to change the name of the city! Maybe it should just be shortened to “Los,” and the people today known as Angelenos would be henceforth known as Losers.
And what about all those cities and towns whose names begin with San or Santa or Saint? Surely those infectious religious overtones must be stricken from their names! San Antonio could become Tony, Texas. Santa Rosa could be Rosy, and Santa Clara would be Clary. St Louis could be known as Louis, or perhaps Luigi. St Petersburg could be changed to Pete. St Cloud, Minnesota, might be forced to become Cloudy, despite the objections of the Chamber of Commerce. And St Paul would just be Paul, or perhaps by its original unflattering name, Pigeye!
It’s interesting that there’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that refers to a Creator or a God. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . .” Neither Congress nor any State has established a religion. About the worst they’ve done is asked for moral guidance (something we all could use).
I’m not aware of any laws passed by Congress that prohibit the free expression thereof by non-federal public entities, but the Supreme Court (the one that unconstitutionally granted itself powers in 1803 beyond those prescribed to it in the Constitution’s Article III) has sided with the zealots on this one.
On the other hand, the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator. Kind of religious, don't you think? Will it be next? There’s a problem with that, though; a conundrum. You see, the Declaration states we have certain inalienable rights endowed upon us by a Creator. Those rights were the basis for the enumerated and unenumerated rights adopted in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps the aetheist zealot who has sued to prohibit his fellow citizens from saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance should consider this: No Creator, No Rights. At least not for those who deny the existence of a Creator.
For the rest of us, who have Rights, we plan on continuing to practice our First Amendment Right of freedom of speech.
Our country has problems; Canada has problems. How sad that these fanatics are causing the rest of us to waste so many resources in so many small squabbles as they attempt to push their petty agendae. Those resources could be so much better utilized in helping our fellow citizens and not wasting our tax dollars or adding to our national deficit. Instead, they must be diverted to defend us against ongoing attempts by some of our fellow citizens to restrict or eliminate our freedoms.
In the US, since most Americans are only vaguely familiar with a single language, the zealots here focus their attention on religious symbology that is displayed on public property. One of the most recent “outrages” is the discovery of a small cross depicted among the stars on one panel of the flag of the County of Los Angeles, and the zealots want it removed. It makes no difference that it is part of the history of the area; after all, it was founded as a mission by priests.
Why stop there? The very name “Los Angeles” means “The Angels.” Isn't that blatant religious symbology? They should be required to change the name of the city! Maybe it should just be shortened to “Los,” and the people today known as Angelenos would be henceforth known as Losers.
And what about all those cities and towns whose names begin with San or Santa or Saint? Surely those infectious religious overtones must be stricken from their names! San Antonio could become Tony, Texas. Santa Rosa could be Rosy, and Santa Clara would be Clary. St Louis could be known as Louis, or perhaps Luigi. St Petersburg could be changed to Pete. St Cloud, Minnesota, might be forced to become Cloudy, despite the objections of the Chamber of Commerce. And St Paul would just be Paul, or perhaps by its original unflattering name, Pigeye!
It’s interesting that there’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that refers to a Creator or a God. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . .” Neither Congress nor any State has established a religion. About the worst they’ve done is asked for moral guidance (something we all could use).
I’m not aware of any laws passed by Congress that prohibit the free expression thereof by non-federal public entities, but the Supreme Court (the one that unconstitutionally granted itself powers in 1803 beyond those prescribed to it in the Constitution’s Article III) has sided with the zealots on this one.
On the other hand, the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator. Kind of religious, don't you think? Will it be next? There’s a problem with that, though; a conundrum. You see, the Declaration states we have certain inalienable rights endowed upon us by a Creator. Those rights were the basis for the enumerated and unenumerated rights adopted in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps the aetheist zealot who has sued to prohibit his fellow citizens from saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance should consider this: No Creator, No Rights. At least not for those who deny the existence of a Creator.
For the rest of us, who have Rights, we plan on continuing to practice our First Amendment Right of freedom of speech.
Our country has problems; Canada has problems. How sad that these fanatics are causing the rest of us to waste so many resources in so many small squabbles as they attempt to push their petty agendae. Those resources could be so much better utilized in helping our fellow citizens and not wasting our tax dollars or adding to our national deficit. Instead, they must be diverted to defend us against ongoing attempts by some of our fellow citizens to restrict or eliminate our freedoms.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
What part of the Fourth Amendment that states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . .” does the federal bureaucracy not understand?
An article by Audrey Hudson published in the May 28 edition of the Washington Times reports that numerous federal government agencies are collecting and sifting through massive amounts of personal information about our citizens.
According to the Government Accounting Office, there are 52 federal departments and agencies (out of 128 surveyed) that are using or planning to use a total of 199 data-mining programs, of which 131 are already operational. Additionally, the government buys 36 data-mining programs from the private sector that collect and analyze your credit reports and credit card transactions.
It’s unsettling enough that the private sector collects this information, but at least you know that their intention is merely to sell you stuff you don’t want or need. Your government isn’t trying to sell you stuff. What do these agencies want with information on your credit card purchases?
The Pentagon’s “Total Information Awareness” program, which would have scrutinized your credit card purchases, medical, and travel records, was shut down by Congress due to widespread privacy violation fears. If the Pentagon can’t mine such information, why can the other agencies? Simple. Since Congress has not specifically told them “no,” they assume that means “yes!”
An earlier article from another news source reported that the Justice Department was mining your health records (something to which even your spouse has no access), ostensibly to find out about which doctors engaged in perceived illegal medical procedures, drug prescriptions, and questionable billing practices.
Transportation Security Administration wanted airlines to turn over personal information about their customers. Some airlines complied until their customers complained or sued; others refused. Now TSA is going to force them to turn the information over.
Homeland Security is developing a national database of “incidents,” defined as events “involving law enforcement or government agency for which a log was created,” including traffic stops. Not even a need for an arrest; just an event “involving” an agency. Perhaps a call to ask a question, or to inquire about a regulation or permit.
There was a time when a youthful infraction or indescretion was regarded as such, and was dealt with through a warning, or through extra-legal punishment. No more. It’s all recorded. It’s all in a database. You’re marked--for life.
Question: What happens when federal agencies jump to the wrong conclusions about your legal and innocent activities because they happen to have been cross-referenced in agency databases? Answer: Your home trashed, door broken off, safe cut open and your personal effects smashed and scattered, and a note left saying “Sorry. Wrong House.” Waco. Ruby Ridge.
The irony is that even if the agencies get all this information, they can’t protect it! What stops the unscrupulous bureaucrat from selling it or stealing it? The worst spy cases involved people in government who had access to sensitive information and sold it. What stops anybody from accessing your previously (when it was owned by you) private information, through the Freedom of Information Act?
One of the fastest growing crime statistics is “identity theft.” A whole group of military officers had their identities stolen and their credit damaged when the promotion list was published with their names and Social Security/Military identification numbers. The more information the government collects about you, the more vulnerable to identity theft it makes you.
When your state issues you a driver's license, there is a magnetic strip on the back containing information about you. You can't have access to that information. With one exception, only the government can access it. The exception is anybody who has the same technology as the crooks who made those machines recently to read and steal your credit card data when you used an ATM.
Some of the identity theft is being done by the 9 to 10 million illegal aliens that the government can’t seem to track. Perhaps it’s because the government spends so much time and effort tracking you.
The government reports that some of those 9 to 10 million illegal aliens may be terrorists, but they can’t seem to find them. Perhaps it’s because the government's devoting so much effort to making sure they don’t lose you.
Databases. Monitoring the internet. Monitoring your e-mails. Monitoring your cellphone calls. Tracking your location with GPS. Surveilling your movements with unmanned aerial vehicles. Straitjacket nation.
Today, they’re looking to see if you fit the terrorist profile, or are a tax cheat, or are a child pornographer. Tomorrow, it may be because you’re too inquisitive about your Congressperson’s voting record.
George Orwell’s classic “1984” is here; it just showed up twenty years later than he predicted when he wrote the book in 1949.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people. If the government doesn’t trust the people, how can we have government by the people? If the government can’t defend the borders, how can we have government for the people? If all that’s left is government of the people, how can the people be free?
An article by Audrey Hudson published in the May 28 edition of the Washington Times reports that numerous federal government agencies are collecting and sifting through massive amounts of personal information about our citizens.
According to the Government Accounting Office, there are 52 federal departments and agencies (out of 128 surveyed) that are using or planning to use a total of 199 data-mining programs, of which 131 are already operational. Additionally, the government buys 36 data-mining programs from the private sector that collect and analyze your credit reports and credit card transactions.
It’s unsettling enough that the private sector collects this information, but at least you know that their intention is merely to sell you stuff you don’t want or need. Your government isn’t trying to sell you stuff. What do these agencies want with information on your credit card purchases?
The Pentagon’s “Total Information Awareness” program, which would have scrutinized your credit card purchases, medical, and travel records, was shut down by Congress due to widespread privacy violation fears. If the Pentagon can’t mine such information, why can the other agencies? Simple. Since Congress has not specifically told them “no,” they assume that means “yes!”
An earlier article from another news source reported that the Justice Department was mining your health records (something to which even your spouse has no access), ostensibly to find out about which doctors engaged in perceived illegal medical procedures, drug prescriptions, and questionable billing practices.
Transportation Security Administration wanted airlines to turn over personal information about their customers. Some airlines complied until their customers complained or sued; others refused. Now TSA is going to force them to turn the information over.
Homeland Security is developing a national database of “incidents,” defined as events “involving law enforcement or government agency for which a log was created,” including traffic stops. Not even a need for an arrest; just an event “involving” an agency. Perhaps a call to ask a question, or to inquire about a regulation or permit.
There was a time when a youthful infraction or indescretion was regarded as such, and was dealt with through a warning, or through extra-legal punishment. No more. It’s all recorded. It’s all in a database. You’re marked--for life.
Question: What happens when federal agencies jump to the wrong conclusions about your legal and innocent activities because they happen to have been cross-referenced in agency databases? Answer: Your home trashed, door broken off, safe cut open and your personal effects smashed and scattered, and a note left saying “Sorry. Wrong House.” Waco. Ruby Ridge.
The irony is that even if the agencies get all this information, they can’t protect it! What stops the unscrupulous bureaucrat from selling it or stealing it? The worst spy cases involved people in government who had access to sensitive information and sold it. What stops anybody from accessing your previously (when it was owned by you) private information, through the Freedom of Information Act?
One of the fastest growing crime statistics is “identity theft.” A whole group of military officers had their identities stolen and their credit damaged when the promotion list was published with their names and Social Security/Military identification numbers. The more information the government collects about you, the more vulnerable to identity theft it makes you.
When your state issues you a driver's license, there is a magnetic strip on the back containing information about you. You can't have access to that information. With one exception, only the government can access it. The exception is anybody who has the same technology as the crooks who made those machines recently to read and steal your credit card data when you used an ATM.
Some of the identity theft is being done by the 9 to 10 million illegal aliens that the government can’t seem to track. Perhaps it’s because the government spends so much time and effort tracking you.
The government reports that some of those 9 to 10 million illegal aliens may be terrorists, but they can’t seem to find them. Perhaps it’s because the government's devoting so much effort to making sure they don’t lose you.
Databases. Monitoring the internet. Monitoring your e-mails. Monitoring your cellphone calls. Tracking your location with GPS. Surveilling your movements with unmanned aerial vehicles. Straitjacket nation.
Today, they’re looking to see if you fit the terrorist profile, or are a tax cheat, or are a child pornographer. Tomorrow, it may be because you’re too inquisitive about your Congressperson’s voting record.
George Orwell’s classic “1984” is here; it just showed up twenty years later than he predicted when he wrote the book in 1949.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people. If the government doesn’t trust the people, how can we have government by the people? If the government can’t defend the borders, how can we have government for the people? If all that’s left is government of the people, how can the people be free?
Thursday, May 27, 2004
I’m not sure which I liked better--Al Gore speaking in measured tones as if he were smart and we were stupid, or Al Gore in full rant? I don’t really like either one, since I don’t like Al Gore. As far as I’m concerned, he lost the election Constitutionally, and nothing he has said since has in any way made me wish the outcome had been different. In fact, I shudder to think what might have happened had he been the president on 9/11/2001.
And who was it he endorsed for the Democrat nomination for the presidency?
But the left keeps trotting him out periodically to make more stupid statements, because they know that the left-leaning editors will publicize them. Take the soon-to-be-released natural disaster fiction movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” The promoters try to pass this off as “educational” by rounding up the usual anti-private property groups to push this piece of propaganda, with the lead-off by--Al Gore. In all his time in government, what significant piece of legislation or act regarding the environment carries his name? How was it that he “discovered” the environment as a book subject only as he was gearing up for his failed presidential campaign. Other than the fact that he has aligned himself with the anti-private property left, what gives him sufficient “gravitas” (remember that word?) to speak with any authority on the scientific research and evidence regarding the weather or global warming, especially since he can’t seem to separate fact from fiction, or truth from falsehood?
But the following week really took the cake. Gore addressed the radical left hate group, MoveOn.org. This is the group funded largely by George Soros, the multi-billionaire financier, who has gone on record stating he will spend what it takes to get rid of George W. Bush. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, but apparently he has little regard for it or that other scrap of paper, the Bill of Rights. But there he is, unaffected by campaign finance reform that muzzle the rest of us on legitimate issues, funding his own little personal attack hate group who would probably endorse Saddam Hussein for president if it would get George Bush out of office.
MoveOn.org was the group that sponsored the ad considered, but not adopted, by the DNC that depicted George W. Bush as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. That’s the level of hatred and vitriol with which this group is imbued. One doesn’t have to like--in fact, one could even dislike--George W. Bush and still be offended by that. It should be of great concern to citizens that a group like MoveOn.org might attain power, or at least have influence, in the governance of this country.
But, apparently, members of MoveOn.org who attended Gore’s address this week are unduly influenced by Hitler’s speaking style. Gore began his speech in his usual measured I-know-you’re-stupid-so-I’ll-explain-it-to-you-slowly style, but then he began to inject the extreme words that the left loves to hear--”criminal, humilation, betrayal, torture, national embarassment, disgraceful, incompetent” and the shriller he got, the more the crowd responded. And he really got carried away when he called for the resignation of Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others. Of course he offered no alternative to who should replace them if they did (George Soros for Secretary of Defense or National Security Advisor?). But he wasn’t there to provide alternatives--he was only there to attack, and to stir the passions of hate.
And it wasn’t just the attack words, it was the way they were delivered. At the end, he was actually screaming! WOLFOWITZ SHOULD RESIGN!! RICE SHOULD RESIGN!! RUMSFELD SHOULD RESIGN!! As he screamed, the crowd responded even more loudly. It sounded like. . . Adolf Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies!
You could almost hear in the undertone of the frenzied response from this hate-filled crowd:
"SIEG! RESIGN! SIEG! RESIGN! SIEG! RESIGN!. . . .”
Al Gore. Fairly Unbalanced. He’s disturbed! You decide.
And who was it he endorsed for the Democrat nomination for the presidency?
But the left keeps trotting him out periodically to make more stupid statements, because they know that the left-leaning editors will publicize them. Take the soon-to-be-released natural disaster fiction movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” The promoters try to pass this off as “educational” by rounding up the usual anti-private property groups to push this piece of propaganda, with the lead-off by--Al Gore. In all his time in government, what significant piece of legislation or act regarding the environment carries his name? How was it that he “discovered” the environment as a book subject only as he was gearing up for his failed presidential campaign. Other than the fact that he has aligned himself with the anti-private property left, what gives him sufficient “gravitas” (remember that word?) to speak with any authority on the scientific research and evidence regarding the weather or global warming, especially since he can’t seem to separate fact from fiction, or truth from falsehood?
But the following week really took the cake. Gore addressed the radical left hate group, MoveOn.org. This is the group funded largely by George Soros, the multi-billionaire financier, who has gone on record stating he will spend what it takes to get rid of George W. Bush. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, but apparently he has little regard for it or that other scrap of paper, the Bill of Rights. But there he is, unaffected by campaign finance reform that muzzle the rest of us on legitimate issues, funding his own little personal attack hate group who would probably endorse Saddam Hussein for president if it would get George Bush out of office.
MoveOn.org was the group that sponsored the ad considered, but not adopted, by the DNC that depicted George W. Bush as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. That’s the level of hatred and vitriol with which this group is imbued. One doesn’t have to like--in fact, one could even dislike--George W. Bush and still be offended by that. It should be of great concern to citizens that a group like MoveOn.org might attain power, or at least have influence, in the governance of this country.
But, apparently, members of MoveOn.org who attended Gore’s address this week are unduly influenced by Hitler’s speaking style. Gore began his speech in his usual measured I-know-you’re-stupid-so-I’ll-explain-it-to-you-slowly style, but then he began to inject the extreme words that the left loves to hear--”criminal, humilation, betrayal, torture, national embarassment, disgraceful, incompetent” and the shriller he got, the more the crowd responded. And he really got carried away when he called for the resignation of Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others. Of course he offered no alternative to who should replace them if they did (George Soros for Secretary of Defense or National Security Advisor?). But he wasn’t there to provide alternatives--he was only there to attack, and to stir the passions of hate.
And it wasn’t just the attack words, it was the way they were delivered. At the end, he was actually screaming! WOLFOWITZ SHOULD RESIGN!! RICE SHOULD RESIGN!! RUMSFELD SHOULD RESIGN!! As he screamed, the crowd responded even more loudly. It sounded like. . . Adolf Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies!
You could almost hear in the undertone of the frenzied response from this hate-filled crowd:
"SIEG! RESIGN! SIEG! RESIGN! SIEG! RESIGN!. . . .”
Al Gore. Fairly Unbalanced. He’s disturbed! You decide.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
They’re at it again. This time they’re blowing each other up over. . .
BODY PARTS?
Apparently, the Palestinian terrorist groups have demanded that the Israelis return the body parts of the suicide bombers they sent to kill Israelis. I would have thought that any remnants of somebody carrying their own weight in explosives wouldn’t have been large enough to do anything with but wash away with a garden hose. But for whatever reason, probably to parade through the streets as a recruiting poster, they want them back. And the Israelis have refused to return them.
So the Palestinian terrorists blew up some Israeli armored vehicles, decimating the occupants. The Israelis demanded that the body parts of their soldiers be returned, and the Palestinian terrorists refused.
So the Israelis blew up some more Palestinians.
Does anybody see where this is going?
IT”S LONG PAST TIME TO START BUILDING THAT WALL!!
BODY PARTS?
Apparently, the Palestinian terrorist groups have demanded that the Israelis return the body parts of the suicide bombers they sent to kill Israelis. I would have thought that any remnants of somebody carrying their own weight in explosives wouldn’t have been large enough to do anything with but wash away with a garden hose. But for whatever reason, probably to parade through the streets as a recruiting poster, they want them back. And the Israelis have refused to return them.
So the Palestinian terrorists blew up some Israeli armored vehicles, decimating the occupants. The Israelis demanded that the body parts of their soldiers be returned, and the Palestinian terrorists refused.
So the Israelis blew up some more Palestinians.
Does anybody see where this is going?
IT”S LONG PAST TIME TO START BUILDING THAT WALL!!
