Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 June
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
My Links
RATTLER RED's DEN - HOME
Rattler Red's PCBS Page
BbqChili's Chili Blog Off
Red Tigress' Lair
Jim Doney's - Are You High?
Rasta's - Behind Enemy Headlines
Lynnkramer's Blog
Nivek's - Institute of Capitalist Philosophy
Question's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Bouillabaisse - Dianne Maire's Blog
THIS WEEK'S: Fred On Everything
Closer To Truth
Truth Or Fiction
The Skeptic's Dictionary
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Subscribe
to
Rattler Red's Den
| |
|
| |
_____________
'Bill of Rights' ENFORCEMENT ____________
Ron Paul's Weekly Column
This is a
UN-free Zone
United Nations Keep Out !
DISCLAIMER:
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I make such material available for educational purposes. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
|
| Thoughts On The Meritorious Breaking Of Laws |
| 03.27.04 (10:56 am) [edit] |
Nowhere To Hide
Thoughts On The Meritorious Breaking Of Laws
March 22, 2004 - Fred Reed
This Weeks' - Fred on Everything
How much do we really want people to obey laws?
The question hasn't mattered greatly in the past since there was often no way to enforce laws beyond a certain point. You could enforce speeding laws in front of a school with nearly perfect effectiveness, and you could occasionally catch people speeding on rural roads. Yet compliance was largely discretionary. The lack of inescapable surveillance meant that at three a.m. on the Interstate, a driver could crank it up to eighty-five and be left alone. Obedience was not exactly optional, but at times when obedience didn't really matter you didn't really have to obey.
The rapid increase in surveillance of everybody and everything is taking, or so it seems to me, a new and unwholesome turn. We move toward a world in which many laws can be enforced strictly and unfailingly, everywhere and at all times.
To continue the example of speeding, the technology exists now to catch every hypervelocitous driver whatsoever on any road we choose. It could be done in several ways. For example, there exist little transponders called radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs) that transmit a serial number when they pass by a reader. They are about the size of a grain of rice, cost a few cents, and don't need batteries. Requiring them on cars (they're just like license plates, the argument will run) would allow readers along roads to calculate the speed of every car. Easy.
This isn't a column about the technology itself, so for the moment let's stipulate that the combination of data bases, cameras, networks, and so on can, or could if put to the use, make it impossible to break large categories of laws without being caught. I'm not making this up. I follow the technology closely in my guise as a tech columnist for the Washington Times. The level of surveillance I'm talking about is absolutely possible, right now, and is being put in place in bits and pieces. What would be the pros and cons?
CONTINUE HERE
( Article will change soon )
|
|
|
| |
| LEADING BY EXAMPLE: |
| 03.16.04 (3:20 pm) [edit] |
LEADING BY EXAMPLE:
After a briefing on the coup in Haiti, U.S. Representative Corrine Brown (Democrat from Florida) said President Bush's policy for the country was "racist" and engineered by "a bunch of white men."
That didn't sit well with the president's man she was berating, Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega. "As a Mexican-American, I deeply resent being called a racist and branded a white man," he told her, but promised that he would "relay that to [Secretary of State] Colin Powell and [national security adviser] Condoleezza Rice the next time I run into them." Brown, who is black, said she was "absolutely not" apologetic for calling Noriega white, telling him "you all look alike to me."
(Jacksonville, Fla., Times-Union) ...Racism: an appalling slur on humanity, unless committed by a black Democratic politician.
|
|
|
| |
| San Fran City Hall |
| 03.16.04 (3:11 pm) [edit] |
A scene at City Hall in San Francisco:
"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
|
|
|
| |
| Quotations |
| 03.13.04 (11:42 am) [edit] |
"The government is good at one thing...it knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say 'see if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk'." --- Harry Browne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected." --- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If someone is so fearful, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all." --- Rep. Henry Waxman
{ Why, Mr. Waxman, are you trying to take away the rights of the people? }
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." --- H. L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." --- Henry David Thoreau
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
| |
| FOUNDERS' QUOTATIONS |
| 03.11.04 (8:33 pm) [edit] |
QUOTATIONS:
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood." ...Thomas Jefferson
___________________
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ...Samuel Adams
___________________
QUOTATIONS:
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood." ...Thomas Jefferson
___________________
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ...Samuel Adams
___________________
|
|
|
| |
| The Passion indecent? |
| 03.11.04 (8:15 pm) [edit] |
The Passion indecent?
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
March 10, 2004
Can "The Passion of the Christ" be judged indecent by a small group of powerful federal bureaucrats and kept off broadcast television because of the film's message or scenes of violence? Can your favorite radio talk-show host be fined $500,000 every time he expresses an opinion that is labeled "hate speech?" Can you also be fined $500,000 when you call in and agree with his opinion?
"Can't happen here," you say? The Department of Justice has already been petitioned to evaluate Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" for violation of hate crimes statutes.
Senator Rick Santorum has proposed amending Title IX of the Higher Education Act to punish American colleges and universities if those institutions permit professors, students or student organizations to openly criticize Israel.
"Political correctness" has silenced certain groups of Americans. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) puts the muzzle on average Americans during political campaigns. And now, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act....
Are the political elite in Washington the ones we want to give such unchecked power and control?
Our country's founders thought not. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." The Founding Fathers might not have imagined radio or television, but it is precisely because they could not have imagined everything the future would bring that they established timeless principles.
The U.S. House will vote on the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (H.R. 3717) tomorrow afternoon. We strongly urge a "no" vote on this dangerous legislation. To send your message, go to: http://capwiz.com/liberty/iss... .
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org" title="http://www.thelibertycommittee.org" target="_blank"http://www.thelibertycommitte...
|
|
|
| |
| Questioning Authority |
| 03.11.04 (8:04 pm) [edit] |
COPS INVESTIGATING GUN WRITER FOR "QUESTIONING AUTHORITY"
Ray Thomas: News Nuggets
sierratimes.com
"Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results in a police investigation that includes not only calls from detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming to your home?" It won't stand because it's unconstitutional. But they've been able to inconvenience him and make him think twice before "questioning authority" in the future, so they've got what they wanted.
Maybe. And maybe this writer will "question their authority" even more in the future after beating them the first time. I would.
They think they can intimidate this writer into not criticizing the government. If he's anything like me this will make him work al the harder. I used to send Mayor Wellington Webb's press thug, Andrew Hudson, copies of my formerly published print newsletter, An Objective View, whenever I mentioned Webb. We got into an e-mail argument and then he told me to stop sending him "spam." I guess he didn't know the difference between spam and personal e-mail. Stupid. But I'd expect nothing less from a press flack for a big liberal like Webb. Liberals just can't abide criticism. (Keep and Bear Arms.com, 2/19/04) [030904-1]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RECKLESS TAX CUTTER: Like Most democrats, Wesley Clark, during his ill-fated run for president, accused Bush of being a "reckless tax cutter." There is no such thing. Whenever it has been tried, cutting taxes has INCREASED the "tax take," rather than causing less income to come to the government.
READ MORE
sierratimes.com/04/03/09/ray_thomas.htm
|
|
|
| |
| Ruby Ridge in New Mexico? |
| 03.11.04 (7:12 pm) [edit] |
Ruby Ridge In New Mexico?
03-06-04 Columnist - LewisNews.com
Are developments in Southwestern New Mexico tumbling out of control and setting up a situation like the one at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, where three innocent citizens were gunned down by federal Law enforcement officials? This question goes to the recent announcement by the Forest Service concerning the impounding and removal of the Diamond Bar cattle.
If one looks at the preparations of the Forest Service and the size of the force they have brought into the area, it might appear so. With 16 Law Enforcement Officers, roadblocks, attack dogs, and an apparent distrust of law-abiding citizens that would rival border guards in the old Soviet Union, one wonders why the gathering of alleged trespass cattle would require such warlike tactics? With no threat of violence by the Laneys, who, in fact, have declared they will not interfere with the seizure of their cattle, the Forest Service has bulled ahead closing the only road in the area, declaring the Public forest off limits to law abiding citizens and intimidating anyone who comes near or opposes their tactics. Furthermore, they have caused a jurisdictional crisis between the Forest Service on one hand and the County and the Sheriff on the other. And, if that's not enough, they have precipitated legal confusion on the Livestock Board as they have attempted to circumvent, misuse and confuse what were once called the best livestock laws in the country. All with the apparent blessing of Governor Richardson and Attorney General Patricia Madrid.
Clint Welborne, District Attorney for Catron County, at a meeting of the Catron County Commission, said, "We can't ask the Sheriff to go out there and confront these armed federal officers." This was stated in an open meeting in an attempt to dissuade the Sheriff from going out to assert jurisdiction in Catron County as the legal chief law enforcement authority. Presumably, DA Welborne believes it is better for defenseless citizens to confront armed federal officers. Mr. Welborne also states in a letter that, "If you or your department should attempt to intervene you risk the possibility of being arrested by Federal Marshals and held in contempt of court and possibly jailed
" Mr. Welborne says this even though the federal law enforcement contingent's operation in New Mexico and Catron County is conditional on the consent of both the Sheriff and the Chief of the State Police
Of course, this would be comical if it weren't tearing at the fabric of New Mexican institutions and law. The laneys, while moving horses along old State Highway 61 from one private land holding to another were accosted by the Forest Service. The Officers tried to pull the horses over, using emergency lights and sirens and shouting through loud speakers, "This is law enforcement. Stop your horse and get off." Of course, this only caused the horses to speed up. At this point Dale and Alvin Laney had no choice but to try and control the horses. In no way could they allow them to trod upon the forest. So then, picture two full-blown patrol units with sirens blaring, lights blazing, attack dog inside barking frantically, loudspeaker roaring commands to "pull over them runaway horses".
Matt Schneberger, local rancher, says, "Barney fife is alive and well in the Gila. Only in this case he don't just have a bullet in his pocket, he's got a large capacity auto pistol and all the back-up in the world. We've got terrorists coming across the Mexican border to kill Americans and here we are guarding against a small family ranch trying to protect their private property."
The Forest Service is not only callous about their treatment of the Laneys but they are completely oblivious to the harm they cause others. Doug Osborn, wrote, "I just got back from the Cattleguard Restaurant up at the Fowlers. There were six folks from Minnesota in there eating. They had come down here to hunt lions, but the road is closed. There go their plans (and lots of money). I wonder how the Forest Service would feel about reimbursing those folks. Lots of luck!"
Ray Fowler, another local Rancher, said, "I went to get a bull and when I got back there was a roadblock up and they wouldn't let me in. There were guys running around demanding a permit. I didn't have one. I still don't have a permit. They finally let me through after they took down my license plate like I was going to rob a bank or something. They tell me nobody from the outside can come in to see me."
To justify this ridiculous circus Steve Libby of the Forest Service intimated that Kit Laney had threatened a gentleman who was delivering feed to the Forest Service. But when he was asked about it, the man delivering the feed said he had never met Kit Laney. Then Mr. Libby said there were threats that the greens might get involved if the cattle weren't removed quick enough. No evidence was ever presented for this assertion.
It is a sad day when Smokey the Bear goes on the rampage. The Forest Service by it's actions in the Diamond Bar Ranch controversy is either exhibiting paranoia or an inclination to intimidate. Either way, the Forest Service no longer deserves the trust of the public and the state of New Mexico. They have no business employing a small army of quasi-military, trained to a fever pitch
Barney Fifes.
LewisNews
Address:http://www.lewisnews.com/arti...
|
|
|
| |
| Remember the Alamo |
| 03.11.04 (5:23 pm) [edit] |
We Must Always Remember The Alamo
By Chuck Baldwin
March 12, 2004
I cannot let the month of March get away without reminding my readers of the magnificent stand by the defenders of The Alamo back in 1836. The Alamo fell on March 6 of that year. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna's seasoned army of over 5,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die.
How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans!
It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett, Will Travis, and Jim Bowie really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life (Travis was only 23 years old) as much as any of us. There was something different about them, however.
They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.
"Liberty" is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, "Responsibility." Neither is she an only child. "Patriotism" and "Morality" are his sisters. They are inseparable; destroy one and all will die.
Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: "Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side."
As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., People for the un-American Way, and the National Education Association telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As school children, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks.
The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was "the land of the free and the home of the brave." They believed God was on their side and that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.
By today's standards, the gallant men of the Alamo seem rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning-none!
However, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, "Victory or death!"
Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you listen to our gutless political and religious leaders calling for appeasement, compromise, and tolerance. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of freedom.
One thing is certain: those courageous champions did not die for a political party or for some "lesser of two evils" mantra!
They fought and died for a principle. So did the men at Lexington and Concord. That is our history. On second thought, do they look foolish, or do we?
İ Chuck Baldwin
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com" title="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com" target="_blank"http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.c...
chuckbaldwinlive.com
********************** *
|
|
|
| |
|
|
