Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.  (Read 7708 times)

strangelittleman

  • Small, Dark and Handsome
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3155

  • Offline
Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2013, 03:54:49 pm »
No it's not B of A. You'll understand if I'm reticent to say the company name, PerSec and all...
I did hear on the news that B of A and several others did get their codes cracked 3 or 4 months ago to the tune of 1.5.million card#s over all.
Semper Gumby.....Always Flexible.
Vision without action is a daydream, Action without vision is a nightmare.
Zol zayn azoy.

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6668
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    « Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 05:12:03 pm by booksmart »

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
    « Reply #27 on: June 09, 2013, 10:59:30 am »
    Remember these scandals have come to light only recently.  We could be seeing just the tip, not the whole iceberg.  The pervading systemic rot is the real issue:

    "A few years ago, after one corruption scandal too many, the then Liberal government in Canada announced that, to prevent further outbreaks of malfeasance, it would be hiring 300 new federal auditors plus a bunch of ethics czars, and mandating 'integrity provisions' in government contracts, including 'prohibitions against paying, offering, demanding or accepting bribes.' There were already plenty of laws against bribery, but one small additional sign on the desk should do the trick: 'Please do not attempt to bribe the Minister of the Crown as a refusal may offend. Also: He’s not allowed to bribe you, whatever he says.' A government that requires 'integrity provisions' is by definition past the stage where they will do any good."

    Read the whole article for more background:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350537/all-seeing-state-mark-steyn

    VirginiaGoatroper

    aikorob

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1376

    • Offline
    GeorgiaFrom The Codex Kalachnikova: "He who would have you surrender your arms does so because he wishes to do something you could prevent by their usage."

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
    « Reply #29 on: June 10, 2013, 08:06:59 am »
    How many last straws does it take?

    BayouRenaissanceMan has a straightforward article on the current situation.  It's a disturbing pattern, especially when you start to list all the scandals/abuses together.  Note that there are many links in the article at his site; I've included the Old NFO link at the end, as that's another good one.

    http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-big-brothers-latest-overreach.html

    What Big Brother's latest overreach reveals

    We've all been deluged with reports of scandals emanating from our bloated, out-of-control 'Big Brother' government in recent weeks, including:

    *    The IRS illegally targeted conservative, religious and right-of-center groups and individuals;
    *    The NSA intercepted nearly all electronic communications within and outside the USA, ignoring our right to and expectation of privacy in flagrant, blatant disregard of the US Constitution and legal jurisprudence;
    *    The Administration appears to be deliberately delaying, obfuscating and ignoring inquiries into the Benghazi affair, in an attempt to protect key players within its ranks, up to and including President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton;
    *    The Department of Justice obtained journalists' phone records, and even claimed that one journalist might be a co-conspirator in the leaking of classified information, in efforts to clamp down on the leaking of secret and confidential information to the news media.  Its behavior has been called 'criminalizing journalism'.
    *    Going further back, the current Administration is ramming through changes to health care laws and regulations that override religious objections to various procedures, forcing organizations and individuals with such reservations to nevertheless provide and/or pay for health care that violates them.  As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia has observed, "The day when Americans could take the Founders' understanding of religious freedom as a given is over. We need to wake up."

    There's been a mass outpouring of indignation over these excesses - and rightly so.  However, most of this verbal diarrhea completely misses the point.  These latest scandals are merely the most visible and in-your-face symptoms of a problem that's been growing for almost a century, ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed through his 'New Deal' legislation.  The problem is that politicians have used administrative organizations, structures and powers to make the people dependent on government handouts and largesse.  'Big Government' has become a self perpetuating monstrosity.  (Please follow all those links for some very interesting and enlightening discussions.)

    It begins with entitlement programs and aid to favored groups - those who can reliably deliver votes.  For decades politicians have tried to ensure their own re-election by promising milk and honey, wine and roses to whoever will vote for them and/or their party - and they've succeeded.  Today less than 20% of Congressional and Senate seats change occupants in a typical election, despite rampant (and blatant) corruption, nepotism and malfeasance among our elected leaders.  (To name just one example of these evils, Congress exempted itself from insider trading legislation.  When called on that, it repealed its protection . . . but only until public attention turned elsewhere.  As soon as it could, it repealed its repeal, so that today Representatives and Senators and their staffs can once again trade using inside information without fear of prosecution.)  Look at the number of Representatives and Senators who've grown rich in office.  Think that's due to their lavish salaries?  Nope.  Think again.

    Trouble is, this focus on aiding the 'poor' and 'underprivileged' rapidly changed focus.  The so-called 'American Dream' was originally about equality of opportunity;  that everyone in this country had the same opportunity to 'make it', given hard work and dedication.  The apostles and preachers of Big Government corrupted this to equality of outcome;  namely that rewards should be evenly distributed as far as possible, without this distribution necessarily being commensurate with ability or effort.  (In so many words, it's a modern quasi-Socialist version of Marx's infamous dictum, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.)  Taxation has become little more than a tool for redistribution of wealth, with the 'rich' demonized as 'not paying their fair share', despite the fact that they're already paying by far the largest proportion of all taxes on individuals in this country.  That's politically irrelevant.  They still have more than the 'poor', therefore, by definition, they're not contributing enough.  Q.E.D.

    This attitude of 'Big Brother knows what's best for you' has since expanded to include the 'security state'.  In the face of the terror attacks of 9/11, the US government's knee-jerk reaction was to tighten the reins, curbing individual civil liberties and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights in an effort to improve the safety and security of society as a whole.  It did so by basically ignoring the Constitution, passing legislation such as the Patriot Act and then employing the whole power of the State to ensure that it was applied.  When courts struck down certain provisions of such legislation, the authorities either appealed against their rulings, or passed new legislation to reimpose such provisions, or blatantly and actively ignored the rulings and continued to do as they saw fit.  The latest scandals are merely the latest symptoms of the latter attitude.  "We're in charge - we know what's best for you - we're going to do it, whether you like it or not, and if you object, you're part of the problem.  So there!"

    Two oft-repeated quotations sum up the current situation.  I'm sure my readers have seen both of them on far too many occasions for comfort.  Indeed, they've become clichés today . . . but that doesn't mean they're not as true now as they've ever been, if not more so.

    The first is by Benjamin Franklin, who famously observed:

        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    The American people have done precisely that - and today, the results are clear to see.  If the US electorate consents to this abdication of liberty by re-electing those responsible for enacting the laws that have permitted it, it will prove conclusively that it 'deserves neither liberty nor safety', and demonstrate that the ideals of our Founding Fathers are effectively dead, along with the provisions and values of the US Constitution.

    The second quote is from C. S. Lewis, who pointed out:

        Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.


    The tragedy is, many of those who authorized the excesses revealed in the recent scandals, and many of those who perpetrated them, probably sincerely believe that they're acting for the good of those victimized by their actions, and for the good of society as a whole.  Last year saw a widely publicized call by a so-called 'Professor of Constitutional Law' to actually ignore the US Constitution in order to accomplish what he saw as necessary for the good of the country.  The fact that the authority of those who govern us, and their very election to office, is derived from that same Constitution, appeared to never even enter into his head.  If the authority of the Constitution is destroyed, whether by omission or commission, so is the authority of those who hold office in terms of it, and the legality and legitimacy of their actions.

    Perhaps it's best to close with another quotation from the inimitable Ben Franklin.

        The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    Can we keep our Republic, in the face of these scandals?  The response of the American people will tell us that.  If they fail to throw out those who've legalized and/or perpetrated and/or tolerated these crimes . . . then our Republic is doomed.  So is our Constitution, and the traditions handed down to us by our Founding Fathers.

    There will be those who refuse to accept this.  I'm one of them.  I swore an oath.

        I ... do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    I will keep my oath.  It wasn't just empty, meaningless words to me.  I will never accept or co-operate with attempts to ride roughshod over what I swore to support and defend, or negate those principles I hold dear.

    Unfortunately, those of us who think that way appear to be in an ever-diminishing minority right now.  Whether or not we - and our principles - can survive this crisis, remains to be seen.

    EDITED TO ADD:  As Old NFO asks, 'What's the last straw?'   http://oldnfo.org/2013/06/09/straws/
    VirginiaGoatroper

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
    « Reply #30 on: June 10, 2013, 08:20:39 am »
    This brings it back to addressing directly the whys and hows of the Fourth Amendment danger we're in.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/when-everything-is-a-crime-government-data-mining-matters/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

    When everything is a crime, government data mining matters

    William A. Jacobson

    I guess you could put me in the “concerned” category on the various — and disputed — accounts of how the government data mines phone records and obtains email and search information from internet companies.

    On the one hand, I’m concerned about those who have bad intent towards the country.  These people and governments exist, and the electronic tools used by the U.S. government undoubtedly could keep us safer than we would be without such measures.  How much safer is unknown.

    But I’m also concerned with what could be done with the information gathered about American citizens not suspected of a crime if put into the hands of politicians and political groups, and bureaucrats who work for or are sympathetic to such politicians and political groups.

    The threat, oddly enough, is proven by the leaks which (allegedly) exposed the programs and were provided to Glenn Greenwald.  If some government employee who has sworn to keep information secret is willing to leak the information to Glenn Greenwald for (allegedly) good purposes, what’s to stop that person from violating his or her oath by leaking data-mined information to Glenn Greenwald or Media Matters or the Human Rights Campaign for other than good reasons about a Tea Party group, religious figure or conservative politician?

    In the age of Obama and the unique mainstream media disinterest in anything that damages Obama, this already has resulted in a flourishing culture of intimidation directed at the Tea Party, traditional marriage supporters, conservatives, and other opponents of Obama and the Obama agenda.

    A point discussed here many times is the criminalization of life, particularly with regard to gun laws.  Professor Glenn Reynolds has made the point more generally in his paper Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime.

    Prosecutors have become kings, with the ability to find a crime committed by just about anyone.  Data mining and access to internet activity can help find terrorists, but it also can be used to find crimes which were not previously known to have been committed by political opponents.

    A “find the target first, then find the crime” political approach requires access to information of an unprecedented level.  Which is exactly what is happening.

    The issue goes beyond the NSA programs.  Obamacare is a form of data mining.

    Obamacare will put into the hands of the IRS medical and health information of an unprecedented level.  As bad as leaks as to which websites you visit would be, the threat of leakage of your medical information could be equally devastating to freedom of speech and the political process.  It would take a mere nod and a wink to convince someone that participation in the political process was not worth it if the result was the exposure of sensitive medical issues.

    You can’t separate the data mining, the culture of intimidation, and criminalization of daily life.

    The answer to this problem is not easy, precisely because of the legitimate national security concerns.  That where to draw the line may be difficult to ascertain does not mean that a line should not be drawn.  The wholesale creation of a national database of everything electronic crosses any reasonable line.

    Obama’s response is that we should trust the government.

    The Obama scandals tell us otherwise.  From the phony Benghazi talking points, to IRS targeting, to deceptive measures to obtain journalist phone and email records, the Obama administration at multiple levels and in multiple agencies has proven that it is not worthy of our trust.  Or of our information.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    aikorob

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1376

    • Offline
    Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
    « Reply #31 on: June 11, 2013, 02:42:18 pm »
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-11/germany-demands-obama-explain-american-style-stasi-methods


    "When even Zee Germans are staring open-mouthed at what they call "American-style Stasi methods" you know things have got a little out of hand"
    GeorgiaFrom The Codex Kalachnikova: "He who would have you surrender your arms does so because he wishes to do something you could prevent by their usage."

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
    « Reply #32 on: June 13, 2013, 12:09:46 pm »
    Considering all that's recently begun coming to light - and in line with aikorob's Stasi post - here's another idea to add to the mix:

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/essential-liberty-they-came-for-your-guns/?singlepage=true

    Essential Liberty: They Came for Your Guns

    by Howard Nemerov

    “I have NO confidence whatsoever that some sort of gun registry doesn't already exist, in light of the NSA revelation, IRS revelation, AP wiretap revelation, etc.” — Rob Olive, author of Essential Liberty.

    What if the federal government decided to confiscate all civilian firearms? Would you surrender your guns? Would your friends and neighbors turn you in? Do enough Americans remain who are willing to risk their lives resisting disarmament? Would the military support the government, or the people, or both?

    What if the Supreme Court rules disarmament is constitutional? Would sheriffs who previously swore to resist unconstitutional firearms laws decide to support disarmament after such a ruling?

    The issue these days isn’t that the Supreme Court affirmed Second Amendment principles in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, but that four of nine justices dissented. Similarly, the Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks didn’t advance — but 54 senators voted for it. If those opposing the civil right of self-defense elect just a few more representatives and senators, or replace one more Supreme Court justice, the Second Amendment’s “official” interpretation could drastically change; the questions above would no longer be academic.

    The novel Essential Liberty serves as scenario training, just like tactical pistol classes help people acquire the skills to survive a potentially lethal attack. Like tactical training, Essential Liberty takes today’s news and political climate and moves them just a little farther into a possible future.

    Author Rob Olive understands the basic problem with today’s debate:

    Facts and logic mattered not at all, as many firearms rights supporters quickly discovered. When emotions ran as high as they did on this issue, there could be no true debate. (Page 8, Kindle Edition.)

    Olive accurately portrays a likely scenario, including a series of actions by the federal government, justice system, and media that have been in play for years, though perhaps more so since the Newtown tragedy. There are deeper, darker aspects to Olive’s story that may have happened in fact, but haven’t been exposed yet. An example: we assume background-check records get destroyed as required by federal law, per below:

    In cases of NICS Audit Log records relating to allowed transactions, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the transferee will be destroyed within 24 hours after the FFL receives communication of the determination that the transfer may proceed. All other information, except the NTN and date, will be destroyed after not more than 90 days from the date of inquiry.

    But consider current events, such as the Benghazi attack on our consulate, the IRS targeting “conservative groups,” and Fast & Furious. Is it reasonable to assume the feds always destroy all copies and backups of legal firearms purchases? Wikileaks is an example of how computer records show up unexpectedly.

    Then there’s the latest revelation that the National Security Agency can “intercept almost everything” sent electronically. According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: “Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.” Is it reasonable to believe that NICS transactions over a government network are secured against another government agency tracking everything it can in the name of national security?

    Having been published before all these recent government scandals, Essential Liberty becomes prophetic. When interviewed recently, Olive said: “I have NO confidence whatsoever that some sort of gun registry doesn’t already exist, in light of the NSA revelation, IRS revelation, AP wiretap revelation, etc.”

    Essential Liberty opens somewhat heavily, but the reality of disarmament needs explanation. The story is informative enough to keep it interesting. There are a few other detractions, at least for some readers. Olive uses a lot of acronyms, though he initially defines them. Some readers may need to slow down to track who’s doing what. Olive’s characters speak in similar voices, exhibiting a lack of character development. He uses a lot of dialogue to set up plotlines. Great stories show.

    For example, the novel contains a bar scene where Marshall Keller and Agent Myers “come clean” with their thoughts about confiscation. It comes off as forced — a device to convey how some government agents don’t want to enforce it. Cops often speak in code, and Keller’s first short answer would have revealed his perspective, making further dialogue unnecessary. According to Olive:

    I had in mind for this scene to really illustrate Bobby’s anguish over the whole thing. Keller’s surprise that Bobby would open up, especially to the degree that he did, sort of alludes to the “code” you speak of having been broken in this case. I really wanted to convey more than these two law enforcement officers “coming clean.” I wanted to show how literally torn up Bobby was, as I believe many law enforcement officers would be if this ever came to pass.

    Some of Olive’s writing targets “attaboys,” potentially turning off those who are the most important to reach: the undecided middle:

    Of course, the mere mention of such historical facts these days could very well result in one being branded a “right-wing extremist.” Mike was always dumbfounded by the fact that the words upon which his country was founded were now considered “extreme.” (Page 6, Kindle Edition.)

    Olive explained this focus:

    My primary purpose in writing Essential Liberty (besides wanting to write a thriller that — by definition — entertains) was to reach those already on “our” side who take liberty for granted, who don’t pay enough attention, and who refuse to consider the possibility that a scenario like this could happen. I wanted to address complacency within our ranks more than to win over the undecided. Having said that, I’ve been told by a few readers who’ve never owned guns that they viewed Sandy Hook through a different lens as a result of having read my novel. The excerpt you reference above is critical for all of us, regardless of politics, to understand. We’ve strayed so far from our founding principles that the words our Founders used are now considered “extreme.”

    Olive makes many salient points in Essential Liberty:

    Far too many “gun rights people” focused on the gun issue alone, which was shortsighted and selfish, not to mention hypocritical. Freedom was freedom and it had been slipping away in this country for much of the twentieth century. (Page 62, Kindle Edition.)

    Essential Liberty does show how we have lost touch with important founding values that created American greatness. Perhaps more germane in today’s political climate, Olive highlights how the American people are responsible for the politicians currently driving us to ruin; how we’re becoming a nation full of self-centered folks who don’t care if others’ rights are infringed, as long as it doesn’t infringe on our lives. But telling can draw a good story out of the novel realm and into the world of op/ed. When asked about how he worked to balance between showing and telling, Olive said:

    I would, of course, argue that it is very much a novel … a thriller, but with a message. This novel was a labor of love for me, having taken more than a decade of my life (albeit intermittently) to produce. While it may seem heavy handed at times, the story conveys what I consider a vital, timely message.

    Olive provides lots of material to make you think about what’s happening in America today, and what you can do about it. The pace picks up after the first quarter and the book becomes a page-turner. There are some character arcs and surprising plot twists. Olive occasionally breaks up the flow by explaining characters’ motivations instead of letting their actions tell the story. Some of the moralizing likely reduces the book’s effectiveness as outreach to those not already Second Amendment supporters. Nevertheless, this book is worth reading — most crime/adventure novels fail to address how real political and social dynamics impact current events and social policy. Considering that Olive took on complex and hot-button subject matter, and a threat that most of us prefer ignoring, Essential Liberty is worth reading because it successfully portrays today’s news as a parable of what can happen if good people do nothing.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1461

    • Offline
    Re: Apparently its too dangerous for the 4th Amendment to exist.
    « Reply #33 on: June 13, 2013, 12:24:14 pm »
    Another timely observation:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/paranoid_government_HP3g5Km3mTJXCqn0lceHTI

    Paranoid Government

    What do to about ‘federal fringe’

        By FRANK J. FLEMING

    Like many of my fellow Americans, I’m getting pretty concerned about a fringe group in our country that’s growing increasingly isolated and paranoid. Worse, we now have indications that this group is lashing out in ignorance and fear.

    It’s time that we finally confront the problem of federal workers’ growing anti-citizen extremism.

    The feds have shown warning signs for years, becoming increasingly withdrawn, hunkered down in their bunkers in DC. They’re disconnected from what’s going on in the rest of the country, getting their news only from extremist sources like Media Matters, MSNBC and The New York Times.

    And in their fear and isolation, federal workers seem willing to believe almost any crazy conspiracy theory about the American public — such as that everyone is secretly racist against the president and that people are going to form militias to fight the government.

    And now we know they’ve started attacking those they fear, with IRS workers targeting right-wing groups and Justice Department employees going after journalists. Others are apparently engaged in some massive spying operation on anyone who’s ever put a cat photo on Facebook. (To be fair, these last may really just be trying to spy on their ex-girlfriends.)

    Now, citizen have plenty to worry about with the feds lashing out. After all, for years the government has stockpiled dangerous weapons like assault rifels, nuclear weapons and audit forms.

    It hasn’t started blowing up US citizens in drone strikes (other than the four), but who knows what the feds will do if their paranoia is allowed to grow?

    So what can be done? Well, we can’t do much as average citizens, as, of course, the government never listens to us. But certain people hold a lot of sway over it, and maybe they should start to watch what they say, considering that excitable, easily influenced groups like federal workers are out there listening.

    Now, I’m all for freedom of speech — along with the iPad, it’s one of the modern conveniences I use the most — some people need to be more careful with what they say about the citizenry, so they don’t feed federal workers’ paranoia.

    I’m thinking especially of President Obama, as people in the federal government tend to listen to him. When Obama and his colleagues talk about how dangerous the Tea Party and other conservatives are, with their dislike of taxes and spending, most folks are discerning enough to dismiss that as partisan rhetoric. But impressionable people not known for independent thinking — bureaucrats — will hear talk of the “dangers” these groups pose and act as if the dangers are real.

    I’ll bet when the IRS went after Tea Party groups and Eric Holder signed warrants to investigate reporters, these people ignorantly thought they were helping Obama and that he’d be happy with them.

    I’m not trying to say this is Obama’s fault — it’s not like it’s his job to know what goes on in the federal government — but if he were more careful with what he says, he could probably end a lot of federal workers’ paranoia has about our citizens right now. He could instead explain to the people in the government that there is nothing to fear from ordinary Americans — that, in fact, a healthy country needs not only a flourishing government, but also a strong, powerful citizenry.

    And once the feds have calmed down and are no longer scared of the people, we need someone to finally keep an eye on it so it doesn’t do crazy things out of fear again. In fact, I thought there were already people who are supposed to do that.

    After the Fast & Furious mess, we should have known someone like Eric Holder can’t be responsible for himself, but we need to have a long talk with whoever his supervisor is.
    VirginiaGoatroper

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.