Science fiction and the reality of today's private police

I am a science fiction junky. I can read it with the absolute ability to believe it is real and submerge myself totally into the story. SciFi is simply a foretelling of what will happen in my eyes.

Today that foretelling is rather bothersome.

One of the many themes that runs through a lot of stories involve the future development of industry and their individual powers. Not just financial power but basic physical power. Armed raw power backed by guns and cuffs. I'm not talking about the mall ninjas that sit at the entrance to the mall and threatens you with the standard "stop, or I'll say stop again". No. I'm talking about police with the ability to dress up like the shock troop outfits that the ATFE, FBI, and other alphabet soup agencies enjoy.

In the stories the company police have the support and total backing of the government. These private police, while having to answer to the law in their actions, know that they work for, and serve, the company. Serving a company and enforcing the law creates a conflict in my eyes. You can only serve one master is the phrase that comes to mind.

So today I was reading about the FedEx and how they are bending over to help the police. This article also mentioned other companies that are also falling in line to help the state. The victim is our privacy. But that does not seem to be a large issue with the government today.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, when federal law-enforcement officials asked FedEx Corp. for help, the company had its limits. It wouldn't provide access to its databases. It often refused to lend uniforms or delivery trucks to agents for undercover operations, citing fears of retribution against employees as well as concerns about customer privacy.
.....
Federal agents privately praise Western Union for sharing information with Treasury and Homeland Security investigators about overseas money transfers. Time Warner Inc.'s America Online has set up a dedicated hotline to help police officers seeking AOL subscriber information and also proffers advice about wording subpoenas. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which has a sophisticated supply-chain security system, has been helping U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents figure out how to better track international shipping, say Homeland Security officials.

Now you may feel that helping to fight terrorism is the highest act that you can do today, But at what price. The FedEx may be a prime example of what happens when a company goes to far into serving the state while the cost of privacy is suffered by you and me.

In December 2001, according to court records in Illinois, a FedEx driver became suspicious after making a series of deliveries of boxes to an apartment complex in suburban Chicago. The cartons were always the same size and shape and came from the same address in Los Angeles. Worried there was something sinister afoot, the driver informed his bosses and FedEx called the police.

Suspecting narcotics or explosives, the police showed up at the FedEx depot with bomb- and drug-sniffing dogs. The dogs didn't signal there was anything illicit in the boxes. FedEx then invoked the authority granted to it by every customer, which the police don't automatically have, permitting it to inspect any package without a warrant.

With a police officer looking on, FedEx popped the carton. Instead of anything dangerous, the boxes contained several hundred pre-recorded compact discs. Local police launched an investigation that eventually uncovered a CD-bootlegging operation.

Their is something called due process that is a strict ruling that defines what a police officer has to do before he searches you, or a package. So because the company decided something was wrong they did an old run around your rights. The company can open your package, and a cop was there who could not. They both win and your rights lose. This is a super example of why a overly friendly police company relationship can be a dangerous thing.

It was while reading up on the issues of company efforts that I came across something that raised my eye brows. FedEx has its own police force, small yet a lot of influence.

FedEx Corp. has come up with a novel way to battle terrorist threats and other crimes: start its own 10-man police force.

The FedEx cops dress in plain clothes, detective-style, and are accredited by the Tennessee government. They can investigate all types of crimes, request search warrants and make arrests anywhere in the state, although they haven't busted anyone yet, and likely won't.
............
Tim Edgar, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, questions whether corporate cops can be trusted to act in the public interest, and argues that a watchdog agency should oversee the company's performance. "You're given all the powers of someone accountable to the public, but you're driven by the profit incentives of a private company," he says.
............
The company wouldn't make the corporate cops available for interviews.

As for questions of inside information, Krause says the company's police can't give other firms a heads-up because they can't share sensitive law-enforcement data. During industry forums, though, FedEx may talk generally about security issues with competitors, she adds.

The bold type in the last paragraph offers me a lot of worry. If they are police then they have the duty to inform other firms if there is an issue they need to know of, but they can't.

But don't worry. FedEx is not the only with its own private forces running around. The RIAA has a few of their own uniformed security.

Though no guns were brandished, the bust from a distance looked like classic LAPD, DEA or FBI work, right down to the black "raid" vests the unit members wore. The fact that their yellow stenciled lettering read "RIAA" instead of something from an official law-enforcement agency was lost on 55-year-old parking-lot attendant Ceasar Borrayo.

The Recording Industry Association of America is taking it to the streets.
.......
With all the trappings of a police team, including pink incident reports that, among other things, record a vendor's height, weight, hair and eye color, the RIAA squad can give those busted the distinct impression they're tangling with minions of Johnny Law instead of David Geffen. And that raises some potential legal questions.

Some just make themselves look like cops. Gives a whole new meaning to hands on customer service

Private firms should not have the legal powers that the police have. Most police should not have the powers that police have. A very dangerous line has been crossed people in the name of fighting terrorism. I don't like it and neither should you.

The article quoted one specific line from the law. "substantially equivalent". I'm glad because after spending 20 minutes looking on the Tn LexisNexis site I realized they buried this law deep. Luckily there were only 18 hits on "substantially equivalent" and only one in 2004 when the law was passed. Turns out they are more then police. They are Homeland security officers in all of their glory.

Here is the law that does not mention FedEx.

38-3-114. Acting as peace officers for the office of homeland security.
(a) The office of homeland security may apply to the commissioner of the Tennessee department of safety, to commission such number of its officers who directly support state, federal, and local law enforcement activities involved in countering or responding to acts of terrorism, as the office shall designate, to act as peace officers for the office of homeland security.
(b) The commissioner, upon such application, may appoint such person as the office of homeland security designates, or as many people as the governor deems proper to be such peace officers, and shall give commissions to those appointed.
(c) Each such officer, throughout every county in the state, shall have and exercise, for the sole purpose of carrying out the scope of assigned duties as specified or limited within the exclusive judgment of the office of homeland security, all the powers of a peace officer, including the power to make arrests for public offenses anywhere in the state. Further, such officers may serve process in criminal and penal prosecutions for such offenses, and shall have authority to carry weapons for the reasonable purposes of their offices and while in the performance of their assigned duties.
(d) The keepers of jails in any county or municipality where a violation occurs, for which any such arrest is made by an officer of the homeland security office, shall receive all persons arrested by such officers to be dealt with according to law, and persons so arrested shall be received by keepers of jails on the same basis and shall have the same status as prisoners arrested by any other law enforcement officer.
(e) Every officer so appointed shall, when on duty, have in the officer's possession a badge and identification card identifying such officer as an officer of the office of homeland security, and such officer shall exhibit such badge and identification card on demand and before making an arrest within a reasonable time.
(f) When the office of homeland security no longer requires the services of such peace officer so appointed, it shall file a notice to that effect with the commissioner's office. Thereupon, the powers of such peace officer shall cease and terminate.
(g) Homeland security officers appointed under this section must complete appropriate initial training and recurrent law enforcement training substantially equivalent to the requirements of the Tennessee peace officers standards and training commission.

There is just something not right about a private police force like this. You may rightly feel I am seeing to much in the shadows, but it feels wrong on a lot of levels.

So you better return those videos on time. Or else.

Carnivel of Cordite #15

The weekly Carnival of Cordite is up over at The Countertop Cronicles and I am shamefully days late in posting it.

Coming on Memorial Day Weekend, I’d like to first dedicate this weeks Carnival to all the men and women in our armed services - past, present, and future - who made the ultimate sacrifice as well as to those who willingly place themselves in harms path to preserve the American way of life. One of those guys is the Collegiate Warrior who just shipped out to the Sandbox and has started a new blog to document his time there.

Drop by and give it a once over.

Clean Sports Act of 2005

The politicians in Washington keep passing laws for us and the latest feel good act is the Clean Sports Act of 2005.

It is just full of the heavy penalties that Washington loves to put into its failed war on drugs.

Penalties:

First violation is two-year suspension without pay, and a second violation is lifetime ban in all professional sports

Leagues can lessen penalties if the athlete can prove that he did not know or suspect that he used the substance, or if he is a whistleblower for abuses by other people (including coaches, agents, managers, trainers, etc.)

The identities of positive players will be publicly disclosed within 30 days of the positive test

So my basic question is this. If they are doing this to keep the sports clean why are they not passing a law to randomly drug test themselves? I would love to see them get pulled aside for a good broad based test for drugs. Lets just say that the Betty Ford center would have a lot more guests then they normally would have when congress is out.

Lets push for a "Clean politicians act of 2005".

Police and the laws they ignore..

When I first read this story I laughed at the idea of a cop car off in a ditch because of a bad U-turn. It's his actions afterwards that made him the bad guy in my eyes. The police chief is also not doing to great when it comes to his duties.

Police officer David Devore just didn't appreciate John Bell III's "whimsical sense of humor."

When Bell took digital pictures on Feb. 6 of Devore's police cruiser stuck in the mud and being towed out of a ditch after an errant U-turn, Devore got angry. He took the memory card from Bell's digital camera and erased the images.
..............
Devore directed fellow officer Tyson Dinda to pull over Devore's red minivan after Devore stopped to take the pictures. When Devore arrived farther up the road where the stop occurred, Bell asked Devore why he needed Bell's camera.

"Because," he said at first. After he paused, he added, "Defamation of character. Camera. And film. Now. I'm not going to ask you again. I'll give you the count of three. Or I can make your life a living hell. You make the decision. I'll give you that choice."

When Bell picked up the memory card at the police station later that day, the images had been erased

Yep. Robbed by the police. Threatened by the police. Detained by the police. Right now you're saying the police officer must be in some big trouble.

Nope.

Devore served a one-day suspension without pay on Feb. 15. He also received counseling and was told his future traffic stops would be monitored.

One day suspension. I call that a small vacation. They also offered the camera owner a whole 1000$ for walking all over his rights. He has turned it down and they are all on their way to court. Interesting to see what price the judge puts on our rights.

The police chief is acting rather shamefully here

"That's what we did in this case," said Chief Robbins. "We felt it was appropriate for the instance. It's an anomaly for this officer. We have not had this type of issue with him."
..............
The chief says the 29-year old officer has been with the department for three years and has a clean record.

We all have a clean record until we get caught.

Hand in the cookie jar

Politicians in Nashville are running for cover and now attempting to take on the look of Father Dowling. Pure of heart with no corruption in their lives. I don’t buy it for a second,.

At least a few Metro Council members are losing their appetite for free meals provided before council meetings by unions, developers and others.
Councilman Michael Craddock of Madison sent an e-mail about two weeks ago to his colleagues, telling them he would no longer dine on council nights at the expense of those who sometimes want to curry favor.
Some, including Councilman Jim Gotto of Hermitage, have agreed to do the same

Sorry Mr. Politician, but dusting the cookie crumbs from your hands does not remove the fact that you enjoyed the cookies while you had them.

The Judge is a fool, but there's more then him involved.

The blogs are all abuzz about a judge in Indiana who ruled his parents cannot expose him to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.". On the surface we can all sit back and laugh at a judge who is in hot water, but one section of the article interested me more and was worth checking out.

The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

Now there is much to be said for this horrible "discrepancy" that the child lives under. Most of it involves me screaming four letter words at this "bureau".

So this bureau was the first to note this horrible issue and got the judge to rule against the parents, and the constitution. But when did laws ever get in the way of some people?

So this is what I found about the bureau. On the superior court website of Marion county, where the judge works. The bureau is described as such

Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau

The bureau provides child custody and visitation recommendations upon court request. The five-member bureau handled 576 cases in 1998. The cases are referred from juvenile, civil, domestic violence and Title IV-D (Paternity) courts. Parents, who pay for the service on a sliding scale, go through an initial hearing with a social worker to outline the problem. From there, the bureau meets individually with the parents and children over age 4. They also seek information from teachers, doctors and other counselors about the parents. Their recommendations are then presented to the court.

Now for my particular situation in life this says more then you think.

My wife and I are Mormon. Been raised Mormon since birth. During high school my wife went to a Church of Christ private school. Her and her siblings. They had required courses that were religious based and they were taught by some of the more ernest members of the faculty. My wife says she cannot count the times they tried to "save" her soul and were disappointed she stayed Mormon. They had a "poor thing" attitude when it came to her and her religion. In their eyes she was going to hell and they could not save her.

So for me reading this article I am intrigued by the possibility that one of two things occurred. The employee of the bureau that handled the case had issues with the parents religion and took the chance to "save" this poor boy, or the teachers at the religious school the boy went to put one over on the bureaus employee to try to "save" this poor child from his Wiccan damnation.

What is obvious is that the judge should have ignored the report when it came to the childs religious raising and school. The bureau should have dealt with solid facts and not some supposed possible issues that may arrise in the future.

Here is the Indiana code that was passed to create this bureau.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Samizdata is a well written European based libertarian blog. I enjoy dropping by and reading it daily, and sometimes I find a great eye opening post. This was on of those days.

In New Hampshire a group of people are trying to push a true "small government" program through political actions, up to their own arrests if the need arises. They moved there from all across the country bringing their families and leaving their jobs. A mini exodus to try to build a better government in one small corner of the country. The Free Staters have already started small and deserve your respect, even if you don't agree. How many in this country are willing to put it all on the line?

So with New Hampshire filling with freestaters Samizdata asked openly about Europeans leaving for America for the freedom we enjoy. Maybe it was tongue in cheek, but the reality may not be so humorous

So what will it take to snap people back to reality? Or is it just too damn late for that and the only thing left is to get the hell out and leave the lunatics in change of the asylum?

Maybe that is exactly what the US needs too, an influx of liberty seeking (or at least sanity seeking) folks from Europe who have seen the reality of what happened to a culture when it allows all the things the Democrats (and quite a few big-state Republicans) want to do in the USA. Who knows, if enough of them get citizenship they might be around in time to help make sure that Hillary only gets one term in office. Shudder.

So are we going to see another Ellis Island opening for freedom loving people leaving behind the bureaucracy of Europe? Leaving behind the whole social machine that is made to create subjects, not citizens.

While I quoted the part of the poem written on the Statue of Liberty I will end with the entire poem.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)

Afraid of the dark?

I just love coming across interesting firearms. While I enjoyed greatly the bARbie15 I think this may top it by just a little. While this is less about the rifle and more about the furniture I find it very interesting.

Cavalry Arms did a small run of AR furniture a while back and dot_bob on AR15.com posted a photo of it. When I saw it I knew I had to share it.

Now this is the standard looking rifle under incandescent light. The normal furniture seen on thousands of AR model rifles everyday.



But after exposure to incandescent light this furniture starts to glow.



Now that is not the worst, or best part of the furniture. Lets expose it to some blacklight for a bit.



Then you end up with this unearthly glow.



Maybe this is the new fashion statement at the raves. Better then cheap glow sticks and sure to draw attention.



Well this is what it looks like today and the guy has the furniture alone for sale. So if you are interested, why I'm not sure, and want to buy it go have a look.

To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.

[Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

Checking out a library book : Free
Possible late fees : 10 cents a day
Loosing book and paying for it : 20$
Having the FBI blink first : Priceless

This is brought to you by a bunch of plucky librarians and their trustees who refused to surrender your rights to privacy.

"It was a moment that librarians had been dreading," Airoldi writes in the opening of her column.

She explains that in June, an FBI agent stopped into one of the district's branches and requested a list of people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden.

"We said no," Airoldi wrote.
...........
The library trustees, Airoldi explained, had to balance privacy rights with its desire to help the government fight terrorism. It decided to fight the subpoena in court, and 15 days later the FBI dropped its demand.

Have you hugged your librarian today?

When I first heard about the Patriot act and the library clause I was rather disturbed. Privacy just got flushed. But some librarians stand up for your privacy, and some don't. Hug the ones that do.

Consent and the law

What rights do you have to say "no" to a search and when it is illegal for them to search. Over at Findlaw Sherry F. Colb has a great article with information on searches everyone should know. While it is not a primer on how to break the law, it is a good start on what your ability to say know means.

the main reason people consent to searches is that they do not know any better. To many, a police officer's request for consent may sound like an empty gesture that does not truly allow for a negative response. The person to be searched may well hear an implicit "we could do this the easy way (with consent) or the hard way (without consent) -- it is up to you" in the police question. Who would prefer "the hard way" in the face of those alternatives?

But don't police tell the suspect that he has the right not to be searched? After all, when a suspect is arrested, he is told -- before any interrogation may take place -- that he has the right to remain silent. Doesn't the "consent search" scenario require essentially the same thing?

The Supreme Court has said no. According to the Court, the fact that a person might not know that he has the right to refuse consent to a search is merely one factor in the determination of whether his consent is voluntary. The Court has reasoned that the police need not give warnings (to eliminate any doubt about the suspect's knowledge of her rights), because warnings might detract from the informality of an otherwise friendly interaction between civilians and the police.

She also did a very well written article on highway searches that should be a must read.

Remember that you have the greatest power against searches there is. The ability, the right, and the responsibility to say "No".

Tennessee politics and knee jerk laws

With everyone sitting back and enjoying the circus occurring in Nashville with the arrest of several of our politicians and other cohorts I think some credit should be given to a couple of other.

To sat that there is a lot of stress in the capital building would be an understatement, but some have kept a level head and that I respect, on the surface.

Sen. Douglas Henry, D-Nashville, said when asked whether the arrests indicate the need for stronger ethics laws for legislators, ''If you pass you ethics bills in a hurry, you're reacting to headlines.''

Even though two members of his Senate Finance Committee were arrested this morning, Henry still plans to continue discussing and voting on the state's appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year. ''I'm sorry it happened.''

Sen. Mike Williams, R-Maynardville, who is Senate speaker pro tem, said, ''It's a sad day for the legislature and the families. I ask for the prayers of the citizens of the state. It's a tough time. Our priorities are the state budget and moving forward on TennCare.''

He, too, was asked about the need for stronger ethics laws on Capitol Hill. ''We should not have a knee-jerk reaction,'' he said.

Now these two statements could be taken two ways. The first is simple self protection. If they pass tougher ethic rules it may hurt their "side businesses", but that is just one option.

I am leaning more towards the second option that they simply know that you should not act in haste. One of the knee jerk laws that we live under is the patriot act and its bastard children. Now those are prime examples of what a knee jerk reaction bill can become. What the heck is an ethics law anyway. If you plan to take bribes and make money one more law will not stop you.

Right now any bills passed will be passed less for ethics reasons and more for "see how good we are" reasons. So a few politicians in Nashville are using the few gray cells they possess.

Les Jones Gun links #38

les Jones has a two part gun link post this week. since he is blogging at No Silence Here and his own Les Jones blog he has split it up. Now I have been happy with my DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. quote for a long time, but I finally found one that goes a little further in what I feel. Take a look because I like it.

You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch

The Grinch is either a criminal, or the arresting cop is.

WHEELING, W.Va. - City and county attorneys are defending Wheeling police who arrested a man for wearing a Grinch mask while walking along a city street.
...................
Officers saw Gray about 8:45 a.m. Tuesday, told him to take the mask off and not put it on again. Gray removed it and asked why he could not wear it, according to Wheeling police reports. Officers told him wearing masks in public is illegal.

Gray said he felt he had a right to wear it and said it was not illegal. He put the mask back on and was arrested. The mask was confiscated.

Now I have heard a lot of the anti-mask laws were because of the infamous Klan masks but is this a little overboard. The next statement says something strange

masks as well as dark window tinting in vehicles can pose a safety hazard to law enforcement officers and hinder efforts to identify criminal suspects.

Simply having a mask may be strange and worth checking out, but to arrest seems overboard. Will say this was a bad call based on a bad law.

Quote for the day

In the matter of the politicians being arrested below it brings to mind a quote from a great mind.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
~Aesop

Aesop could have been a good Tennessee redneck.

Taken away in handcuffs

Police went into the Tennessee legislature today and dragged four people out in cuffs. What is so joyful for me is that one of them was Ford from Memphis. This guy has been a pimple of Tennessee's rear for to long.

Here are a few sites with good updated information
Say Uncle
Nashville Files
Nashville Is Talking
Knox News/No Silence here

I have been watching streaming video of the Tenn. legislature online for the last few weeks for comedic relief and I just went to check it out. For some reason the streaming videos from the house are down.

UPDATE
News Channel 5 has links to each of the charges against each politician. Here is the payouts sent to Ford according to the affy.

April 19th 10,000
Sep 17th 5000
Oct 15th 5000
Nov 11th when asked if he needed anything commented. "Yeah. Send me a little money"
Nov 19th 5000
Dec17th 5000
Jan31 5000
Feb 01 5000
Mar10 5000
Mar 17th 5000
Apr 8th 5000

55,000$ in bribes in 8 short months. I got to get my butt into politics if I want to make the big bucks. Of course jail is a bad side effect so I will need a scapegoat.

UPDATE
On the right side of News Channel 5's website there is a streaming video section. The entire news conference listing the charges and answering questions can be watched. Very intereting.

It's easy to punish the sinner when they decide what is a sin

The government is hitting a wall. They can tax and tax but the supply is limited, and if they tax to much then they do not get reelected. So how does a politician get a supply of cash to keep the bloated government running at the state level. Tax sinners with a sin tax.

But what is a sin to one is a lifestyle of another. I do not smoke, drink, chew, or play video games(more then I should), but I know people who do. Sin taxes are the best thing a politician can do for themselves and their budget. The tax is directed against one small sub-group in your area, and the morally superior feel like you're a real go-getter.

The issue is should a small group of people be taxed because society does not like what they do? I understand a lot of sin taxes are directed against things that are bad for you. Smoking is bad for you and everyone knows it, if you have even a basic grasp on reality. Drinking has many problems with it, but drinkers pretty much know it, but then we are back to the "basic grasp on reality" bit.

Two things I do not like. One is not the tax as much as the stealth government growth that is occurring. Reading articles on sin tax they almost always mention the tax would be to finance schools, social programs, or just general budget stupidity. So the gov keeps growing but now it is on the back of SINNERS. The government is going to keep growing so much that they will start making up sins to finance their programs like obesity, video games, and even illegal drugs. When does the government stop finding things to tax and start living on a real budget? Probably never until a few capital building are burned down as a message to them.

The other is the issue of punishing people with this tax because they are doing something others do not like. I find most sin taxes are basic alcohol and cigarette based, but it is spreading. What you might be doing today will be the sin of tomorrow and the tax revenue creator of the day after. So even if you think sin taxes are good because you don't smoke, drink or do other bad things you need to pull your head out of your rear. When the big two are drained of all they can give they will go looking for more. You might very well be in their cross hairs.

We need to tell the government that sin taxes are wrong even if you're not one of the sinners, because tomorrow you might be.

Article that pissed me off enough to write this.

Evidence of criminal intent

This is rather disturbing and I hope not a future trend, but I feel it will be. A judge in Minnesota ruled in a case that having encryption software on your computer is evidence of criminal intent

A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.
............
"We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him," Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.

Now the guy is scum because he preyed on children, but is software intent. The software simply makes it impossible, unless you are the NSA, for others to read your files and emails. Somehow the software and desire for privacy is intent.

The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files

I am sure that if he had encrypted anything illegal they would have said it, but simply the fact that he had it in the computer showed intent. As far as I know encrypting is not a crime so this ruling seems extreme.

If you would like a copy of PGP, the program he had, here are a few good leads. Become a criminal. It's fun.

[source AlphaPatriot]

"media mail subject to inspection"

I ordered an old cookbook on Ebay and when it arrived an ink stamp on the package raised my eye brows. "media mail subject to inspection" in red letters right across the front. Now why does the post office have issues with a 100 page booklet titled "War-time baking" from the WWII era?

So with a little Googling(is that a word?) I found what the stamp meant. Seems they are pushing a new cheaper way to mail media, but there is just one small issue. You must let them inspect it.

2.3 Postal Inspection
Media Mail is not sealed against postal inspection. Regardless of physical closure, the mailing of articles at Media Mail rates constitutes consent by the mailer to postal inspection of the contents. [E710.1.3]

Cheaper, but at what cost. I would rather have spent a few dollars more for privacy. But what a shame when we have to pay for privacy in this country.

"A ruler, to stay in power, must convince the people that the enemy is ever at the door."
Nicollo Machiavelli

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson

Cartoon reality

Say Uncle has a link to what can be described as cartoon reality.

New Hampshire is heating up.

The Free State project seems to be kicking things up in NH with civil disobedience as its first weapon.

Just a few weeks ago a free range manicurist protested the government licensing program and got himself arrested. All according to plan. Now another citizen of NH is stepping up to the plate and going after a big one.

Manchester, NH, May 21, 2005 - Inspired by New Hampshire's "outlaw manicurist," another Granite Stater is stepping forward to peacefully defy license-related laws. Russell Kanning of Keene has announced he will approach a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint at Manchester airport on June 11 and refuse to cooperate with the requirement to show I.D. "I will either board the plane without I.D. or be arrested," he says. "In a free country you do not need government permission to travel." The 35-year-old accountant has a ticket to Philidelphia.

Kanning stresses that he will not resist arrest or do anything that might be perceived as physically threatening. He says this act of nonviolent resistance will follow the model laid down by Gandhi, who used peaceful noncooperation to expel the British from India. "We will tell them everything we're going to do ahead of time. We are not going to disrupt the operation of the airport," he says.

I am not sure if this is a free stater because he said he was inspired by the free range minicurist, and I thought they were going to try making changes at the state level. The TSA is not state level.

So wish him luck people. He will not be allowed on the plane and most likely arrested, but he is at least putting it on the line. For that I salute him.

I'm armed with a Limnanthes vinculans and I'm not afraid to use it. So do you feel lucky punk? Do you?

In a humorous and yet sad take on today's societies desire to protect every plant for any god forsaken reason a very funny thing occurred. In what could be called biological sabotage someone "took the law in their own hand" and tried to stop a development project.

State wildlife officials believe someone planted endangered flowers at a Sebastopol building site to try to stop a disputed housing development.

Saying the act amounts to criminal fraud, state Department Fish and Game botanist Gene Cooley said his agency concluded that Sebastopol meadowfoam plants found on the Laguna Vista site were transplanted from somewhere else.

"This is a very unusual situation - in my experience, unique," Cooley said Friday. "I've had 25 years of endangered plant experience with state and federal agencies, and I have never known a rare plant to be introduced to a site to thwart development before."

Of course the opponents to the development are denying that the plants were planted but it does show a future trend of biological sabotage that could stop development in its tracks.

This is not the first time that planted evidence was used for social control. Just a while ago some government biologists were in trouble for planting Lynx hair and no one was happy.

"the December revelation that employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service had planted fake wild lynx hair in states where there were no lynx, so that the areas could be labeled critical habitat, and thus off limits to human use."

Years ago when I lived in Kansas the story went around that a guy in the Kansas City Missouri area had some unused field he was going to sell to the school district for a large school complex. Only problem is that someone found that much of it was original prairie grass. When he found the day before that they were going to try to get his fields declared protected he went and plowed the whole thing under and reseeded it in one night. Since it had not been "declared" protected he was in no legal trouble. But many, including me, thought it was an appropriate action against the minivan nazis that try to run our lives.

So if you have property that has been taken by imminent domain then spike it and let them deal with the same laws we suffer under. Poetic resistance if there ever is.
[source The Common Blog]

Spellcheck your ID now people.

Belgium, or Belguim has misspelled its name on some ID's to confuse counterfeiters. Sounds like a good plan, but then they add something that had me pull out my ID.

BRUSSELS – A new Belgian electronic identity card contains typos introduced deliberately to confound potential fraudsters, Belga reported on Tuesday.
..................
According to Luc Vanneste, of the government department in charge of issuing the cards, other errors will be printed on the card to further confound fraudsters.

A similar system has proved successful in the United States.

So now I am checking my ID to see if I live in Temmessee or the Umited Slates of Amerika.

Blogspot is dying it seems

Blogspot was always a bit tempermental, but since google bought it things have gone to hell. For the last couple of days I had to hit the link in favorites two times for the pages to load. Today Blogspot has gone to pot. Now half of the blogspot sites I have attempted to go to have ended with a page saying they do not exist. Way to go blogspot.

Paying for the message.

In what can be described as the standard government "for your own good" action, they now will take your money, just to say nice things about you. If you do not want to pay for the government to say nice things about you will find that they really could care less, and now the courts agree that the government doesn't care what you think.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the federal government can have cattle ranchers pay for an industry marketing program, known for its “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner” advertisements.

By a 6-3 vote, the high court handed a victory to the government. It said the generic advertising at issue is the government’s own speech and therefore exempt from the First Amendment free-speech challenge that had been brought.

I think Say Uncle said it best.

The government, essentially, can force you to fund their message. Compelled speech doesn’t sound very first amendmenty.

If you want to view the laws that made this Beef Board and what they call the checkoff program(fee charged to finance the program) then drop by here.

Tom Cruise works for the London Police?

In a Minority report type of situation the London police seem to have a small problem with issuing tickets days before the crime occurs. Damned efficient of them I think.

Despite London's police force claim that speed camera tickets given to motorists for future offenses were a mistake and "an isolated occurence," others are falling victim to this error. Matthew Smith received a ticket in the mail on April 12 for an offense the government claimed it had photographic evidence that he would commit three days later.
............
The police letter dated April 11 claimed his motorcycle would be clocked at 39 MPH in a 30 MPH zone on Kennington Park Road on April 15. Although police dropped charges after Smith appealed, Smith asked, "Why didn't the police get their facts right before sending me a NIP [Notice of Intended Prosecution]?"

Now that is good police work people

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. — BARRY GOLDWATER (1964)

She replies to my request for a confirmation.

I just got off the phone with Doxie McCoy and she talked to D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. I had wanted her to confirm or deny a comment that was attributed to her boss. I was truthfully surprised that she called me back.

Although the return call was brief and I typed as fast as I could she did say this. Doxie McCoy said that delegate Norton stated that

"she was stopped in the hall by the reporter and something was lost in the quote."

This explains why only the Washington Times is the only source of the quote. Speak in haste, repent in leisure is what is happening to her right now. Politicians should know that every word they speak will be reported and blogged on. Just like this one.

McCoy also informed me that the quote was

"Not her feelings" on the matter

While that is good and all it seemed rather rough on the sponsors of the bill, but Doxie McCoy also said.

"not the intentions of the sponsors" To kill kids

Well thats a lot of worry off of their minds.

In reality I think deep down most gun-grabbers who have wrapped their mentality around the gun debate truly feel gun right advocates want people to be killed. Submandave made this comment on Stop the Bleating!

I'm surprised she didn't follow the point to its logical conclusion.

1. NRA want to kill more children in DC
2. Most children in DC are minorities
3. Most NRA supporters are Republicans

therefore ...

Republicans are racist thugs who want to kill all minority children.

Q.E.D.

He pretty much hit a home run with that comment.

Two quotes for today

Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. — Woodrow Wilson, May 9, 1912, Address, New York Press Club.


The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. — Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, April 5, 1996

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and what she said, or didn't.

Last Friday I posted about a quote from Washington DC's representative. A quote that has gotten far less press play then I think it should.

"Every woman in the District of Columbia should have the ability to protect herself in her home, particularly if she is there alone most of the time," Mrs. Hutchison said yesterday.
But one lawmaker warned the result could be dire.
"They're trying to see to it that more children get killed," said D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat.

I called her office press Media Contact last Friday so she could confirm or deny the statement was made. As I posted she said she would get back to me. I had figured that such a inflammatory statement would result in a return call with a denial or a comment of it being taken out of context. But as of this morning I had no calls.

So I called her again. Her press rep informed me that she had not had a chance to ask her and would get back to me. So for now I wait, and will try back on Wednesday.

Now onto other blogs. I did a basic google to see what other blogs were saying about the quote and found this post showing that spin can be put on any statement. Chris over at the Law Dork took exception to Mr Kopel's use of the quote and tried to slant it as being misunderstood.

His post is wrong on a grammatical point, on legal grounds, and more broadly as a part of political debate.
................
Quite simply, Del. Norton's point was that she believes this legislation will result in more children being killed, she believes that the supporters of the legislation are aware of this, and she would like them to be held accountable in debate for all the consequences of their bill. Kopel may very well disagree with Del. Norton on the factual foundation for her statement, but that does not make it slanderous. (Whether it is "despicable," of course, is a matter of opinion.)

I of course worry when someone tries to make something say one thing when it obviously says exactly what it means.

Here is my take on the subject.
Original quote.

They're trying to see to it that more children get killed

My break down

They're trying to see to it that more (NOUN) get (ACTION)

Example

They're trying to see to it that more cars get built

Thus they want to build cars.

They're trying to see to it that more houses get constructed

They want to construct more houses.

They're trying to see to it that more children get killed

They want to have more kids killed.

So Law Dork is saying that she did not say what she said. Sorry Law Dork but you're wrong. If I can get her office to confirm the quote it is obvious to all people that she said that they wanted children to die.

Blog Roll additions.

I just noticed that I was so far behind in updating my blogroll that I was embarrassed of myself. So I set down with template and got to work. I added several good blogs and dropped a few that have stopped posting for a bit.

Here are a few if you want to drop by and say hello

DOA
Boing Boing
By Common Consent
David and Cherie's New Freedom Blog
Freedom Sight
Fish or Man
From the Heartland
Justin Buist's Log
mASS BACKWARDS
The Millenial Star
Pervasive Light
Resistance is futile!
The AnarchAngel
Apprehension
Times and Seasons
reasonablenut
Combs spouts off
Backroad Blog
The Blogonomicon
The Countertop Chronicles
The Freeholder
Cowboy Blob

Now I know there are some other good blogs out there that I should link to, but I simply cannot remember them today. I will update more in the future.

UPDATE
I have the blogs I go to in a favorites folder and I noticed due to a comment from him that I forgot to list one.
Anthroblogogy

I did say I would be updating in the future.

Two quotes for today

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. — Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed., reissued 1967.


It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. — Justice Robert H. Jackson

Gun rights activists wants your children dead...or not.

That is if a quote from one politician is correct and in context. We will see.

The latest turmoil has started with a Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texan politician not liking the fact that Washington DC has stringent gun laws in the nation. So she has put forth a bill that allows residents to keep firearms in their home for security. This has upset Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton who represents DC.

"We will not allow the two Texas Senators, the NRA and shamelessly a Senator from our own region, to revive last year's brazen attacks on the District's gun safety laws that protect our children, their families and our democratic right to govern ourselves in our own country. Just last year with the help of Mayor Anthony Williams, every elected official in the District, a citizens' coalition, MPD Chief Charles Ramsey, and School Superintendent Clifford Janey, we beat back this same attack on our right to protect our citizens. After 13 children were killed by guns last year, Citizens to Save D.C. Gun Safety Laws, a coalition including every sector of the population from the Board of Trade to mothers of children killed by gunfire, came to the Senate and the House with the message that an attack on D.C.'s gun laws is an attack on our children. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX) and George Allen (R-VA) will not pay the price in heartbreak and carnage in our neighborhoods, and they have no right to interfere with the judgment of those who will.

While her and my belief's when it comes to firearms are worlds apart this post is about a quote floating out there and what it says, or doesn't.

The Washington Times did a short piece on the issues and attributed a quote to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton that seems either horribly outrageous, or a misquote.

"Every woman in the District of Columbia should have the ability to protect herself in her home, particularly if she is there alone most of the time," Mrs. Hutchison said yesterday.
But one lawmaker warned the result could be dire.
"They're trying to see to it that more children get killed," said D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat.

It is that last statement attributed to her that has created a bit of a backlash. Having her views is her right, but to make a accusation like that goes way over the line.

If she said it.

That's right. This "hot" quote can be found in only one article and no wheres else. Myself and others have tried to find where it came from. Not one of her press releases or words spoken in the house of representatives seems to come even close. So did she say it?

Matt Rustler who has posted on the quote, wanted to find out and he couldn't. He did bring it to our attention and others have looked. Well being the pragmatist that I am I went to the source of the quote. I called her office. I spoke to a Doxie McCoy and asked her if this was a correct quote. She asked me why I wanted to use that one and I told her honestly that I was calling because it seemed so overboard that I did not want to use it without a source, and she has the ability to confirm or deny the comment. She took my information and said that she would ask the Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to confirm if she said it and where. I will say she seemed slightly on the defensive when it came to the comment. I would also if the quote is correct.

So now I wait to see if I will be called back or not.

An Animal Farm moment in Canada.

A guy handed out flyers and put into mailboxes flyers that spoke against the gay lifestyle. Right or wrong you would, and should, say he has a right to his beliefs and the right to tell people.Canada seems to believe otherwise.

SASKATOON (CP) -- A Saskatchewan man has been ordered to pay $17,500 to four people after distributing flyers found to expose homosexuals to hatred and ridicule.

The decision was handed down May 2 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal.

Between September 2001 and April 2002, William Whatcott distributed flyers in mailboxes that referred to homosexuals as sodomites, sharing "their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan's children."

"expose homosexuals to hatred and ridicule" is far from handing out flyers. Unless they said "kill kill kill" then I do not see the hatred. Knowing the press if he had threatened violence they would have quoted it in bold type. Simply thinking their lifestyle is wrong is not hatred, it is individual thought. Something Canada seems to not like.

Then Government clone number 1 says this.

"It accomplishes what I wanted, which is to make some kind of a public statement about the fact that in Canada we are really a diverse population with lots of different beliefs and lots of different kinds of lifestyles and backgrounds," said Wallace.

"There are rules in our society in how we respect each other's rights and make sure that everybody has the right to their own lives and their own beliefs."

"The right to their own lives and their own beliefs"..as long as the government likes your "lives and beliefs", otherwise it is a crime and you get fined.

All are equal, but some are more equal

They always say the same damned thing

There is a chant occurring that has started to irritate me. The chant is a variant of this saying "don't take the law into your own hands, do nothing".

It seems everytime I read an article about someone protecting themselves from a criminal, and sometimes killing them the article has near the bottom the same line spoken by a cop.

"Any time someone's going to confront an armed individual you're going to have to really be careful of what you're doing," he says. "It's not something the police service is going to suggest people do is try and disarm or confront people armed with firearms." [source Canada]

Caldwell Police Chief Bob Sobba says he'd rather citizens not take matters into their own hands.[source USA]

Ms Perveen said: "The guys did a fantastic job but my advice would be to open the till and stand back. I don't want them to risk their lives again." [source UK]

Why do they feel we have to roll over for the criminal. They are not the only people in the world who can protect us. We can.

I really get pissed when I hear then talk about First responders. If I am somewhere and the SHTF guess what. I am a first responder, the police and others are second responders.

So they are saying that we should role over and go BAAAA! and let the wolves get what they want.

Did you hear the gossip about losing the right to own firearms?

Well you better not gossip then. Remember the bill Carolyn McCarthy put forth to take away firearms from people convicted of crimes in foreign lands with a punishment of over a year? I have found myself taking note of crime overseas and the punishment. Mainly to see if I could find outrageous examples of crimes that would lose you a basic right here.

I found a good one here people.

A Colombian city has introduced a new law under which people can be jailed for gossiping.

Under the law in Icononzo, malicious gossiping is punished with up to a £50,000 fine or four years in prison.

four years. Remember what the press release about her bill said.

McCarthy's bill amends current law to state that a person "convicted in any court, including any foreign court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" shall not be able to possess a firearm.

Gossip in this town in Columbia and you end up getting shafted here, all thanks to Carolyn McCarthy. She is protecting us from those evil gossipers.

Gossiping was the gateway activity for 30% of all gang members and 10% of all drug dealers. That's according to the Department of Made-Up Statistics Pulled out of My Ass

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!"

Maybe this senator has been watching to much of the classic The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, but he now seems to have the bright idea that the FBI "don't need no stinking judicial overview".

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.

Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday

This is just ripe for abuse by the FBI, or any Homeland Offense officer. The idea that they can issue administrative subpoenas without the due process that we enjoy is not just bothersome, but a sign of things.

The patriot act was horrible, but now with the Real ID act and rumors of this I have to ask openly are we still a free nation. Yes I still have free speech, if it is ok with McCain Feingold. I have the right to travel freely, as long as I show a lot of ID and my name is not similar to a bad persons name. I have the right to earn money and be successful, as long as I give an ever increasing cut to the government for protection.

The only small bright spot is that a few items in the original Patriot act are going to expire and go away. But. There always seems to be a "but", and this butt lives in Kansas. This new plan would make the expiring sections permanent.

Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.

Gee thanks.

The government keeps doing this while raising the specter of Terrorism. After a few times the village people quit listening to the boy because he kept screaming wolf. When will America realise that the government is yelling wolf to much and call them on the fact?

You are wrong Mrs Rice or McClellan

In all of this turmoil about the Newsweek article our government has said something that is basically against the very nature of our country. Free speech is one of the basic beliefs that help define our country against others. Another basic belief is the right to believe and worship as we like. So in one statement our government has trod upon both views and they should be called on it openly.

In an attempt to appease the Middle east the secretary of State Mrs Rice has had this statement attributed to her.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Secretary Rice spoke to this issue yesterday and I think made our views very clear. One of the values that we hold most dearly here in the United States is religious freedom and the ability of people to be able to worship freely. As Secretary Rice made clear yesterday, disrespect for the holy Koran is something that the United States will never tolerate.

This was a quote taken from the daily press briefing at the white house.

Sorry but the government is wrong. No matter who in the White House said it they should be ashamed. You will tolerate it because we have the right to disrespect anything or anyone we wish here. You may want to make the world love us in the Middle East, but to do it with statements like this is dangerous.

The ability to disrespect something is important. It is a basic freedom. Thought, speech, even worship is about respect, and disrespect. The government is full of the same people who would allow the infamous Piss Christ and call it art, but to make other countries happy get all upset when even rumors of disrespect of the Koran occur. I think the guy who did piss Christ is an ass, but it is his right to be an ass.

Get used to it. Disrespect is a way of life and a basic freedom.

Advice of the day

I took a couple of tylenol 3's this morning for some pain I am having. Normally drugs do not have the zombie like effect on me that they do on my wife. But I erred in something else. My dear wife purchased some mints called euromints. They are laced with caffeine. 3 mints are equal to a large soda. I have been sucking on them all day. I realized I needed to stop when my eyes felt like they were bulging and I could feel my heart beat in my ears.

Caffeine in larger doses and tylenol 3 do not go together. I used to suck down sodas all day, but have only had a few rare small sips since January because of my weight loss program.

so that is my advice for the day. Do not mix drugs and mints.

Understatement of the week

According to the police

"It would be a dangerous moment to arrest someone for no reason," said Sgt. Joe Ehrbar of the Maple Heights Police Department.

I agree.

The gems we find

You try to look up a law in the massive amount they pass every year and you stumble upon an interesting tid-bit.

Seems that the Tennessee house speaker JAMES O. "JIMMY" NAIFEH has decided that he is not just the speaker, but he has Boss Hog powers. Regretfully the law backs him on this issue.

Republicans threatened to walk out of the state House of Representatives last Wednesday, prompting Speaker Jimmy Naifeh to promise the arrest of any legislator to do so.

The argument began over a House Democratic resolution criticizing President Bush and Congress for the rising national debt. The measure, while controversial, does nothing more than convey the message to congress and various other officials.
...........
"I really don't want us to start down this road," Hargett said. "I'm also going to vote no. … It's taking a great deal of self-restraint, quite frankly, for me to not ask several of you to just walk out the doors right now … we could just let the people who wanted to vote on the bill pass the bill and the rest of us just go stand out in the hall and talk about what resolution we're going to pass next to go to Washington."

Naifeh (D-Covington) responded with an open threat to have anyone leaving the chamber arrested.

"Might I remind this body that if you willfully absent yourself from session you can be guilty of a felony and I will send the highway patrol after you," Naifeh said. "Let there be no mistake about what I will do."

Note that they could be guilty of a felony according to him, then the police would be sent out. Screw due process. Naifah has been known recently for the power games he plays with his phallic like gavel, with Blake at the Nashville Files keeping this guy under a watchful eye.

Now I wondered what law they had to force the members to stay. The Tennessee law site is pretty well laid out and I found this.

2-18-102. Quorum - Vote - Adoption of rules of order - Power to compel attendance.
(a) A majority of the members of each house shall constitute a quorum. The speaker of the senate shall preside.
(b) Every member shall have one (1) vote, and the majority of the votes shall prevail on all questions to be determined by the joint convention.
(c) The joint session may be adjourned from time to time and rules of order made by it may be adopted and altered.
(d) A minority of the members of the joint convention shall have the power to compel the attendance of absentees by arrest on warrant issued and signed by the speaker of the senate, executed by the sergeant-at-arms of the senate or by any person authorized by the joint convention.
[Acts 1972, ch. 740, § 1; T.C.A., § 2-1802.]

So it looks like her could have had him arrested if he left. How stalinistic of him.

But the search pulled up several other unrelated laws that involved arrest and one leaped out as it also involved arrest.

7-3-505. Failure to produce identification - Arrest - Release - Bond.
When any police or peace officer of a metropolitan government or any employee of a metropolitan government authorized to enforce ordinances, laws or regulations of the metropolitan government or charged with the duty to serve civil or criminal process, asks the violator for identification for the purpose of issuing a citation or civil warrant to that person, the failure to produce or give such identification shall be grounds for the violator to be arrested by an officer authorized to make arrests pursuant to title 40, chapter 7. In such event, the violator shall be arrested, transported to the police station or jail, booked, photographed and fingerprinted for identification purposes and, thereafter, shall be served with the citation or civil warrant and released from custody without being required to post a bond.
[Acts 1993, ch. 335, § 5.]

Ordinances. Such as the guy who writes you a ticket for a noisy dog, or your grass may need mowing, or worse, you don't separate your trash in a recycling area. According to this they can ask for your national ID card, but it is more like a demand if you do not have the option to say no, and if you do not show it to the shrub police they could have you arrested.

During the Hiibel case they had mentioned states that required showing ID on demand. I was rather proud that Tennessee was not one of them. Turns out we have our own little gulag here in middle Tennessee called Nashville.

UPDATE
Heartless Libertarian pointed out the law I quoted from may not be the corect one. I checked out what "joint convention" represented and it was not as close as I thought. I did some more checking and found this

Section 11. The Senate and House of Representatives, when assembled, shall each choose a speaker and its other officers; be judges of the qualifications and election of its members, and sit upon its own adjournments from day to day. Not less than two-thirds of all the members to which each house shall be entitled shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized, by law, to compel the attendance of absent members.

This is a direct quote from the Tennessee constitution of 1796, 1835, and the adopted constitution of 1870. It sounds like it was to be used to force member who were out to come back for votes that were required. This was after checking under the words "arrest", "compel", and "attendance".

What should Newsweek do now?

So now that Newsweek has came out and admitted that they erred I think the next question should be asked. What are they going to do? Not the retraction. That is the minimum they should do. What are they going to do for the families of the dead and hurt around the world due to the erring in the article?

The main stream media like to call themselves responsible journalism. Well part of being responsible is standing up for your actions and doing what's right to remedy a bad situation. This is bad. When people die things are bad.

So readers. How much is a dead Muslim worth. How much for the wounds and material damage. Does Newsweek have insurance for acts like this?

Sp to Newsweek I ask. What's next.

Rocky Top Brigade keeps on growing.

South Knox Bubba has announced even more new members of the Rocky Top Brigade. We even have a bit of a celebrity joining our humble group.

We have a winner

In my monthly firearms related post we have our first winner. I was emailed yesterday by Brian Saul who said he is one of the April winners of the Lightfield Slugs contest.

He has won five boxes of Lightfield Saboted Shotgun Slugs, a Lightfield Logo Hat and a Lightfield Logo T-Shirt. But the best part is that he is now in the running for a lifetime supply of shotgun slugs.

He said he will be sending me a photo soon to post of him and his winnings.

So keep entering and hopefully you can take some ammo, guns, or gear home.

"Oops! Just ignore the dead bodies please."

Newsweek has really gone overboard this time. They reported that military investigators in Cuba had flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. I do not have any kids, but I do have younger brothers. So unless the book was written like this I would say flushing a book down the toilet would be close to impossible.

So the world rose in anger towards the US, like Newsweek did not expect that, and people died for something far from the truth.

Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

"Erred". Such a simple word that implies a total screw up of an article. Heads should role there at the least.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the information had come from a "knowledgeable government source" who told Newsweek that a military report on abuse at Guantanamo Bay said interrogators flushed at least one copy of the Koran down a toilet in a bid to make detainees talk.

But Newsweek said the source later told the magazine he could not be certain he had seen an account of the Koran incident in the military report and that it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts.

This is one case where a good lawsuit would fit nicely. The fact that they took it as truth from one source seems to show a desire to slant what they report. I admit my slant on what I write and post about, maybe they should also.

Carnival of Cordite #13

The Carnival is up at Resistance is futile and it has some rather good links this week. Two from me alone.

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

My view of Hillary and most politicians

I have a general dislike, nay even a natural born anger towards politicians. Now most would feel this is from a little persons disease, but for me it is not. The dislike I have is from the big persons disease. A person who may be a moral, kind, and generous person gets elected and looses the ability to think rationally. Hillary is one of them.

I implied, and now I state openly that Hillary was a hypocrite to say she opposed the Real ID act, and yet voted for it. This wishy washy nature hurt Kerry in the last election and will hurt her. The belief that politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth is not a rumor only, but the truth.

One comment was left by Jami from the "In Defense of Hillary" blog. She asked this.

So you're saying she should have voted against funding for the troops? Don't you support the troops?

Should she have voted against the funding of our troops? Yes. Because that monster of a bill had little to do with the troops and more to do with cash. "If there is a problem then throw cash at it until it goes away" is not what the government is supposed to do.

Here is a story that I think you should read before we go forward. It is long but worth it.

(This argument by Davy Crockett against the principle of wealth distribution first was published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", compiled by Edward S. Ellis and published in 1884. It appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch)
"Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could.

"In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them.

"The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be a time to think about the election, I concluded that I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up."

A stranger's curt greeting

"When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and . . . '

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager. . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter."

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have no capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it.

"'In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest . . . but an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth having, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.' "

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

Crockett's vote on bill recalled

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true? "

"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly no one will complain that a great and rich country should not give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and am sure, if you had been there you would have done just as I did."

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

"'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

"'If you had the right to give him anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines nor stipulates the amount, you are at-liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.' "

Wide door to robbing people

"'You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people, on the other. No, Colonel. Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.

"'If twice as many houses had been burned in this district as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about 240 members of Congress.

"'If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably. And the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.

"'The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.

Critic could persuade others

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.

"'If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.' "

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.' "

"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or 10 days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.' "

"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.' "

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.' "

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"'Yes.'

""Well, Mr. Bunce. I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.

"It is one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts."

His fame extended far and wide

"He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbeque, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"'Fellow citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before.

"'I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.' "

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"'And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.' "

You see the bill was not just to fund the troops, it was to hand even more to the Iraqi government, form the real ID act, and numerous other add ons that politicians enjoy and live for. So should she have voted for this hand out? NO!. It is not the place for the government to hand out our money like this. It is not the governments money, it is ours.

The second question she asked was "Don't you support the troops?"

Yes. Yes I do, but there is an underlying principal involved here. If you are against something then you need to fight against it with action, not words. So the best way to reply to your question is with a persons name. Jeannette Rankin. Most people have no idea who she is yet she is likely the strongest person to ever have cast a vote in Washingtons history. Feminists the world over should bow down to her strength. For you see during what could be called the darkest days of this country she stood her ground and voted no, but what a no.

On November 7, 1916 she was elected to the House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana. She took her seat in the House on March 4, 1917. Only a year into her term, the House voted on the resolution to enter World War I. Rankin cast one of 56 votes against the resolution, earning her immediate vilification from the press. Suffrage groups cancelled her speaking engagements. Despite her vote against entering the war, she devoted herself to selling Liberty Bonds and voted for the military draft.

In 1918 she ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination to represent Montana in the United States Senate. She ran an independent candidacy, which also failed. For the next two decades, she worked as a lobbyist in Washington, DC for various causes.

In 1940, Rankin was again elected to Congress, this time on an anti-war platform. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, she once again voted against entering a World War, the only member of Congress to do so.

She had her beliefs, she stood up to them and she voted NO. Many would, and did say, she did not support our troops and our country and they would be wrong. She was escorted from building for her own protection that day. A shameful act that a person with integrity has to be protected. But she held firm and when she thought something was wrong she acted that day. She voted No and damn anyone who spoke against her.

Does pacifism work at the international level? Not sure, but Jeannette's beliefs said to vote no and she did. Hillary said she believed the bill was bad, but she voted yes. That says so much about her and other politicians who are now speeking out against the real ID act.

That is strength, and that is why I openly call Hillary for her remarks on her vote. If she thought it was so wrong then she should have stood up, looked the press and America right in the eye, and said NO. But she didn't. She folded like a house of cards and went complaining to the press. She has no shame.

Hillary Clinton is no Jeannette Rankin and never will be if she keeps this up.

Small extra note.
Hillary described this as a must pass bill that she was against, but voted for. Since the vote was 100-0 would it still have passed at 99-1 ? Yes, but then she would have looked bad at the next election. She did not vote for this bill because it was a "must pass", she voted for this bill because it is a "must get re-elected" bill in her case. So her cries are falling on deaf ears here.