Wednesday, November 20, 2013

How Far Will You Allow The Government To Probe You?

By Dave Dargo

I remember when I was six or seven years old and was allowed to take my first solo bicycle ride to the store. Before I left, my father pulled me aside and cautioned me not to answer any questions from the police. I spent the rest of the day trying to figure out why I wouldn't answer any questions. It's not as if I had anything to hide.

But as I grew up the subject became more and more interesting to me and I still find interest in reading news stories about people who should have heard and headed my father's advice.

These days, though, it's not just about remaining silent. There are more and more stories about government authorities out and out lying in order to perform what would otherwise be illegal searches. There are more stories about the government using bribes, coercion and force to get people to do things they wouldn't rationally do - if they were to take a moment and think rationally about what was happening.

I saw some stories yesterday that made my blood boil - just as much about what the government was doing but also about what citizens were accepting as government intrusion into their daily lives.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The right against unreasonable search and seizure would exist without the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment is merely a reminder to the government that they are not permitted to violate that right.

This all started with an article out of Fort Worth, Texas about drivers being stopped at a police roadblock in order to gather samples of breath, saliva and blood.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is spending about $8 million over three years on a survey to find out how many people are driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They claim the survey is completely voluntary.

If you read this story, however, you will find that police officers had set up a roadblock and forced all drivers off the road and into a parking lot where they could "volunteer" their bodily fluid.

Let's start with a simple fact: It is a seizure when the police stop you. If the police stop you for any reason they have seized you. When the police stopped people in Forth Worth they were seizing them.

Once directed into the parking lot the drivers were offered $10 for a DNA collection via cheek swab and $50 for a blood sample.

I couldn't believe what I was reading. I couldn't believe that police officers were seizing people and asking them to "volunteer" to participate in the study and I couldn't believe that people were "voluntarily" giving their bodily fluids over to the government.

I was curious about the study and searched for "nhtsa dna survey" and found articles about the same types of stops occurring in Alabama. It turns out that NHTSA is asking people to volunteer in 30 cities across the country.

The search, unfortunately, didn't end with just those stories. I found the story of David Eckert in Deming, New Mexico.

Mr. Eckert was driving through Deming and rolled through a stop sign. Before the night was over he was subjected to two X-rays, two digital probes of his anus, three enemas and a colonoscopy. The first doctor approached to perform these exams refused to do so because they would be unethical. The police simply started doctor shopping until they could find a willing medical practitioner.

The police didn't discover any drugs on Mr. Eckert. Mr. Eckert was forced to undergo the anal probes based on the following police justification to a judge in seeking a warrant:

  • Mr. Eckert's hands were shaking and he avoided eye contact during a traffic stop
  • Mr. Eckert refused to consent to a search of his person
  • Mr. Eckert stood erect with his legs together (clutching his buttocks)
  • A drug dog "alerted" to his car seat
  • An un-named police officer claimed that Mr. Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his anus
Mr. Eckert was later billed $6,000 for the "medical procedures" he was forced to undergo.

How much more of this are we willing to take?

We have a duty, individually and collectively, to throw out politicians who support our oppression. We have a duty to refuse to "volunteer" to be suppressed and we have a duty to expose the corruption of power that runs amok within our government.

Friday, November 8, 2013

The Fear Of Our Oppressors Knows No Bounds

By Dave Dargo

I first saw the above video on The Gun Wire. There is a word, coined by Jeff Cooper, that accurately describes the two women featured in this story: hoplophobe. Hoplophobe comes from the Greek hoplon, meaning arms and phobos, meaning fear. It describes what Jeff Cooper called a "mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons."

One of the women interviewed in the video is concerned about bullets "whizzing past" her head. I, too, am concerned about bullets whizzing past my head and I carry a gun just in case that happens; I want to be able to respond appropriately to such a threat.

When I watch the video, it's difficult for me to think there's anything other than ignorance at play here. Just as Italian Rose wants a police state in order to protect her from guns, these ladies want private businesses to take a stand and prohibit weapons on their property.

At the end of the interview, though, the reporter lets us know their boycott is having difficulty as none of the other stores in the area are banning weapons. If they want to shop where weapons are banned then perhaps they should move to another state such as New York, Maryland or California.

Of course, we all know that the only people who will obey such prohibitions are those among us who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The people who will have weapons in grocery stores that ban them are the very people with whom we should have the most concern.

When I see a video like this one I often wonder if the people are missing some genetic code that allows for logical and critical thinking. Have they ever actually thought about the fallacy of their position or is it all about feelings?

These women appear to me to be hoplophobes. These hoplophobes probably vote. Italian Rose votes and this just shows how important it is to participate in elections at every level of government.

Another fascinating aspect of this story is that it highlights a new gun law in North Carolina. Open and concealed-carry of firearms in grocery stores was already legal in North Carolina before the new law was passed.

Don't ever underestimate the ignorance of the people who are trying to take away your fundamental rights to self-defense.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

The Indoctrination Of Rose Is Complete - A Citizen Calls For A Police State

By Dave Dargo

There's an article in The Washington Post that discusses a "stark divide over gun laws". The article breaks down the overall attitude of American's as it relates to stronger gun-control laws.

The most alarming thing I saw, though, was a reader comment tied to the article that, unfortunately, isn't that unusual for the anti-rights groups:
I would settle for a background check for each and every transaction and every gun owner needing to have a complete comprehensive psychiatric examination before the initial purchase and check-up every 3-years thereafter. If you fail the psych test, your a prohibited person and must surrender your guns to law enforcement. Better yet, the psych test is given at police headquarters and if you fail they return home with you and confiscate your guns. Penalties must be increased for a prohibited person having a gun any gun. Police must also have the discretion to conduct Terry Stops and warrant less searches in targeted areas looking for illegal guns. I like Washington DC's policy if you have a empty shell casing without a firearm id card for that weapon you go to jail for years. Also if you have a permit for a 9mm and you get caught with a empty 380 casing, you go to jail. If this does not significantly reduce the gun violence epidemic in this country, we all know what's next. - Italian Rose
Rose wants us to have psychiatric examinations before we can buy a gun and every three years after that if we continue to own guns. She then goes on and advocates warrantless searches as a valid solution to "the gun violence epidemic".

To me, Rose appears to be advocating a strong police state reminiscent of the Soviet Union. When Leonid Brezhnev was the General Secretary, the Soviet Union used psychiatry to eliminate political opponents. If someone openly contradicted the official story line from their leader then they must be insane and in need of commitment.

Rose calls for these psychiatric tests to be conducted at "police headquarters".

Unfortunately, Rose is not a lone voice calling for such insane suppression of our fundamental rights. It would be easy to ignore Rose's comments if such comments weren't so prevalent in the mainstream media. I believe Rose would actually vote for such policies in order to satisfy her desires for protection against us evil gun owners.

I've always been fascinated by those who call for such a police state and have wondered how they missed the lessons of recent history.

The question is, has our educational system completely failed or does Rose represent what the educational system considers a success?