You Report, They Decide

No Warrant Required in Wisconsin

Wisconsin's District 4 Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that police can attach GPS tracking devices to cars and secretly track anyone's movements -- all without having to obtain a warrant.

A Culture of Surveillance

That's what Chuck Baldwin calls it in his latest column. He concludes, "We also have a culture of cowardice by people from both sides of the political aisle who, in the name of partisan politics, are willfully accommodating and facilitating the demise of this constitutional republic."

Obama's Version of Transparency

Barack Obama said he wanted his presidency to be more transparent, and now we know that means we only get to know what he wants us to know. No surprise there.

Consider this story from PC World:

The Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), part of President Barack Obama's office, has denied a company's request for information about a secretive anticounterfeiting trade agreement being negotiated, citing national security concerns.

The USTR this week denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Knowledge Ecology International, an intellectual-property research and advocacy group, even though Obama, in one of his first presidential memos, directed that agencies be more forthcoming with information requested by the public.

The USTR under Obama seems to be taking the same position about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as it did under former President George Bush, that the treaty documents are not open to the public. One of Obama's campaign promises was to make government more open and responsive to the public.

The USTR, in a letter to Knowledge Ecology International's director James Love, said information in ACTA, an anticounterfeiting and antipiracy pact being negotiated among the U.S. and several other nations, is "properly classified in the interest of national security."

Just another example of the sweeping "change" Obama has brought to Washington.

It's Not Paranoia if Everyone Really Is Out to Get You

The Associated Press is reporting that paranoia is on the rise. A British psychologist is saying that nearly one in four Londoners have paranoid thoughts on a regular basis. Hmmmm. Do you think that Britain's slide toward a surveillance society has anything to do with it?

Not surprisingly, a similar rise in paranoia has been seen here in the U.S. But perhaps that's because we are living in a post-9/11 world under a government that relies on fear-mongering -- on everything from global terrorism to the economy -- to keep itself in power.

Passports Required for Cell Phones (U.K.)

Our neighbors across the pond are now being told they will need a passport in order to purchase a cell phone. From TimesOnline:

Everyone who buys a mobile telephone will be forced to register their identity on a national database under government plans to extend massively the powers of state surveillance.

Phone buyers would have to present a passport or other official form of identification at the point of purchase. Privacy campaigners fear it marks the latest government move to create a surveillance society.

A compulsory national register for the owners of all 72m mobile phones in Britain would be part of a much bigger database to combat terrorism and crime. Whitehall officials have raised the idea of a register containing the names and addresses of everyone who buys a phone in recent talks with Vodafone and other telephone companies, insiders say.

Don't worry. I'm sure the thugs at Homeland Security are taking notes.

Who Watches the Watchers?

How do you assuage the fears of those who are a bit uneasy with secret government surveillance? Why, allow a secret court to over see the program, of course:

The Bush administration has agreed to shift course and let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps on communications involving people with suspected terror links, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Since Jan. 10, when the court began overseeing the program, at least one request has been approved to monitor communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group. ...

... Bush has maintained that the warrantless surveillance program's existence was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities," and has said he would continue to reauthorize it "for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups." He has said circumventing the FISA court "enables us to move faster and quicker."

On Wednesday, the White House said it is satisfied with the new guidelines to address administration officials' concerns about national security.

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

See? Nothing to worry about.

Liberty Is Overrated--Safety Should Be Our First Concern*

Author's note: This is an article I wrote back in June of 2002, and I am still amazed that there are actually professing "conservatives" who really think this way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Those worrying about the erosion of liberty in this time of crisis often quote Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The problem with this advice is that it is well over two centuries old, and no one back then could have imagined the dangers we face today. We are at war and should be expected to sacrifice some liberty for safety.

According to a national poll taken recently by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, seven out of 10 Americans said that they would give up at least some of their civil liberties to improve security. That shouldn't be at all surprising considering the magnitude of the terrorist threat to our nation as well as the rest of the free world.

The same poll showed that about 90 percent of Americans favor having more police assigned to patrol public areas. 70 percent believe that there should be a law requiring adults to carry a national ID card with their photograph and Social Security number, and roughly half support the idea of random police searches in public places.

It is clear that most of America is behind the president in his effort to eradicate terrorism. The few individuals who are not seem to be those who are clinging too tightly to their precious Constitution. They refuse to give up even the smallest right, when doing so might mean the difference between victory and defeat.

These people, whether they realize it or not, are the terrorists' strongest allies in this war. Any attempt to detract from the plans of our president and his administration is tantamount to treason. If they can't learn the concept of "go along to get along," they need to be silenced. This war needs to be won--no matter what the cost.

When terrorists attacked our shores on Sept. 11, the fear-mongers immediately launched into their tirades against U.S. foreign policy, particularly our support for Israel. They talked about how the actions of our "empire" fueled the hatred of Islamic fundamentalists and how we should adopt a more isolationist position on global matters. All this, of course, is nonsense.

While the United States may have been able to avoid foreign entanglements at one time, we must realize that this is the 21st Century. This is not the world our forefathers knew. The Constitution may have been good enough for a fledgling nation 200 years ago, but we must evolve beyond such a narrow worldview if we hope to remain a global superpower.

Ronald Reagan once called us to be a "city on a hill," a place upon which all eyes of the world would be cast. If we allow a dusty old document like the Constitution to prevent us from doing what is necessary, we shall lose the respect of those who look to our nation as an example of greatness. No, we must maintain our lofty position in the world, and if that means behaving like an empire, so be it. The only alternative would be to succumb to terrorism, and that cannot be an option.

We need to be more positive. We need to be more supportive of our government, especially now. The president should not be criticized for doing his duty as Commander in Chief. Yet, through it all, there are those who not only see the glass of liberty as half-empty, they see it as the wrong beverage. This unpatriotic attitude was evident when President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law.

I feel I should point out that when President Bush signed the Patriot Act, he was doing what nearly half of all registered voters who actually bothered to vote elected him to do--lead. The people of this nation wanted a leader with an iron resolve and this president has shown that he is the man for the job. Rather than get behind the spirit of the Patriot Act, some disgruntled people would rather focus on the ambiguous aspects of the legislation and live in fear of the worst-case scenario.

As the poll above shows, this administration is merely doing the will of the people. Doing anything else would not bode well for the GOP this November. It would also hurt the president's chances of getting re-elected in 2004, and ensuring his re-election is absolutely vital to winning this war on terror. No other politician has shown such dedication and strength of character. Honestly, I shudder to imagine where this country would be without President Bush at the helm.

To those who insist on holding firm to the Constitution and making the government's job harder than it has to be, let me remind you that WE ARE AT WAR. Get behind the president and show your support. All of your worries are unfounded. If history is any indication, every civil liberty you give up now will be promptly restored once this war is over. That's a promise.

* Just in case you were wondering, yes, this is a satirical piece.

Living with a National ID Card

Click here. 'Nuff said.

Letter from Home

I think it speaks for itself...

It Will Happen Here Soon Enough

The Thought Police have been busy, I see:

Brigitte Bardot Fined for Inciting Racial Hatred

French actress-turned-animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred and ordered to pay $6,000 - the fourth such fine for the former sex symbol since 1997.

The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69, for remarks in her book A Scream in the Silence, an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants and the jobless that shocked France last year.

In the book, she laments the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam" ...

This wasn't some civil lawsuit over defamation of character. Bardot was actually put on trial and convicted of a crime.

Don't worry. It will happen here soon enough.

On Sheepherding and Homeland Security

For little over a century, German Shepherd dogs have been trained to herd sheep on the principle that no sheep belongs outside the flock, and no dog belongs inside. The goal is to train dogs to maneuver stray sheep back into the flock without going into the flock themselves and frightening the obedient sheep.

Naturally, the German Shepherd's job is much easier when the sheep are compliant. The less chasing the dog has to do, the less time it takes to bring the sheep under control, and the less time spent in the fields rounding up sheep, the happier the sheepherder is at the end of the day.

One could say that sheepherding is analogous to homeland security. It is the job of the airport security screener (the German Shepherd) to make sure airline passengers (the sheep) stay together and do as they're told. He will try (often unsuccessfully) to avoid needlessly frightening the flock, while nipping at the heels (usually in the figurative sense) of those who stray from the routine. When everyone is doing their part, things run smoothly, and this makes Uncle Sam (the sheepherder) very happy.

It goes without saying that the job of securing the homeland is much less difficult when passengers actually go out of their way to be compliant. Consider a recent incident on a Spirit Airlines flight from New York to Denver. A woman boarded her plane at LaGuardia Airport, somehow getting through security with a stun gun and a knife concealed in her purse. She wasn’t being malicious; she had simply forgotten the items were there.

After a brief layover in Detroit, the woman was in the air once again, bound for Denver. In the middle of the flight, she suddenly remembered the dangerous objects she was carrying and, rather than keep her mouth shut, decided to confess her absent-minded act of terrorism. Spirit Airlines spokeswoman Laura Bennett related quite eloquently the events that transpired: "She immediately went, 'Oh, my God, I'm not supposed to have these here,' and called the flight attendant over."

The flight attendant informed the pilot, the pilot radioed ahead to Denver International Airport and police officers were waiting at the gate when the plane landed to take the woman into custody. She was released after questioning without being charged. Said Bennett, "She did the right thing by giving up the items voluntarily, and she was never malicious. We never considered her a threat." I guess that explains why the cops were called.

Some may agree with Ms. Bennett that this woman indeed did the right thing by owning up to her mistake. After all, the fact that her weapons of mass destruction managed to evade the watchful eyes of a team of under-trained, grope-happy government employees doesn't sit well with those who have entrusted the feds with their safety.

I happen to believe that this woman's actions are symptomatic of a bizarre "sheep mentality" that has been sweeping over the nation since Sept. 11, 2001. Think about it. She was already in the air and beyond the clutches of Ridge's Runway Rangers, yet she still felt compelled to do her duty as one of the flock by turning herself in to authorities.

Doesn't this strike anyone as the least bit odd? I can only think of two possible explanations for this woman's behavior: 1) she was so frightened that Big Brother was watching that she gave herself up in an attempt to avoid more harsh consequences, or 2) she honestly believes in the integrity of the system the government has set up to safeguard American lives. No matter what the explanation, neither should sit well with freedom-loving citizens.

Fortunately for this young woman her "sheep sense" kicked in, and she was able to rejoin the flock without much fuss, demonstrating that the benevolent shepherd is inclined to reward those who go along unquestioningly with the rest of the flock. Now, if we could only get would-be terrorists to develop that kind of sheep mentality, we might just lick this terror problem once and for all.

Where Would We Be without Government?

Given the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and everything it does for us today, it's amazing our country was able to survive the dark ages of small government, free enterprise and individual liberty.

What condition would our nation be in without the government regulating our health care system?

What would people do without a government-run retirement plan?

How could we have ever expected private and religious charitable organizations to function without government funding?

What would we do without the government's ability to coerce stubborn state legislatures to pass sensible DWI laws?

How much worse would it be without the government's masterful handling of our immigration policy?

How did businesses ever thrive without government regulations, subsidies or bail-outs?

What could possibly make us feel more safe than allowing the government to snoop into the private affairs of U.S. citizens?

How did we make it in the days before government control of education?

Why would we even want to take part in the political process without the government telling us what we can and can't say?

Where would we be without an eloquent, truthful, morally and socially conservative, fiscally responsible foreign policy genius in the White House?

Without the government taxing, regulating and overseeing virtually every aspect of our daily lives, how could we truly call ourselves the "Land of the Free"?

I ask you: where would we be without government?