Where Do You Place your Distrust?

 

Here are a couple of  very good, short articles on Real ID written  by a Conservative who opposes it from Tennesee.

Enjoy!

AxXiom

 

 Saturday, March 22, 2008

Where Do You Place Your Distrust?

In the debate over national id cards (REAL ID), I often hear people say, “Well, if you’ve got nothing to hide, what does it matter if the government knows everything about you?”

The underlying assumption for saying such a thing is twofold:

1) The Individual Should Be Distrusted.
2) The Government Should Be Trusted.

The question really is “Where do you place your distrust?”

Secretaries and Bureaucrats have the job of wielding government power. It is a necessary job because government is needed. It’s a fallen world after all. So Secretaries and Bureaucrats (and Presidents and Congresses) ask themselves, “How Can I Make My Job Easier?” It is human nature to ask, and it is usually a good question.

But when Secretaries and Bureaucrats want to expand their space, they must contract the individual’s space. That’s just the way the world works. So government officials have to “sell” their increased powers to the voters by telling the voters how good (convenient) the expansion of government power will be for them.

And here’s the rub.

The Framers of the Constitution had an up-close-and-personal understanding of tyranny. They knew that government power must be minimized and individual freedom must be maximized. To achieve this, they separated the powers of government into three branches and into a federal system. They also shackled the government with checks and balances. The whole Constitution screams, “Limited Government!”

The Framers placed their distrust in government. It’s the American way.

But modern day leaders distrust the individual, disregard the Constitution, and love government. And Secretaries and Bureaucrats chafe under limitations. Their easy way out is to override the individual.

With the rise of technology and the war on terrorism, we can easily forget the threat of tyranny. National ID Cards (i.e. REAL ID) enable the government to track individuals through their daily lives. Secretary Chertoff has already talked about “countless other uses” for REAL ID. So the citizen is subject to being conveniently scanned for “countless other uses” by “machine readable technology.”

Knowledge is power. If the government knows everything, it has all the power. To digitally track the individual in real-time makes the 4th Amendment obsolete and grants the government massive power. It’s a zero-sum game.

One might say, “The government knows everything about you anyway. What’s it matter?” It matters for two reasons:

1) Such talk says, “Let’s capitulate.” It is a fallacy that says, “It’s already bad, so let’s make it worse.” Hope for reform withers under that kind of resignation.

2) REAL ID layers on more real-time capability of surveillance. If it weren’t a significant change that increased government’s power, the government wouldn’t be pushing for it.

The proliferation of scanners will have the citizen scanning-in with the government every time he turns around. Mr. Chertoff has already mentioned using REAL ID to buy cold medicine!

Instead of asking the individual, “What do you have to hide?” we should be asking bureaucrats, secretaries, Presidents and Congresses “Why do you want so much power at my expense?”

Where should we place our distrust?

I stand with the Constitution’s Framers. The threat of tyranny has never gone away. I simply can’t believe our only choices are statism or terrorism.

If we sell out our freedoms in order to fight terrorism (which we should fight hammer-and-tong) how can we say “We are defending America?”

Surely we can do better.

 

http://realidwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-do-you-place-your-distrust.html

 

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Why This Conservative Tennessean Opposes REAL ID:

My Email to My Representatives:

Why This Conservative Tennessean Opposes REAL ID:

1. REAL ID is a de facto national identification card. At least Lamar Alexander, in recent comments, was honest enough to admit this. Has America sacrificed so much for freedom only to create a “papers please” society?

2. REAL ID does an end-run around the 4th Amendment: “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.”

It is unreasonable to give the central government the power (potential) to track individuals in real-time. If the government needs to search the lives of citizens, let it get a search warrant. We should not have to be monitered. Is not this the essence of freedom? REAL ID, and its future additions, will make life subject to the good-will of the government in a software maze of “red light, green light.” This is not freedom.

3. REAL ID reduces God-given rights of the individual to a string of digits, subject to the good-will of software and/or bureaucrats. It makes Americans get “permission” to live and move in the basic functions of society: banking and travel. The permission we need to do this (and more) is God-given. We shouldn’t have to ask permission to be functioning citizens within our own country.

4. REAL ID may require biometrics at the state level or at the federal level. Why should Americans be “booked” like criminals even if they’ve committed no crime?

5. REAL ID compiles personal information into one place. With the ease of internet access, this information is vulnerable to anyone on the globe with the ability to hack.

6. REAL ID is a move towards the centalization of more power. In an age of terror, the country should operate on a philosophy of de-centralizing as much of our lives as possible–so that if an attack handicaps one part of the country, the rest of the country can still function.

7. The burden of proof lies on the promoters of REAL ID: Show us exactly HOW this significantly new and immense power to the government is NOT a threat to freedom. FREEDOMS ARE LOST IN THEORY/PHILOSOPHY LONG BEFORE THEY’RE LOST IN PRACTICE. Conservatives are threatening freedom and promoting “big government” with the REAL ID Act.

8. We should be moving away from an identification society. This kind of atmosphere promotes suspicion and fear. Are Americans innocent until proven guilty, or are we suspicious until properly identified? The presumption of innocence is undermined by REAL ID.

9. Programs like REAL ID never remain static. The private sector will seek to use this identification system as well. One bad application will lead to others. How can we remain an “open” society with this kind of philosophy?

10. Some folks say we already have a national id–Social Security. But if REAL ID is only a lateral move, why are we doing it? We are doing it because it is indeed an increase in the government’s ability to track its citizens. If we’re on the wrong road, the soonest way to progress is to turn around.

We don’t have to do anything stupid. Just because we “can” doesn’t mean we “should.”

Freedom is Brewing in Oklahoma! Tea Party 2/27/09

OKLAHOMA TEAPARTY IN TWO CITIES
(maybe more if you can organize one fast!)

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 27th @ 11AM, or whenever you can get there

OKC – State Capitol Steps

Tulsa – Veteran’s Park, 21st & Boulder

Invited Speakers include, Senator Randy Brogdon, State
Representatives Charles Key, Dr. Mike Ritze, Jason Murphey
and Republican Party State Vice Chair Cheryl Williams and
Tulsa County Chair Sally Bell, and many others.

On February 17th, President Obama signed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which has sent the
national debt into the trillions of dollars and jeopardized
the American way of life.

All these government bailout initiatives amount to reaching
into our pockets and indebting our children in order for
the government to spend its way out of a crisis that
uncontrolled spending and intrusive government controls on
the economy caused in the first place.

After several trillion dollars poured down the hole of
inefficient, bloated corporations, who really need the
tough medicine of bankruptcy reorganization, this is too
much!  Like the over-taxed Colonies over 200 years ago, we
are stepping forth to show our displeasure. To President
Obama and Congress we Americans shout in unison, “ARE YOU
LISTENING?”

On Friday, February 27th at 11am at Veteran’s Park (21st&
Boulder) and on the steps of the State Capitol in OKC,
Oklahomans from all walks of life will rally together
responding to CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s call to protest this
gross negligence in government spending.  As part of the
Nationwide Chicago Tea Party they will be joined by
Americans in New York City, Washington, DC, Houston, Los
Angeles, and Chicago, in a show of united opposition to
bailout plans.

Tulsa area contact:
Jai Blevins (918) 760-8282 jaiblevins@hotmail.com

Oklahoma City area contact:
Alan Webb (405) 413-9322 okcteaparty@yahoo.com

This movement was spearheaded by [1]Top Conservatives on
Twitter, [2]Smart Girl Politics, [3]the DontGomovement.com,
[4]Americans for Tax Reform, [5]the Heartland Institute,

[6]American Spectator Magazine, and [7]R3publicans.
We invite you to join in support with these         
Official Facebook Event Page:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=128957625135&ref=mf

Please see http://r3publican.wordpress.com/ for more
information!

Links from above:
1. http://www.tcotreport.com/
2. http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/
3. http://www.dontgomovement.com/
4. http://www.atr.org/
5. http://www.heartland.org/
6. http://spectator.org/
7. http://r3publican.wordpress.com/
8. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=665494086

Special Thanks to Sandra Crosnoe for her tireless efforts to motivate and connect people and information on this event.   Her example of Servant Leadersip is a source of inspiration to all who love their country and neighbors.

Much appreciation, Sandra!

AxXiom

Add West Virginia! State Sovereignty Movement

*UPDATE*

Kevin Patrick sends word from Alan Shook who yesterday said that things were not looking so good for

getting this measure into committee.

 

Today-

“You guys DID IT! “It’s down in bill drafting–I just asked about it and they haven’t finished it yet. It will definitely be introduced” — Alex Shook

 

This is a great example of just how important and effective communicating with our representatives, especially on a state level, can be.  I have seen this effect personally-Your state representatives many times are operating with little guidance from their constituents at large and this leaves them open to influence by any number of other sources that do not operate in the interests of the people.

 

Kudos West Virginia!

 

AxXiom

 

 

 

List courtesy of Kevin Patrick-Patriot, Activist for West Virginia Sovereignty

-Thank you Kevin!

 

States who have passed or proposed bills to affirm 10th Amendment rights.

 

2009: Arkansas 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues

 

2009: Arizona 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment

 

1994: California 10^th Amendment

1995/96: Georgia 10^th Amendment

 

2009: Georgia 10^th Amendment

 

2009: Kansas 10^th Amendment

 

* Add 2009 Kentucky Feb, 25th

 

1997/98: Louisiana Sovereignty Constitutional Amendment

 

2009: Michigan 10^th Amendment

 

2009: Minnesota 10^th Amendment

 

2009: Missouri Freedom of Choice Act (Abortion), 10th Amendment

 

2009: Montana 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment, 2nd Amendment

 

2009: New Hampshire 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Federal Reserve, Taxes, Martial Law, 2^nd Amendment, Draft/War, Patriot Act, Labor Camps, 1st Amendment

 

2008: Oklahoma 10^th Amendment, (Other Legislation: No Child Left Behind, Real ID Act)

 

2009: Oklahoma 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues

 

2009: South Carolina 9^th Amendment, 10 Amendment, Martial Law and Related, 1^st Amendment, 2^nd Amendment

 

2009: Tennessee 10^th Amendment

 

2009: Texas 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues

 

2009: Utah Real ID Act

 

2009: Washington 10^th Amendment

 

 

* Proposed: Alabama 9^th Amendment, 10th Amendment

 

* Proposed: Alaska

 

* 1994: Colorado 10^th Amendment

 

* 1995: Florida 10^th Amendment

 

* Proposed [HJM RS18517]: Idaho 10^th Amendment

 

* 2009: Indiana 10^th Amendment

 

* 2009: Iowa 10^th Amendment

 

* Proposed: Maine

 

* Proposed: Nevada

 

* Proposed: Ohio 10^th Amendment

 

* Proposed: Pennsylvania 10^th Amendment

 

* Proposed: Virginia 10^th Amendment

 

* Proposed: West Virginia Same As New Hampshire (in Draft)

 

Republic of Lakotah Full Independence

 

Hawaii Full Independence

 

* Some are not verified with the actual state and may have not yet been proposed or passed in the state

The TenthAmendmentCenter.com reported today that Kentucky State Rep. and Majority Whip John Will Stacy (D) introduced HCR168 (status page):

Declare state sovereignty over powers not given to the the federal government by the U. S. Constitution; demand the federal government to cease mandates beyond constitutionlly delegated powers; prohibit federal legialtion requiring state passage of laws under threat of penalties or sanctions; direct the Clerk to distribute copies of the Resolution.

Out for Blood at DUI CheckPoints

Bloodsuckers In Blue

By William Norman Grigg of Pro Libertate

To “Protect” and Siphon: A “Phleboto-Cop” prepares to drain the blood of a “volunteer.”

(Thanks to Freedom’s Phoenix)

During the mid-1980s, a state radio broadcast in East Germany proudly announced a record-breaking national blood drive. In the audio equivalent of fine print could be found the critical, defining detail: “Most of the donors were volunteers.”

As with so many other East German episodes of that sort, the Stasi State’s practice of compelled blood donation prefigured current developments here in the erstwhile Land of the Free.

An appeals court in New Jersey has ruled that police enjoy “qualified immunity” when accused of excessive force in retraining a man from whom they’re extracting an involuntary blood sample.

That decision is a veritable layer cake of due process atrocities.

The foundation is the well-established, and constitutionally spurious, concept of “qualified immunity,” the incantation regularly pronounced to protect law enforcement officers from civil liability when they needlessly or improperly injure or kill innocent people.

Offenses against the Bill of Rights – particularly the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination – compose the middle layer.

Topping off the court’s unpalatable confection is the claim that it is proper for a police officer to force a subject to submit to those violations of his constitutionally protected rights through abuse tantamount to torture. In this case, a police officer placed his entire bodyweight on one of Russell Johnson’s wrists while attempting to handcuff him.

According to Dr. Michael S. Grenis, an orthopedic physician who examined Mr. Johnson, the predictable result of the policeman’s action was not only to inflict excruciating pain, but also leave him with permanent nerve damage that may result in “permanent impairment of a significant body function.”

That last line, incidentally, wasn’t extracted from the New Jersey court decision, or the physician’s report. It was taken from the notorious 2002 “Bybee Memorandum” in which the Bush Regime defined torture as narrowly as it could, for the purpose of enabling that practice as much as it could. This adds another dreadful weapon to the arsenal of the armed parasites called “DUI officers.”

Quite in spite of themselves, DUI officers occasionally identify and remove from the highways people whose state of intoxication make them dangerous to innocent people. In like manner, the police in East Germany did occasionally identify and arrest people who had committed real crimes against persons and property. By this was incidental to the primary purpose of East Germany’s police, which was to compel the submission of that nation’s captive population.

In much the same fashion, arresting real drunks is peripheral to the prime directive of DUI police, which is to harvest revenue for the jurisdictions they serve. And it’s hardly necessary for a driver to be intoxicated – or even to drink at all – to be caught in the clutches of the DUI enforcement system. As California DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor observes, there is a widely observed “DUI exception to the Constitution,” and that “exception” is doing a great deal to make East German-style police behavior the norm.

The October 1 installment of the investigative TV program Inside Edition examined the recent DUI arrests of two men – one of them a Polk County Commissioner named Randy Wilkinson, the other an 19-year-old named Robbie Stout – neither of whom had consumed so much as a picogram of alcohol on the day of the arrest. Both Wilkinson and Stout were handcuffed, fingerprinted, forced to pose for mug-shots, and briefly jailed.

What was particularly galling in the case of Randy Wilkinson was that he requested a blood alcohol test, which confirmed that there was no alcohol in his bloodstream – yet the charges weren’t dropped until much later. Likewise, Stout underwent a blood alcohol test (apparently not at his request) that produced a negative result – which was also ignored.

On exiting the jail, Wilkinson, who was running for re-election, was greeted by reporters. He was able to get the charges dismissed with relatively little difficulty, but some substantial expense. Stout, a young man of limited means, had to pay several thousand dollars in legal fees in order to clear his name of the bogus charge.

With relatively little difficulty, Inside Edition was able to unearth documentation that DUI officers in Lakeland, Florida — where those spurious arrests occurred — are under a strict quota (clothed in the euphemism “Performance Standard”) to make 10 arrests a month. The program’s investigative team was able to verify that similar quotas have been assigned to police departments across the nation.

Thanks to a pernicious proviso in nearly every driver’s license application called “Implied Consent,” the police can detain any driver at their discretion, conduct a warrantless search of the driver’s vehicle, and compel the driver to undergo a “chemical test” for alcohol, via either the admittedly unreliable instrument called a Breathalyzer, or the more invasive method of a bodily fluid test – blood or urine.

Refusal to submit to this procedure will generally lead to summary arrest for “per se intoxication”; furthermore, as one legal advice website points out, “Under implied consent laws, in most states a driver’s license is automatically suspended for up to one year, even if the motorist is not found guilty of DUI.”

So, in the East German sense of the expression, those of us who have driver’s licenses have “volunteered” to be stopped, interrogated, searched, and surrender bodily samples at the whim of a DUI enforcement officer. And as the cases of Randy Wilkinson and Robbie Stout illustrate, a perfectly clean blood alcohol test will not result in immediate exoneration.

This is because, once again, the purpose of this exercise is not to identify drivers who are dangerously intoxicated, but rather to generate revenue. Former Atlanta DUI Officer Tony Corrado admitted to Inside Edition that filling DUI arrest quotas is necessary in order to keep federal subsidies flowing into “local” police departments.

Matters get worse – they always get worse – at DUI “safety checkpoints.”

One return on Washington’s investment in subsidizing DUI arrests is a healthy stream of vital information collected by police at “safety checkpoints.” A May 2, 2005 Washington Post story describes how the hundreds of Washington-area motorists pulled over at “safety checkpoints” were aware that they were being subjected to an involuntary intelligence-gathering dragnet.

One of the innocent people profiled by the Post story, Lisa Davis, was sober and carefully obeying all traffic laws when she was detained at a checkpoint. “Even so,” noted the Post, “an officer jotted down some basic information before letting her go, including her name, address and the time and location of the stop for a police database….”(Emphasis added.)

Which is to say that she – like all the other drivers who passed through the checkpoint – was temporarily arrested (that’s the correct term to use when a police officer detains you, however briefly and for whatever purpose) and compelled to surrender personal information at gunpoint.

And just as all drains eventually flow into the ocean, all information collected by “local” police eventually ends up in Leviathan’s master databases, to be used as Leviathan’s masters see fit – a reality somewhat understood by Miss Davis, if by relatively few others.

“I’ve got some serious constitutional issues with that,” commented Miss Davis about the police search. “I feel like it’s a violation of my rights. It’s a slippery slope to Big Brother.”

I disagree with Miss Davis only to this extent: She fears the impending advent of a Big Brother State, rather than recognizing that it has already descended on us. How else can we adequately describe a system in which police can compel innocent people to suffer the invasion of their persons for blood tests – and when a negative result does not provide immediate exoneration?

A few years ago, Arizona became the first state to train police officers to collect their own blood samples. This procedure is now used in Utah, Texas, and perhaps elsewhere. Although they are trained to render emergency aid, Police are not health care professionals – as Arizona resident James Green learned, to his dismay, when he was arrested on suspicion of DUI by a Pinal County Sheriff’s Deputy.

Despite the fact that the arrest took place within walking distance of a hospital, the deputy insisted on performing the blood draw. Two inept and unhygenic needle-sticks later, the deputy has his blood sample – and Green had a nasty infection that lasted for months and forced him to miss work as a test pilot.

Green was more fortunate than Brian Sewell, another Arizona resident who was arrested for DUI in 2004 and forced to undergo a blood draw. Like many others, Sewell is deathly afraid of needles, and didn’t consent to be stuck. He received three Taser shocks while resisting efforts by deputies to draw his blood. Eventually the charges against Sewell were dropped.

Given that blood test evidence isn’t considered conclusive (at least for purposes of exculpating the accused), what is the purpose of such behavior by the police?

We should never rule out simple sadism.

“Blood draws allow the police to take out a little bit of ‘street justice’ on suspects who refuse to cooperate by sticking a needle in them,” opined a defense attorney in commenting about an essay by the above-mentioned Lawrence Taylor. “If an officer is angry with the suspect, he may present an unreasonable risk of harm to the suspect. Also, the officer is less likely to establish phlebotomy safety protocols. I have a client who was stabbed with a needle 5 times by a police officer before they took him to the hospital to get a blood draw. The client told the police that he had collapsed veins and they would not be able to get his blood. The police did not listen because there had been a scuffle and they were angry with my client. My client took pictures of the puncture wounds the next day. We have a hearing on the matter in December.”
We shouldn’t be surprised when we learn that the officers in that incident “behaved professionally” and “acted within department guidelines.” The outcome of official inquiries into police misconduct is usually as predictable as an East German election.

Sen. Brogdon reacts to I.R.O.N. Statement Against SB 289

 

*3/1/09 Related posts; http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/radio-chips-coming-soon-to-your-drivers-lisence/

I don’t know much about I.R.O.N. or Carol Helm the founder of the group but I suspect they may be letting their passion for stopping illegal immigration cloud their better judgment in this case. It has been proven over and over to me that anyone who is not opposed to the effort to collect, retain and share all manner of data on citizens whether it is Real ID or any of the other similar efforts happening on multiple levels coming from multiple agencies, then that person does not understand the issue clearly.

I am opposed to illegal immigration. No one in this state escapes the burden of allowing our borders to remain unsecured.  I have a wrecked truck sitting in my driveway that will remain that way because a person here illegally caused an accident and has no insurance.  I do not fault this woman personally for making her way to a place that promised more for her than Mexico but I do fault the business that ignored our law by hiring her. She is trying to survive and her risk is a calculated one. A national fast food chain employed her and made Oklahoma a worthwhile place to stay.  After being delayed on my way to Tulsa for over an hour while the officer visited with the woman he came over to break the news that I was out of luck but did offer, as if it would be a consolation to me, that he issued 3 citations to the lady.  “Oh Goody for the city of Edmond” I replied dryly.  On a positive note, I was not hauled in for not having a valid ID card.  Mine is expired and since they are collecting your biometric data in exchange for a new one, I am sans card.    If they want that much info they can get it the old fashioned way-Arrest Me!

Why are law abiding people being forced to strip their lives naked before literally the world to stop law breakers?  How is this sensible of fair?  Just as we must buy “extra” insurance to cover those who won’t, don’t or cannot get it we are being asked to bare it all, submit to being endlessly monitored our data harvested, collected and shared across the globe so that the government can use it to discern the criminals. That is not the way it works, fella’s. You think that we would have ever accepted being pre-fingerprinted rather than upon arrest?  Why will we accept this now?   I will not pay an automatic penalty for the wrongdoing of others and any legislator that would seek to impose such a system on the people of America should be smacked!  We operate on the principle that as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others you are free to go your way.  Having to give over biometric and other personal data to not only our state but to federal and international government databases as well implies that our daily business is a privilege-Do we really want to go there?  If someone can grant you it, they can surely take it from you.  I will never agree to this notion by trading my bits and pieces of my biography for this “privilege.”

I think that the government will yank our chain by dredging up whatever boogeyman they think will be most effective to scare or shame us into doing what they are disgustingly calling Patriotic.

“C’mon America!  Let us put you in our Hasbro Ant Farm so we can keep an eye on your fascinating little lives.  You want to stop the bad guys don’t you? “

I’m not going there.  Ever see what teenage boys do to Hasbro Ant Farms after they get bored with watching them?

They shake them up!

Please, counterbalance by contacting your representatives and letting them know you support this measure that will keep our drivers licenses clear of exactly the same nonsense that we already said NO to when our state legislature passed SB464 last session.

Find them all right here

Here is a statement issued by Senator Randy Brogdon today:

I.R.O.N. has issued a very disparaging statement about SB 289, which I authored. They falsely claim that my bill would allow for the “continued driving of illegal aliens on our roads”. Unfortunately I.R.O.N has taken the word of Federal and State authorities and issued this statement without discussing their concerns with me. Let me be clear, their concerns are inaccurate and without foundation. I was a co-sponsor of HB 1804, the anti- illegal immigration bill and would not do anything to weaken that legislation.

Anyone who has followed my career knows that my legislation revolves around individual freedom and the protection of your God given rights.

In short, SB 289 protects your 4th Amendment rights by securing your personal identity and removing your fingerprint, biometric facial image as well as preventing the transfer of that information to other countries and to the federal government.

State and federal agencies like Homeland Security are currently gathering as much personal information on private citizens as they can. The ultimate goal is to “tag”, “track”, store, and transfer personal information without the knowledge of the citizens. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is under attack by intrusive government agencies.

Please ignore the statement issued by I.R.O.N and contact my office if you have any concerns. 405-521-5566

Dedicated to Liberty,

Randy Brogdon

State Senate Dist. #34

Mark Lerner of the Stop Real ID Coalition and the Constitutional Alliance wrote this a couple of days ago.  These organizations work tirelessly to share their knowledge with citizens and lawmakers alike.

Please, read this update and see if you really believe that the issue of consolidating biometric and other data this way is really about illegal immigration or if it is compatible with our principles of Liberty in America.

MINUTES OF YOUR TIME FOR A LIFETIME OF FREEDOM !

Monday, 23 February 2009 19:44 Mark Lerner

Washington Times

The top link above strongly suggests that the soon to be Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, will push back implementation of The Real ID Act 2005 once again, or more likely ask Congress to scrap the law.  Currently Real ID is scheduled to begin implementation 31 December 2009 (original planned implementation date 11 May 2008).  Incredulous is the word that comes to mind when thinking of what Secretary Napolitano is seriously considering.  EDL‘s (Enhanced Driver’s Licenses) for all states.  RFID and biometrics for each of us.  No longer a state’s driver’s license but an international driver’s license.  AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, an international organization by their own admission) and the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization-an agency of the United Nations) are celebrating today as our nation’s sovereignty, state’s rights and citizen’s rights to representation are quickly becoming words that historians will speak about but our children will have no personal knowledge of.

Many states believing Real ID should be implemented have already adopted Real ID standards including the requirement to adopt international standards for the driver’s licenses including international standards for the digital facial image (photo).  Some states even prior to 2005 had already moved to meet these international standards.  Real ID was never about security but rather enrollment into a global biometric identification system that linked a person’s body to their ability to buy and sell.  Those that referred to Real ID as a national ID did not mention that AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators), an international organization was named the backbone and hub of Real ID by the DHS in the final rules.  Those that called Real ID a national ID did not address the fact that on page 68 of the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) is in small print, a footnote that reads “17 The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303″.  Your photo, on your state driver’s license was required to meet the adopted standard of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), an agency of the United Nations.  Yes, Real ID was about national ID but much, much, more-international ID.

SECTION 7212 of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act is under consideration as a possible part of the replacement for Real ID.  This section is at the center of Senator Akaka’s Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007.  The following is the relevant portion of section 7212:
“(D) standards for information to be included on each
driver’s license or personal identification card, including-
(i) the person’s full legal name;
(ii) the person’s date of birth;
(iii) the person’s gender;
(iv) the person’s driver’s license or personal identification
card number;
S. 2845-192
(v) a digital photograph of the person;
(vi) the person’s address of principal residence;
and
(vii) the person’s signature;”

Yes, the requirement for the digital facial image.  It always has been about the digital facial image and the compatibility of that image to allow for the use of facial recognition technology, a biometric just as fingerprinting is a biometric technology.  Facial Recognition is based on the mapping of your facial characteristics.

If national security was truly the issue then why are our borders still wide open?  We can give hundred’s of billions to Wall Street but can not spend eleven billion on Real ID?  That doesn’t make sense if Real ID was actually about national security.  The federal government realizes it cannot get Real ID implemented because of the widespread opposition which includes constitutional issues.

The federal government is now regrouping.  Secretary Napolitano and Senator Akaka MAY decide to work together and incorporate the Secretary’s apparent love for Enhanced Driver’s Licenses into Senator Akaka’s legislation.  There could be an argument made that the Secretary can do much of what she wants without Congress’s approval.  We do no see that as likely but when it comes to the federal government never say never.

There may be a negotiated rulemaking process for whatever legislation the Secretary wants.  Real ID did not have a negotiated rulemaking process.  Under a negotiated rulemaking process DHS would invite groups to the table to discuss the legislation but make no mistake about is-The final product will be representative of what DHS wants.

I wonder if those that deny a surveillance society is the goal would tell you that hundred’s of millions of dollars have been spent by DHS on digital CCTV (surveillance) cameras?  I wonder if they could explain the requirement for the standard the digital photo must meet is an international standard that was buried in a footnote of the NPRM?  Would these supporters of Real ID tell you that surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology being used simultaneously in real time is not something of the future but has been used many times since 2000?  Would they tell you that repeatedly the technology failed.  It is not the issue of whether it failed or not.  Would supporters of Real ID tell you about a DHS program called “Project Hostile Intent?  Project Hostile Intent according to the American Psychology Association is, or can be, real time assessment of your behavioral characteristics.  We, at the Alliance believe the use of surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology and Project Hostile intent are all threatening in the own right.  For surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, and Project Hostile Intent to all be used simultaneously in real time is nothing short of the underpinning of a police state.  Now consider adding RFID technology.  We ask that people consider when addressing the question of technology that one technology may not be offensive in and of itself but when numerous technologies are used at the same time the sum of the dangers to our liberty is greater that the individual parts or technologies alone.  Now with Secretary Napolitano’s idea of incorporating RFID chips in all drivers’ licenses we see the time for debate is over.

Oklahoma phone numbers-abuse of power by NSA, FBI and DHS.

Internet Records Bill This bill in congress is outrageous.  Just more reason failure is not an option.  If a person uses a motel or hotel Wi-Fi system the history of web-sites visited by the guest would be stored.

One must ask, what is going on with RFID and license plates.

Do the Canadians, who now question our federal government’s use of collected information, know something we don’t?  See Border Privacy in Canada.   How secure is RFID?   Very recent article.

Abuse by the federal government- NSA worse than anyone thought

FBI ignores constitution with abuse of NSL’s

DHS, consider the Real ID Act, Project Hostile Intent and now Enhanced Driver’s License for every state.  Hundred’s of millions for CCTV surveillance cameras.

Either citizens and lawmakers will stand up, be counted, and speak out or the toothpaste will not be able to be put back in the tube.  Our sovereignty as a country, state’s rights and citizen’s rights will be lost.  There are admittedly many important issues such as immigration, the economy——–.  What is more important than protecting our liberty?  Many state legislatures will be out of session or it will be too late to introduce new legislation soon.  If the federal government takes action while state legislatures are out of session or can’t introduce bills because of filing deadlines it will be nearly impossible to halt the attack on OUR Constitution.  This is why action must be taken now!!!  We must not look back years from now and wonder why more was not done to protect our liberty.  We must use every resource available and not accept failure as an option.  In Oklahoma the line has been drawn.  Current legislation would prevent the onslaught we are facing from being successful.  Biometrics, RFID and much more would be stopped.

Mark

Woolly Boogers Loose in the Oklahoma State House? Online insurance verification bill

Original Post Feb, 23, 2009

 

WOOLLYBOOGERS

in the Oklahoma State House?

What in the heck is a woolly booger?

A Real Live Woolly Booger

From Goat Philosophy 101;

Always Trust a Woolly Booger

“In truth, they are the larvae of the Spotted Tussock Moth. More night fliers. Just what we need around here.”

Ok.  Now we know what a  “woolley booger”  is.

That technical lingo that those highfalutin’ lawmakers use makes me feel so uneducated!

“Woolley Boogers” and “Conspiracy Theories” are the terms used by Rep. Ken Miller (kenmiller@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7360) to characterize some House members and their concerns about HB2013.

Miller offers that he helped install a GPS device on a friend’s car and that it had nothing to do with a bar code (??) He says that the barcode on our new license plates are “empty” and he has bar codes on his groceries and of the concerns raised, Miller says that he heard a lot of things that “Frankly just don’t concern me at all,(snicker)” (30:55 on audio)

Bar Code! We Don’t Need No Stinking Bar Codes!

RELEVANT POST: EU Develops RFID License Plate Tracking

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/europe-develops-rfid-license-plate-tracking/

The audio file can be accessed here http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/ select the date, Feb 19^th then select track # 1008 (HB2013)to listen.

Go to 19:50 time on the audio file to get to the interesting part, the debate.  The previous 19 minutes consists of Rep. Miller presenting bill 2013, ostensibly a bill designed to clean up the language of an earlier bill regarding insurance verification for motorists passed 1 or 2 years ago.  *Yawn*

And questions from Rep. Ritze, Rep. Key and Rep. Reynolds and Rep. Morrissette regarding the following  topics

(note: I am paraphrasing the exchange)

*Is the bill a “requested bill”   and who requested it?

Rep. Miller answers that, Yes. It was requested by DPS, the OK. Tax Commission, the  OK.Insurance Department and “Industry” ( Which refers to InsureNet.)

*Why was the deadline for implementing the original bill (July 1 2008)  missed?

Miller said some small companies had not achieved compliance due to not reporting properly.

Listen from 2:55 to 4:55 for Rep. Miller’s too-twisty-to-type reply when asked to name what small insurance company was out of compliance and why by Reynolds.

See this newsarticle dated Dec. 29, 2008

Oklahoma Electronic Insurance Verification System Not Reliable Yet

Excerpt:

A new electronic system to verify automobile insurance in Oklahoma is operational, but not yet reliable.

A law passed in 2006 takes effect Jan. 1, 2009, allowing law enforcement agencies and tag agents to check for up-to-date automobile insurance electronically through a database maintained by the Department of Public Safety.

The system is in place, but testing shows it is accurate only 60 percent of the time, Oklahoma Tax Commission officials said.

Because of that, law enforcement officials and tag agents are being told not to rely on the information it provides, said David Beatty, the department’s project manager for the Oklahoma Compulsory Insurance Verification System.. . .

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2008/12/29/96625.htm

*Had there been discussion between involved parties and InsureNet and is the new or altered language the result of that communication.

Miller said (paraphrasing) that Yes.  There had been communication and while InsureNet submitted suggestions, none of their language was used.

Rep. Key expressed concern over system glitches that might show a motorist is uninsured when, in fact they are and then their car is impounded disrupting the person’s livelihood.

Rep. Ritze at 11:16 asks if this is a proposed online database shared with DPS and had DPS’s database ever been hacked or breached. (Later it is revealed by Reynolds that, in fact DPS computer database security was recently was breached.  I have not located a news story on this but will find out more.)

Here is one web manual CIVS Oklahoma Compulsory Insurance Verification System. Here is the more in-depth one if you are a computer techie sort.  (See a description of problems in TX here )

Rep Miller states he had no idea and continually reintegrates that the intent of HB2013 is simply to “clean up language.”

*Had there been discussion between involved parties and InsureNet and is the new or altered language the result of that communication. (15:50) Miller said (paraphrasing) that, “Yes,” there had been communication and while InsureNet submitted suggestions, none of their language was used.

Reynolds asked what would be InsureNet’s interest in changes.  Miller says because they (InsureNet) would like to be the carrier.

I’m sure you are catching the drift of this back and forth by this point so I’ll skip any further blow by blow.

The audio file can be accessed at http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/ . Select the date, Feb 19^th then select track # 1008 (HB2013)to listen.

At 30:47 you can hear Rep. Miller speak to the issue of “wooly boogers.”

So, I began to tear up the web searching for info that will illuminate this issue.  Are private companies driving legislation in our state, promising heaps of revenue to other companies (in this case insurance) and to state agencies and is this revenue to be ill-gotten by devising more and more intrusive ways of “catching” us?  Is this what is driving the apparent burning need for umpteen plus forty databases all interconnected, gleaning every smidge of personal, biographical and biometric info possible AND hooking our virtual selves up with foreign countries?  From my scrutiny of AAMVA, the reigning masters of private industry driving legislation for the sole purpose of endlessly milking the American people, the ultimate cash cow for these companies, I’s say at the very least we ought to look into this.  I can say with all certainty that AAMVA works exactly this way and I am sure they are spreading the good news to all of their associates.  This is NOT good old privatization!  This is Public Private Partnerships or PPP’s. You would not want to confuse the two ideas because they don’t remotely work the same.  Public Private Partnerships make deals with governmental agencies so that they have the benefit of government taxing and enforcement to secure their companies fortune.  These companies present their wares  showcasing how it will bring in heaps of revenue to the government.  They help to create laws and policies to justify and implement schemes that support these products.  In a nutshell, what we get is corporate government.  Not government by and for and of the people.  This was the genesis of Real ID.

Here is a good explanation of why Public Private Partnerships should not be equated with the simple notion of privatization, which we associate with smaller government and more efficiency.

Excerpt:

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set. [. . . ]

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/deweese081507.htm

How about InsureNet?

Well, InsurNet is an associate of AAMVA.  Judging from the 35 page long document-who isn’t an associate of AAMVA’s?

Yes, life is good for AAMVA!

AAMVA ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

http://www.aamva.org/aamva/DocumentDisplay.aspx?id=%7B27399168-F1D8-4E75-B712-A5C1D1236F18%7D

InsureNet, Inc.

2447 Lost Valley Trail

Conyers, GA 30094

Phone: (864) 247-0499 Fax: (864) 882-1595

http://theinsurenet.com

Contact: Mr. Mike McGrey

Contact Email: mike213@bellsouth.net

InsureNet provides the world’s only accurate and non-invasive vehicle insurance verification system. It embraces all states, every jurisdiction inside each state, every insurer and is intrastate, interstate and international in operation. It is currently connected to every state in the nation and has been recognized as the national standard for law enforcement.

More on AAMVA:

From the Stop Real ID Coalition blogspot

Aside from First, Fourth and Tenth amendment issues, the Real ID Act has another major downside. DHS has named AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) the “backbone” of the Real ID Act. AAMVA is an international organization. AAMVA is promoting the Driver’s License Agreement. The agreement calls for the United States, Mexico and Canada to share all drivers information stored in each country’s respective DMV databases. Grant money from the federal government has been available to States to participate in the DLA. http://www.aamva.org/aamva/DocumentDisplay.aspx?id=%7BC600908E-2538-4135-8166-1B25BB682698%7D This is the precursor to the North American Union otherwise named the Security and Prosperity Partnership. If we want to stop the NAU or SPP we MUST repeal the Real ID Act. I have the actual DLA paperwork. Scary does not do it justice. It threatens State’s rights and U.S. sovereignty.

Then there is this article from 2006

Excerpt:

InsureNet has developed and owns a patented automated system and method for providing accurate, on-the-spot insurance status verification by officers responding to the scene of an accident or a routine traffic stop. “The parts are now in place for the first-ever national vehicle insurance verification system that will allow law enforcement to immediately, at the scene, accurately determine the insurance status of a vehicle,” said Nlets’ Executive Director, Steve Correll. “This no-cost service (Oh, someone will pay.  Guess who?!) by Nlets and InsureNet  intended to enable those who protect our society to do their jobs more effectively and safely.” E[acute accent]Securely housed within Nlets’ national data center in Phoenix,

OK-SAFE Inc. asks some very good questions;

-InsureNet or DragNet? Apparently Oklahoma is entertaining ideas of adopting a vehicle surveillance system called InsureNet to target “uninsured vehicles,” and which is linked to such international organizations as AAMVA (model of the REAL ID requirements)

Utilizing ALPR (Automatic License Plate Recognition) cameras and other technology, the system can scan a license plate in 2 seconds and verify if the vehicle is insured or not.  In one 8-hour shift, thousands of unsuspecting drivers could have their vehicle insurance status data checked electronically. (A money maker for the insurance companies and stockholders?)

Calls to Representative Ken Miller about HB 2013 would be in order

-Couple a vehicle surveillance system with the current pending Oklahoma legislation attempting to expand the reasons to collect DNA from Oklahomans, the question has to be asked - just what is going on in Oklahoma?

OK-SAFE, Inc. thanks you for your prompt action on these important topics and, as always, encourages you to “read the bill” before making decisions to support or oppose.

Here is a brochure from 3M on their Digital License Plate System-These are our new plates.

And This One on Electronic Vehicle Registration

Here is some info on ALRP and how it is used.

Source http://www.comptonasap.com/public_ASAP.pdf

Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Technology

The ASAP system will utilize “Automatic License Plate Recognition” (ALPR) technology. The ALPR software utilizes advanced optical character recognition (OCR) in order to read and record vehicle license plates in day or night conditions. All vehicle license plates are then automatically run through a “wanted” system. This system will automatically notify the Command Center of any “Hits” and the current location of the vehicle.

emphasis added

Do we no longer subscribe to the notion of Probable Cause?  I thought that there needed to be a darn good reason to search a person in this country. This IS a dragnet!

And couple that tech with this tech.

Mobile Wireless Surveillance Cameras

A mobile surveillance camera located in a parked vehicle would replace a traditional surveillance crew. The vehicle would be parked next to targeted locations and monitored via a wireless link. The risk of compromise is minimal since decoy vehicles would appear unoccupied. This system offers a substantial cost savings to the Sheriff’s Department as only one deputy would be needed to conduct surveillance from a safe location versus utilizing a team of deputies in the field.

Fair warning to any who wants to start that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong” line of reasoning-Don’t!  I am not “Human Being Under Glass-a modern art exhibit!   Are we all under suspicion all the time like naughty school children?  And who presumes to monitor us day and night?  Our superiors? Our lords, our masters?  These officials are my peers, my equals-they are public SERVANTS.  They have no right to mass surveil us without suspicion!

But wait, there’s more.

ALPR Equipped Sheriff Radio Cars

The Automatic License Plate Recognition system can be applied to Sheriff radio cars. As the radio car drives throughout its jurisdiction, the ALPR system is continuously reading and checking the license plate of vehicles against a “wanted” list. The ALPR system will automatically notify the deputy of any “hits” it receives such as a stolen vehicle, vehicle wanted for a shooting, etc.

ALPR Equipped Mobile Vans

ALPR technology could also be utilized to equip surveillance vans. The vans would utilize a bank of digital surveillance cameras with nighttime capability and ALPR software. The vans could be utilized in a visible or undercover surveillance mode. The

ALPR vans could be deployed as needed at checkpoints, airports, shipping ports or any other number of special details. The true strengths of these vans would come out when they are deployed on freeway overpasses or freeway on/off ramps throughout Los Angeles County. This can be especially useful when a specific vehicle is being sought

Source link http://www.comptonasap.com/public_ASAP.pdf

Somebody sure did a good job selling the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department on this setup, I swear I can hear the author breathing hard as I read.

***

I have looked at documents and read up on this issue for the last 20 hours and I will be posting more on what I have found but for the sake of ever getting this posted, I have to stop here.  There is so much to tell yet so little time.

Here is the bottom line as far as I am concerned; This is just one more avenue leading us to a total surveillance society.

Take a look at this freshly released Surveillance: Citizens and the State ordered in 2004 to be undertaken by The House of Lords, UK. On the effects and concerns about the effects on “the impact that government surveillance and data collection have upon the privacy of citizens and their relationship with the State.”

I have yet to read this lengthy report but, I am confident that it will put Rep. Miller’s unbearably witty rhetoric on “conspiracies” and “woolly boogers” firmly into proper context.  Tactics like ridicule are losing sway with the public who is beginning to become familiar enough with the intrusive technologies and schemes already in place to sense and see for themselves the danger inherit in them.

The UK is only a step or two ahead of us and what is taking place there is a harbinger for the US.  I predict that this report marks the beginning of a furious degree of utterly impotent back peddling as the tangible results of this folly become undeniable.

We should take a lesson from our British cousins in this as well as the consequences they suffer from their inclusion into the European Union.  Some things, once established, cannot be undone.

And as for the Woolly Boogers-the wise goat tells us just what it is they are good for;

Always Trust a Woolly Booger

Woolly Boogers are quite useful. People have their long-range forecasting models and their Doppler radars, learned meteorologists, and all sorts of ‘equipment’ to forecast the weather. With all that equipment, one would think they’d have the weather pegged, wouldn’t one? But, no, most of the time they say it will do one thing and it actually does quite another.

Goats, on the other hand, have a much more sophisticated and reliable means of predicting the weather. At least in the case of the winter weather. You see, the way it works is that in the Fall if one notices many Wooly Boogers crawling about , resting on latches, falling in the water tub, crawling up the side of the barn, or residing on that dried leaf you had your eye on from way across the pasture, it means we are going to have an ‘exciting’ winter.

In light of the useful nature of the much maligned Woolly Booger, I hereby name Representative Key, Reynolds, Ritze and any others who expressed their concern about the ramifications of this and similar measures, Honorary Woolly Boogers for their reliable forecasting as to the weather that lies ahead for the people of this state.  Well Done!

****Last comment***Under irony, a publication like this one intended for companies that intend to make a fortune by siphoning off our personal data for profit issuing this disclaimer might suffice.  From now on, I’m going to using it for my own.  Just substitute “person” for “publication” and you are set!

© 2002 Smart Card News Ltd., Brighton, England. No part of this publication  person may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, optical, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

Santelli Suggests a Spot of Tea

 

 

 

 

‘We’re rewarding the losers’

BY Tracy Connor
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_the_case_against_the_mortgage_bailout_we.html

Friday, February 20th 2009, 2:58 AM

CNBC editor Rick Santelli let it rip on-air Thursday, leading a “mob” of Chicago traders in a mini-revolt against the government’s mortgage bailout plan.

Gesticulating and shouting as cheers and boos erupted, Santelli called foreclosed homeowners “losers” and called for a Revolutionary War-style “tea party.”

“The government is promoting bad behavior,” Santelli said of President Obama‘s $75 billion initiative to refinance mortgages.

“I have an idea,” he said on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor.

“How about this, new President and new administration, why don’t you put up a Web site to have people vote on the Internet … to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages.

“Or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road… reward people who could carry the water instead of drink the water.”

Santelli then turned to the traders.

“How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” he asked as boos filled the air.

“President Obama,” Santelli continued. “Are you listening?”

“We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July,” Santelli said.

Santelli told the Daily News only a handful of the 700 e-mails he got were negative.

About the tea party: “I was half-serious, but given the response, I think something is going to have to be done in a very serious way.”

2 Judges Guilty 2.6 Million in Kickbacks for Jailing Kids

Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit
http://truthinjustice.org/pa-judges.htmBy IAN URBINA and SEAN D. HAMILL

At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke.

Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile detention center on a charge of harassment.

She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by.

“I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare,” said Hillary, 17, who was sentenced in 2007. “All I wanted to know was how this could be fair and why the judge would do such a thing.”

The answers became a bit clearer on Thursday as the judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and a colleague, Michael T. Conahan, appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care.

While prosecutors say that Judge Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two centers to house juvenile offenders, Judge Ciavarella, 58, was the one who carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled.

“In my entire career, I’ve never heard of anything remotely approaching this,” said Senior Judge Arthur E. Grim, who was appointed by the State Supreme Court this week to determine what should be done with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by Judge Ciavarella since the scheme started in 2003. Many of them were first-time offenders and some remain in detention.

The case has shocked Luzerne County, an area in northeastern Pennsylvania that has been battered by a loss of industrial jobs and the closing of most of its anthracite coal mines.

And it raised concerns about whether juveniles should be required to have counsel either before or during their appearances in court and whether juvenile courts should be open to the public or child advocates.

If the court agrees to the plea agreement, both judges will serve 87 months in federal prison and resign from the bench and bar. They are expected to be sentenced in the next several months. Lawyers for both men declined to comment.

Since state law forbids retirement benefits to judges convicted of a felony while in office, the judges would also lose their pensions.

With Judge Conahan serving as president judge in control of the budget and Judge Ciavarella overseeing the juvenile courts, they set the kickback scheme in motion in December 2002, the authorities said.

They shut down the county-run juvenile detention center, arguing that it was in poor condition, the authorities said, and maintained that the county had no choice but to send detained juveniles to the newly built private detention centers.

Prosecutors say the judges tried to conceal the kickbacks as payments to a company they control in Florida.

Though he pleaded guilty to the charges Thursday, Judge Ciavarella has denied sentencing juveniles who did not deserve it or sending them to the detention centers in a quid pro quo with the centers.

But Assistant United States Attorney Gordon A. Zubrod said after the hearing that the government continues to charge a quid pro quo.

“We’re not negotiating that, no,” Mr. Zubrod said. “We’re not backing off.”

No charges have been filed against executives of the detention centers. Prosecutors said the investigation into the case was continuing.

For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Judge Ciavarella was unusually harsh. He sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a state rate of 1 in 10. He also routinely ignored requests for leniency made by prosecutors and probation officers.

“The juvenile system, by design, is intended to be a less punitive system than the adult system, and yet here were scores of children with very minor infractions having their lives ruined,” said Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center.

“There was a culture of intimidation surrounding this judge and no one was willing to speak up about the sentences he was handing down.”

Last year, the Juvenile Law Center, which had raised concerns about Judge Ciavarella in the past, filed a motion to the State Supreme Court about more than 500 juveniles who had appeared before the judge without representation. The court originally rejected the petition, but recently reversed that decision.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that children have a constitutional right to counsel. But in Pennsylvania, as in at least 20 other states, children can waive counsel, and about half of the children that Judge Ciavarella sentenced had chosen to do so. Only Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina require juveniles to have representation when they appear before judges.

Clay Yeager, the former director of the Office of Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania, said typical juvenile proceedings are kept closed to the public to protect the privacy of children.

“But they are kept open to probation officers, district attorneys, and public defenders, all of whom are sworn to protect the interests of children,” he said. “It’s pretty clear those people didn’t do their jobs.”

On Thursday in Federal District Court in Scranton, more than 80 people packed every available seat in the courtroom. At one point, as Assistant United States Attorney William S. Houser explained to Judge Edwin M. Kosik that the government was willing to reach a plea agreement with the men because the case involved “complex charges that could have resulted in years of litigation,” one man sitting in the audience said “bull” loud enough to be heard in the courtroom.

One of the parents at the hearing was Susan Mishanski of Hanover Township.

Her son, Kevin, now 18, was sentenced to 90 days in a detention facility last year in a simple assault case that everyone had told her would result in probation, since Kevin had never been in trouble and the boy he hit had only a black eye.

“It’s horrible to have your child taken away in shackles right in front of you when you think you’re going home with him,” she said. “It was nice to see them sitting on the other side of the bench.”

Using Lethal Force of Government to Get Rich-Ammo Coding

Tell usSen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham AL.  what inspired you to “sponsor” this bill?

 

Ammo Coding Bill to be Withdrawn

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said there was not enough time left in the session to work out a compromise with opponents and the bill needs further study.

“I’m not going try to move it past where it is now,” he said. “Some people have some concerns about the implementation of it. Before I do anything, I’m going to try and work with them.”

http://www.al.com/huntsvilletimes/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports/1209892605189050.xml&coll=1

 

You, Senator Bray?

 

SENATE BILL NO. 1200 94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY  

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980013/posts

 

CCRKBA Suggests Investigation of Ammunition Coding Campaign
PRNewswire-USNewswire ^ | 2008-02-25 | Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arm

BELLEVUE, Wash., Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today is calling on lawmakers in the states of Washington, Arizona, New York, Illinois, Hawaii and several other states to scrutinize legislation that would require ammunition coding, because it mandates a soul source monopoly for a Seattle-based company that owns the technology.

Based on a story in the new edition of Gun Week, and a look at virtually identical legislation that has been introduced in several states, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said there are serious questions that need to be addressed about these measures, and the effort to pass them into law.

Read more; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978863/posts

Ammo Coding Bill to be Withdrawn

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said there was not enough time left in the session to work out a compromise with opponents and the bill needs further study.

“I’m not going try to move it past where it is now,” he said. “Some people have some concerns about the implementation of it. Before I do anything, I’m going to try and work with them.”

http://www.al.com/huntsvilletimes/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports/1209892605189050.xml&coll=1

 HB2833 from 2008 AZ

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/hb2833p.htm

 

 Cop speaks it True!

Three Seattle Guys Want to Bar-Code Bullets

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-03-05/news/three-seattle-guys-want-to-bar-code-bullets.php

Richard O’Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, says incidents like the police shooting that inspired Ammunition Coding are rare, and he’s doubtful it would significantly benefit crime solving. Matching evidence at a crime scene to a database never goes as smoothly as television law-enforcement dramas would suggest, he claims

We already find that gun laws don’t do a whole lot there because a lot of your suspects aren’t people who follow all the laws,” O’Neill says. He expects the same thing to happen with ammunition if serialization is legally mandated—a new black market in unregistered serial numbers and stolen bullets.

 

 

Bayou Renaissance Man has the Scoop on ammo coding;

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2008/11/beware-of-ammunition-coding-system.html

I daresay many of my readers are firearms owners of one sort or another: hunters, target-shooters, law enforcement personnel, citizens who take seriously their Second Amendment rights, and so forth.

All of us will be affected by what I regard as a sleazy, underhanded money-grabbing effort by a US company – if they get it right.

Ammunition Coding System (ACS) was established by three Seattle entrepeneurs to market a technology that would identify any bullet fired from any gun. It involves etching an identifying code onto the base of the bullet, so that after it’s recovered from a crime scene, the code can be read by forensic detectives. Their idea is that every box of ammunition sold in the USA would be registered to the purchaser by means of this code, and the fired bullet could thus be linked to the person who bought it. ACS claims that this would be a valuable crime-fighting tool.

Now comes the interesting bit. The founders of ACS have patented their technology, but they can’t seem to get any ammunition manufacturers to implement it, apparently because of the costs involved. They’ve therefore come up with what I consider an underhanded, devious scheme to force the use of their patent, and foist the costs involved onto us – the bullet-buying public.

They’ve formed an organization called Ammunition Accountability. This organization is nothing more or less than a front for ACS and its founders. It’s trying to promote ACS’s technology, and is sponsoring legislation in as many States as it can manage, trying to mandate the use of that technology on ammunition sold in those States. So far, no State has passed any law to that effect: but efforts to do so are under way in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. If your State isn’t listed, don’t worry: it’ll be coming your way soon!

Key points of their proposed legislation (taken from their Web site) are:

• All handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after a given date must be coded by the manufacturer. Furthermore, not later than a subsequent date, usually no more than two years after the adoption of the coding requirement, all non-coded ammunition in the possession of businesses or private individuals must be disposed of. (There goes your ammo stash, friends.)
• The State concerned would have to designate or establish an agency to keep track of ammunition sales, and all ammo vendors would have to register with that agency, log the identity of any and every purchaser of ammunition, and supply those details to the agency.
• All costs involved would be funded by a levy on the price of ammunition. Their sample legislation gives a proposed figure of $0.005 per round of ammunition. That translates to one-tenth of a cent on a box of 20 rounds, or one-quarter of a cent on a box of 50 rounds.

That levy sounds minor, doesn’t it? Suuure . . . but when you get to crunching the numbers, things start to look rather more rosy for ACS. Current figures are hard to come by, but in 1992, according to an ACS press release, “approximately 5.4 billion bullets were sold in the US alone.” (I understand this excludes military and export sales.) At a rate of $0.005 per bullet, the revenues from sales of such ammunition – if it were coded – would amount to about $27,000,000. The actual figure might well be considerably higher, for two reasons. First, ammo sales have risen since 1992, although I don’t know the exact numbers. Second, if you think that ammo manufacturers or retailers are going to bother to put a $0.005 charge per bullet on their books, think again! They’ll probably add a dollar or two to the price of each box of ammo, and blame it on the bullet coding costs, while pocketing the extra profit.

So, if we take that 1992 figure of 5.4 billion bullets, and package them into boxes, we’ll get a better picture. I’m informed that about two-thirds of retail ammo sales are in 20-round boxes, and one-third in 50-round boxes. If that’s the case, applying it to the total number of bullets sold in 1992 gives us sales of about 180 million 20-round boxes, and about 36 million 50-round boxes, or 216 million boxes of ammo in total. If the manufacturers and retailers slap on an extra dollar per box, which I think is very likely, that’s $216,000,000 more that you and I will be paying for ammo. How much of it will end up in ACS’s pocket is anyone’s guess.

We’d also be saddled with another State bureaucracy, gathering information about us. What’s the bet that it’ll cost more than the ammo levies bring in? And who makes up the shortfall? That’s right – you and I, the taxpayers. What about the effect on our privacy? Do you want your personal details recorded every time you buy a box of .22 ammo for plinking? Darned if I do . . .

There you have it, readers. A company wants to impose greater costs, greater State-level government bureaucracy, and an intrusive, privacy-invading tracking system on us, solely for the sake of its own profit. Safety be damned! I’ll wager these guys aren’t remotely interested in safety. They can hear the ka-Ching! of cash registers, and their mouths are watering. In essence, they’re trying to persuade our State legislators to force us to make them rich.

I urge all readers to watch for proposals for similar legislation in their States. If you see something like this rear its ugly head, I urge you to write to your State legislators, pointing out the drawbacks to this scheme, and questioning whether the State should legally allow one company to enrich itself at the expense of your State’s already hard-pressed taxpayers. This needs to be exposed for the money-grab that it is, and resisted at every step. If we don’t, we’ll be paying a lot more, and our already-threadbare right to privacy will be even further damaged.

For those of my readers who are bloggers, I’d be grateful if you’d please publicize this issue yourselves, either by posting a link to this article on your blogs, or writing your own. I’ve included links to the main Web sites concerned, so you can research the subject for yourselves. Let’s make sure that all our shooting readers are aware of this threat, and mobilized to oppose it

 

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR BRAY

State Soveriegnty Efforts and Stimulus Money

Thank you Okie Campaigns for not letting me miss this!

 

Assert sovereignty with 10th Amendment
by David M. Dickson

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government,” said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.” Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

In other states, lawmakers say they are bracing to repeal federal mandates to spend their money that they expect will emanate from Washington once President Obama begins delivering some of the big-ticket programs promised during his presidential campaign.

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon introduced a resolution that he said would enable his state to “reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment.”

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

“The states are sending a message,” said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus bill also has raised worries.

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations this week about accepting their states’ shares of the stimulus package because they are worried that the federal government will impose conditions on how it can be spent.

As a self-styled staunch conservative, Mr. Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, aggressively opposed the stimulus plan. However, in a Thursday morning interview on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Mr. Sanford said his state would accept money from the stimulus bill. Opposing the plan “doesn’t preclude taking the money,” said Mr. Sanford. South Carolina’s 9.5 percent unemployment rate is the nation’s third-highest.

Mr. Perry sent Mr. Obama a letter Wednesday certifying that Texas also would accept stimulus money.

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote, clearly expressing his opposition to unfunded mandates.

Mr. Obama has promised that his administration will use federal funds to support his administration’s initiatives.

“[Mr. Obama does] not support imposing unfunded mandates on states and localities. They strongly support providing necessary funding for programs such as No Child Left Behind,” his campaign literature said.

The states are resting their efforts on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Mr. Brogdon said prospects for passage of his resolution are “grand,” noting that a similar bill passed the Oklahoma House by a 97-3 vote last year and that Republicans captured a majority of the Oklahoma Senate in the 2008 elections. He predicted that the Legislature would easily override a veto from Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat.

 

Mr. Obama proposed a slew of expensive programs during his presidential campaign, ranging from health insurance to policies addressing alternative energy and climate change. “The states are worried that these programs would increase the overall regulatory burden without providing the funding,” Mr. Alt said.

Some analysts dispute the financial impact of recent unfunded mandates on state budgets.

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute who recently completed a two-year stint in Indiana’s budget office, said he hasn’t “heard states clamoring about unfunded mandates the way they were during the 1990s. What you hear more today are states begging for federal money.”

The reality is that states are being “hypocritical,” he said, noting that about a third of average total state spending comes from the federal government.

The biggest federal grants involve Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor.

“States were adding Medicaid benefits when times were good. Now the federal government must bail the states out through the so-called stimulus bill because the states’ revenues have taken a hit and they must operate under a balanced-budget mandate,” Mr. DeHaven said.

In 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, states collectively spent $1 billion for unfunded federal mandates from programs enacted since the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

“To a large degree, states are scapegoating their budget problems on Washington,” Mr. Riedl said. “It’s tough to be sympathetic for states and local governments when they got $467 billion in federal grants last year,” he said.

Mr. Riedl also rejected the notion that the No Child Left Behind Act constitutes an unfunded mandate. States are free to opt out of this and many other federal programs by not accepting federal money in exchange for federal regulations. States have effectively decided that the federal dollars are worth the strings attached to them, Mr. Riedl concluded.

Mr. Riedl acknowledged that Medicaid, which was created in 1965, does represent a major unfunded mandate. But he said that “a majority of state Medicaid spending is on populations and benefits that states have voluntarily added and could reduce at any time.”

The other major unfunded federal mandate that predates the 1995 law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, federal funding for IDEA has grown 71 percent faster than inflation since 2001, Mr. Riedl said.

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, “through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law.”

Mr. Brogdon of Oklahoma did not take issue with that. “Federal law does not trump the Constitution,” he said.

He suggested that if he becomes governor, the federal courts likely will get a case involving the 10th Amendment and congressional powers.