Tag Archives: 4th Amendment

Do You Hear a Droning Sound?

Conservatives need to remember, you can’t be a little bit “private” either.

When Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell casually mentioned during a radio interview that he supported the use of “military–style” drones by law enforcement it sparked an immediate uproar, but not from the usual suspects.

One would assume the ACLU would be filing a lawsuit claiming a drone–born invasion of “privacy.” (Although after legalizing almost all the old perversions, what could liberals possibly be doing now that requires so much solitude?)

And instead of objections from Fairfax County police pilots who stood to be grounded and Fairfax Auxiliary Police officers who stand to lose one of the few perks of their unpaid job: helicopter ride–alongs — it was John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, who declared, “…a rapid adoption of drone technology before properly vetting the safety, privacy and civil-liberties issues involved would be a disaster for your administration and the people of Virginia.”

Shaun Kenney, former communications director for the Republican Party of Virginia, blogged, “Who the hell wants to give government the right to fly a drone over your home?” And Bearing Drift, a conservative political blog, complained, “Say it Ain’t So, Governor!”

Unfortunately for my fellow conservatives these complaints are 151 years too late. Air power for observation dates back to September 24, 1861 when Thaddeus Lowe went aloft for the Union near Arlington. George Armstrong Custer, who had his own problems with practitioners of unconventional warfare, floated serenely over the Peninsula later in the conflict.

Today police helicopters already fly over homes in Northern Virginia and the General Assembly has passed a law authorizing state police aircraft to cite drivers for speeding. Drones just replace existing technology with a less expensive alternative that does the same job with a smaller government footprint, a development that would normally appeal to conservatives.

Helicopters have proven to be both very useful and very expensive. Currently the estimated yearly budget for two Fairfax choppers is approximately $1 million, producing an average of 150 hours total flight time each month. The budget includes pilots, cross–trained police/EMS officers, ground technicians, mechanics and all the rest of the infrastructure. The use of drones, which Fairfax already has permission to do, would reduce some of these costs while increasing flight time.

Objections to drones frequently mention the “right of privacy,” which is a shaky Constitutional reed for conservatives to grasp. Privacy, as such, does not exist in the Constitution. It originated in Griswold Vs. Connecticut when Justice William O. Douglas discovered heretofore unknown “penumbras” and “emanations” leaking from the document that when run through a gas spectrometer were found to protect “privacy.” From this small step the court later leaped to a right to abortion.

Conservatives can’t be a little bit private any more than they can be a little bit pregnant. Relying on this flawed Constitutional reasoning validates the liberal intellectual framework that protects the “right to abortion.”

Limitations on drone usage don’t depend on an invented right from a liberal court, but are already found in the plain language of the 4th Amendment which says ““The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” To be Constitutional and admissible in court, drone usage would have to conform to existing case law surrounding the 4th Amendment.

Banning drones because of “privacy” concerns would be small comfort when PeePaw wanders off into the woods and civil libertarians fail to volunteer to join the search party.

Drones will prove invaluable during pursuits, allowing police to maintain aerial contact with suspects without filling the streets with a conga line of speeding cruisers careening around corners and risking collisions with innocent bystanders.

The use of drones by local police also conforms to the conservative principle of subsidarity, which posits that power or governmental functions should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority, that is consequently closest to the people. Anyone who has ever tried to complain about TSA damaging luggage will instantly realize the difference between local police supervising drone usage and Department of Homeland Security’s Janet Incompetano.

Personally, I don’t think we should allow the fact that certain Middle Eastern religious fanatics have had unpleasant experiences with drone technology to color our impression of how the domestic use of UAVs would affect us in Northern Virginia.

The chance that a resident of Prince William County or Fairfax County would have a rendezvous with a drone–launched Hellfire missile is nonexistent. Adding a Hellfire line item to the budget would put a big dent in Fairfax’s pet “affordable housing” program and here in PWC Police Chief Charlie Deane would have to choose between air interdiction and outreach to illegal aliens.

Letter to Congress: S.1867/HR 1540

Please copy this letter, put your name on it and send it to your congressional delegation. Your freedom is at stake. Put this on top of S. 679 that takes congressional oversight away and you have the final ingredient needed for tyranny to take over in America. I am e-mailing this to my representatives today.

December 10, 2011

Sen. Coburn, Sen. Inhofe, Rep. Boren,

I am writing about the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867/H. R. 1540). This legislation authorizes the President of the United States to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens for “suspected” terrorist activities or sympathies. It also provides for indefinite detention, at sites either inside or outside of the United States, without charges being preferred against said citizen. Apparently, according to a White House statement, Obama objects to the alien detainee provisions of this legislation. That is just great, our esteemed leader objects to alien detention but not citizen detention! That tells me a great deal about the design and purpose of this legislation. All that is necessary to enact the provision of this legislation is for a neighbor to denounce a citizen as a “possible terrorist”. History is full of denunciations; the French revolution, the Salem witch trials, the Russian revolution, Nazi Germany, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

By passing this legislation you are effectively negating the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. This legislation has also begun the active search for private companies to staff the FEMA camps that have been built as a result of S. 645, passed in 2009 I believe it was. At the time I protested the building of these camps, designed just like the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. The response was that these camps were built for housing victims of natural disasters. I didn’t buy that lie then and I don’t buy it now. These camps are for the subjugation and imprisonment of American citizens who will not bow down to a tyrant.

If the government intent is housing victims of natural disasters, why the razor wire and barbed wire? Why the double fence with a guard and dog run between the fences? Why the huge iron gates with the massive locks and chains? Why the guard houses outside the compound? Why the machine gun capable guard towers? Why the proximity to railroad tracks, just as in Nazi Germany? Am I to understand that civilians being housed after their homes have been destroyed have to be fenced in like animals? Sounds like Bovine Scatology to me.

And why all of a sudden does Congress and the Obama regime begin staffing these camps? This new legislation comes out, after the camps being around for 3 years, and suddenly it is important to begin staffing them right before the 2012 elections? Would this have anything to do with Governor Beverly Perdue (D- North Carolina) calling for the suspension of elections? Would this have anything to do with Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-ILL), and others, calling for the suspension of the Constitution so Barack Obama can “do what he needs to do” to “transform this nation”? Is this in preparation for those who disobey martial law provisions?

Would this have anything to do with the provision in Obamacare providing for a civilian “defense force” equal to or greater than the United States military, equipped as well or better than the United States military and pledging their loyalty to Obama? Has this happened before in history? I seem to remember Hitler’s Brown Shirts, the SS, and the Gestapo. I remember the KGB and their terror campaign against anyone who spoke up for freedom, or was even suspected of thinking about freedom.

If the government is concerned about ”homegrown” muslim terrorists it doesn’t need FEMA camps divided into 10 districts with hundreds of camps scattered throughout the nation. There aren’t that many muslims, much less muslim terrorists in America. Of course, with the current regime not acknowledging muslim terrorism that can’t be the reason for the camps can it?

And what does the current regime, and many in Congress, consider the threat to America? Let’s take a look at what the Department of Homeland Security considers a threat: Military veterans, especially combat veterans and those with special operations training, white males, Christians, NRA members, people missing fingers (?), those who are against abortion on demand, TEA Party members or supporters, anyone with extra food and water in case of emergencies, gun owners, and on and on. Need I go on with the list?
That our government is targeting American citizens with this bill is plain enough. The Obama regime, along with the Democrats and RINO’s in Congress, has been targeting conservatives for several years and now we see this being brought into a clearer focus.

It is bad enough that these things are happening but to see the votes be 93-7 in the Senate and 406-17 in the House is staggering, and frightening. Now I understand that the versions are being forged into a single bill behind closed doors. Once again We the People see our government doing things behind closed doors, subjugating us by subterfuge. Transparancy? Not in Washington D. C.

All of a sudden Lindsey Graham and John McCain come out and say they didn’t realize that this bill provides for the repeal of sodomy and bestiality regulations in the military. It is bad enough that these regulations are taken out but for two of the leading proponents of this to now say they didn’t know what is in the bill is appalling once again. Do they, or you, know what else is in the bill? Is this “we have to pass it so we can find out what is in it” legislation again? Does anyone read anything in Washington or does everyone go on talking points by those who write such tripe?

This is what Operation Fast & Furious was all about wasn’t it? Manufacture an excuse to abolish the 2nd Amendment and begin the systematic confiscation of all firearms. Adolph Hitler did this as a prelude to his massacre of millions, Stalin did this as a prelude to his massacre of millions, and guess what, every other despot who desires to subject his citizens to tyranny first rounds up any method of self-defense before slaughtering citizens wholesale.

You have essentially declared war, in the normal back room manner, on We the People, the citizens of the United States. I believe Congress and the administration either don’t understand the gravity of what you are doing or don’t care. Our nation was forged when farmers and woodsmen who desired to live in freedom stood up against a tyrannical government and won their freedom from King George and England. We the People will not be subjugated again. Our forefathers have fought war after war against tyranny, first to stop the tyranny, and many more times to prevent it from returning.

The Revolutionary War won our freedom, the War of 1812 preserved it. The Civil War won freedom for slaves, black and white. World War II preserved the freedom won in the first wars by stopping the tyranny of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. And now while our brave soldiers are fighting tyranny in foreign lands their government is busy subjugating their families back home.

This will not be allowed to stand. You can kill thousands of us, you can imprison millions of us in the FEMA camps but you will never be able to subjugate the will of the American people. We have known freedom for too long to let it go by the wayside now. Americans are not going to give up their guns and passively walk into the gas chambers as the Jews did in Nazi Germany. We the People will not stand idly by and see our freedoms taken by despots, regardless of which political party they belong to. You will have to fight us in the streets, the country, and wherever you find us. There are millions of us ready to defend our freedoms, and the freedoms of our fellow citizens, with our lives. We will not surrender to tyranny peacefully.

Congress needs to scrap this legislation and go back to the drawing board. In the first place, these “comprehensive” bills have more trash than substance in them because no one reads any of them due to the length and the fact that reading legislation takes time away from “more important things”. Any provision that allows citizens to be treated other than provided for in the Constitution should be summarily tossed into the garbage can. Our national defense can be provided for without subjugating the American people to summary arrest without charge, without trial, without just cause.

The same Republicans who gave us the Patriot Act are now tightening the screws even more. I assume this will continue until we fight back. I don’t condone violence and don’t wish to see it come to that but We the People can only take so much before we won’t back up any longer. The TEA Party arose out of abuse by government, choosing to peacefully protest government tyranny. Unlike the Occupy Wall Street clowns, TEA Party people rallied in peace, without assaults, without vandalism, without rapes, without attacking police, without arrests. That should prove the patriotism of TEA Party minded people and show government that we expect to be heard without resorting to violence.

Don’t misunderstand and take the peaceful rallies of conservatives as a lack of resolve. Peaceful doesn’t mean cowardly, it means willing to work within the system to make changes. Peaceful doesn’t mean we will willingly march to the slaughter house.
I look forward to hearing that this situation has been resolved and that We the People are not going to be forced to fight a second war for independence.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Sincerely,

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma

Herman Cain Better Be Telling The Truth


Oh, Herman.  Why did you double down so forcibly?  I hope Cain’s innocent, really I do.  Tuesday’s press conference gave him little wiggle room.  Within the first 1 minute and 45 seconds, Herman Cain said that he saw Sharon Bialek for “the very first time”, that he “doesn’t even know who this woman is”, and that he “doesn’t recognize her name at all”.  By the 2 minute and 20 second mark, he had repeated that he didn’t know who Sharon Bialek is and that he didn’t recognize her name.

I hope that’s true.  We already know that he saw her in September of this year, but that might have been the only time he’s ever seen her, and he may honestly have forgotten about it.

But when you think back to Sharon Bialek’s original press conference, Sharon was very, very specific in her accusations.  Here’s some of the transcript from that press conference.

“I took the train into Washington, D.C. When I went to check into the room I was shocked to be taken to a palatial suite. I said to the bellman that there must be some mistake, but he insisted that there was no mistake. I later found out that Mr. Cain had arranged for the suite, though at the time I thought that maybe my boyfriend had tried to surprise me.

“I met Mr. Cain in the lobby of the bar at the Capitol Hilton at around 6:30 p.m. We had drinks at the hotel, and he asked how I liked my room, which is kind of normal, and I said I was very surprised. I said, I can’t believe it, I’ve got this great suite, it’s gorgeous. Mr. Cain kind of smirked, and then said, ‘I upgraded you.’

“He then took me to an Italian restaurant where we had dinner. During dinner, Mr. Cain looked at me and said, ‘Why are you here?’ I said, ‘Actually, Herman, my boyfriend, whom you met, suggested that I meet with you ‘cause he thought you could help me because I really need a job. I was wondering if there’s anything available at the state association level or perhaps if you could speak to someone at the foundation to try to get my job back, perhaps even in a different department.’ He said, ‘I’ll look into that.’

“While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the National Restaurant Association offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so he that could show me around. At that time I had on a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket and a blouse. He had on a suit with his shirt open. But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked.

“I said: ‘What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.’ Mr. Cain said, ‘You want a job, right?’

“I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel which he did, right away.”

Here are some of the details just from that transcript:
She said that she stayed in the Capitol Hilton
He upgraded her room to a suite.
She met him in the lobby bar for drinks
They went to an Italian restaurant.
She had on a pleated skirt.

When you listen to her tell the tale in her press conference (that the transcript above is from), she really seems to be making specific accusations and “recalling” specific details.  When Herman Cain says that he doesn’t even know who Bialek is, he’s denying a LOT of things.  So, if even ONE of them is true, it casts a lot of his testimony into question.

If any one of the things Ms. Bialek claims is proven to be true, then Herman’s goose can be cooked.  (hotel records, credit card records, etc…)  I feel that Mr. Cain took a very big gamble by saying he had did not even know who Sharon Bialek is.  I think it would have been a safer bet for him to say he’s “not sure” if he’d ever seen her before, but by making such adamant claims, he’s really given himself little recourse in the event (or if) he’s ever proven to not be telling the truth.

Of course… if he IS telling the truth, then his gamble may likely pay off.

What do you guys think?  Did Herman take too big of a risk by saying so adamantly that he did not even know who Sharon Bialek is?  Should he have been more vague and just said that he “didn’t recall ever meeting her”?  Or, should he have “put his chips all in”, as it seems he has?  What would you do, if you were accused of wrong doing by someone on national TV, for that matter?  I’m not sure what I would do, if I was in that situation, myself.

As always, let us know what you think in the comments below.  I know a lot of you are tired of this conversation, but we’re trying to choose a leader of the free world, and part of the process is gauging how candidates do under pressure.  And right now, I’d say Herman Cain is under pressure.