In The News

Fox In the Hen House

Our founding fathers knew the dangers of letting government officials and the groups that enforce our laws go unchecked. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has recently granted itself an expansion of power. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support our law enforcement officers and hold them in high regards. However, the problem I have is that they can just expand their powers at any given time of their choosing.

According to the new rules and guidelines in which the FBI operates, many of the expanded liberties they have given themselves do not require creating a paper trail or even opening an investigation. Agents can search law enforcement and commercial databases without any evidence of criminal or other wrongdoing. New relaxed guidelines for administering lie-detector tests do not require the opening of a “preliminary investigation” either. The new guidelines heavily relax multiple forms of surveillance.

One of the things that jumped out at me was the fact that investigations involving public officials require “oversight”. It appears to me that they made sure to make rules to use kid gloves on the politicians. For once I would like to see the same rules that apply to the common citizen apply to the politicians.

“For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery”.
-Jonathan Swift

The other group that requires “oversight” has been labeled scholars and press. Bloggers are not considered members of the press under these guidelines unless they are “prominent” bloggers, therefore giving them the same status as the regular media.  Bloggers that are less “prominent” will not receive the same treatments that are given to people considered media.

With the implementation of the new guidelines it is easy to see that the FBI wants to make sure they stay in the good graces of the politicians and mainstream media. The FBI presents the new guidelines as ways to better fight terrorism but the fact that they want to save the politicians and media seems strange. If these changes were about better protecting the citizens of the United States, why do the politicians and media get special treatment? Something just doesn’t quite add up right to me!

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
-Thomas Paine


For those of you that own firearms, train hard and well and teach those that do not know how. Be good stewards of the right to bear arms, for we are the last line of defense against tyranny.

-Benjamin Wallace



Washington Post Article
Yahoo News


Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Rich Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the editor-in-chief of Conservative Daily News and the president of Bald Eagle Media, LLC. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Bald Eagle Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. Max says:
    June 15, 2011 at 2:04 am
    “For those of you that own firearms, train hard and well and teach those that do not know how. Be good stewards of the right to bear arms, for we are the last line of defense against tyranny.” (Wallace)

    I cannot envision a day when law abiding American citizens would take up arms against our own government. I hope that never changes. We are better than that, choosing instead to carry out our revolts every four years at the ballot box. Our system, as it stands, is still a system of checks and balances. It has been very successful in constraining a radical President, so far.

    Rather, if grave calamity strikes, my firearms will be used to prevent direct harm to me and my family, from thugs, thieves and those foolish enough to trespass with ill-intent.

    I love my country, the United States of America, and would never take up arms against her. The only thing that would make me reconsider is if my country took up arms against me, and I just don’t see that happening. This isn’t pre-WW II Germany. We can thank our melting pot for that.

    1. Max, I too hope that the day we must take up arms to solve our nations problem never comes. The one thing I try to remember is that not all gun owners are good stewards of this great right. I believe that it is our responsibilty to help train those that do not know how to use firearms properly. If it is the part about being the last line of defece against tyranny the bothers you all I can say is that the revolutions have not always been able to be solved at the ballot box. There have been numerous times in history when the average citizen had to take up arms to overthrow an oppressive gonverment. If we become complacent and do not throw out the ones who wish to oppress the citizens then one day we or our future generations might have to do that very thing. Again, I hope that this great nation never has to resort to that extreme but just in case we do then we will need all hands on deck. I would much rather not need it and have then to need it and not have it.
      I truly thank you for your comments Max. You show the great spirit of most Americans, you perfer the peaceful solutions to any problem, but are ready to defend yourself if you need to. Great comment with several good points Max.

      1. Looking at this from a solution standpoint, a responsible public school system would teach our kids the Bill of Rights (beyond a simple chapter) by requiring gun safety classes for all kids. Educators are more concerned about teaching 5th graders how to put condoms on cucumbers, rather than teaching gun safety. This is a micro-example of what happens when we allow government to set the curriculum, over public protest.

        Omissions, like this, are purposeful. Over time, it is thought by anti-gunners, gun control wins. They could be right. An uneducated public is easy to manipulate. A great example of this is the California legislature being the first to put forward a bill to ban open carry of unloaded weapons. Why? Because it scares people to see citizens with guns. I actually heard one woman express her paranoia over the radio. But because she is dumbed down on our Bill of Rights, and overexposed to media sensationalism over tragic shootings, she is a pawn who votes. Incidentally, California is completely out of step with most other states, who over the past 10 years or so, have been enacting CCW shall issue laws. (I think 39 states have shall issue laws)

        But your point to teach those about gun safety, how to handle a firearm, is spot on. That must occur, with full realization that it is every law abiding citizens duty to be fully educated on the constitution and bill of rights. Fortunately, responsible citizens are not the cause of gun violence in America. Gangs, violent criminals, and mentally unstable people account for the vast majority of it. And there is no way to prevent it. The solution isn’t gun control. It is SEVERE punishment, I happen to believe in eye-for-an-eye justice, people who kill people with guns should be shot within 2 years of conviction.

        The problem with a Republic, as I see it, is that it is under constant attack from those who favor utopian societies over individual freedom. Under attack by the pollyanna’s of the world who think the definition of “society” is a place without risks. It’s this warped ideology we have to fear. Once the scales irreversibly tip, to the point my government wants my guns by it’s decision to void the 2nd amendment, many Americans would rise up over that.

        Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. (Reagan)

        Freedom, as handed down by our forefathers, included the right of self-preservation. And that is where my line is drawn in cement.

        Thanks for your feedback.

Back to top button