When "Free" is a Four-letter Word
In the wake of the revelations regarding the NSA's PRISM program, in which the Federal government monitors virtually all electronic communications of the American public, self-described conservative Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that he was "glad" that the NSA was secretly spying on Americans. Evidently, Sen. Graham feels that he has nothing to hide.
But maybe you do, without even realizing it. According to administration talking points in response to the Guardian UK article exposing the surveillance program, the tactic is “a critical tool in protecting the United States from terrorist threats to the United States.” That sounds noble on its face, but the problem is with the broad characteristics used to describe American citizens that may constitute a "terrorist threat".
In fact, some of the listed characteristics that raise a red flag for the Feds include the traditional political ideology that gave rise to the United States of America—namely Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty”. You can find this in a Homeland Security report, Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008, the Department of Homeland Security's official 37-page report released in 2012.
The report openly states, "The goal of this program is to sponsor research that will aid the intelligence and law enforcement communities in identifying potential terrorist threats and support policymakers in developing prevention efforts."
With the recent IRS scandal, the public has already witnessed a powerful arm of the Federal government proven to have exercised illegal political discrimination as a measure of policy enforcement. With good reason, many Americans have lost faith in the agents of these government bureaucracies not to abuse its power. In other words, you bet I'm suspicious of centralized authority. After the U.S. Justice Department's total disregard for the First Amendment rights of the Associated Press as well as Eric Holder's characterization of journalist James Rosen as a potential criminal in an official subpoena, you bet I'm suspicious of government overreach. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, those very suspicions make me a potential terrorist—in other words, a potential enemy of the United States.
The current administration has already demonstrated a propensity for targeting not just viable physical threats but also its political enemies. And now we learn that the administration has vast troves of information on the political inclinations of the American public, and we are expected to believe that this same administration will use this information fairly and judiciously, and Joe Q. Public has nothing to worry about.
Well, call me crazy, but I'm not convinced our government can be trusted. I'm worried about the direction the country is headed, that of a police state, and it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to connect all the dots. The Department of Homeland Security identifies people with my political point of view as potential enemies of the State. The NSA is actively collecting information on Americans that can identify their political inclinations. The administration is known to target its political enemies. That’s where we stand. What happens next?
I am now a U.S. citizen in a position where I fear the prying eyes of the Federal government. I'm not "glad" that the NSA is spying on my communications, even though philosophically I feel I have nothing to hide. However, I openly espouse a love of individual liberty and a healthy disdain for tyrannical authority, just like the founders of this great land. I even publish books on the subject, which makes it tough to hide. Yet these are my values, and I am not afraid of government surveillance uncovering information about something that I have done wrong. What I fear are the repercussions I may one day face for doing what I think is right.
IRS
The IRS has been targeting people who are critical of the the Federal government, who disagree with current policy, or who promote freedom and the Constitution. This news came to light on virtually the same day as Obama's Department of Justice was revealed to have seized several months of internal communications from reporters at the Associated Press (i.e. their "anonymous sources"). And this is all happens beneath the long shadow of the Benghazi scandal in which the Obama administration has been caught in a lie and perhaps even a full-scale political cover-up to swing a presidential election. In the meantime, the country is sinking beneath trillions in unsustainable debt, the job market is still in the pits, and health insurance premiums are expected to soon skyrocket by 100 to 400% due to ObamaCare.
Elections have consequences.
THE BULL Reviewed in Washington Times
Good news for me -- My book got a nice review from a writer at the Washington Times. Click the photo to jump to the article.
The Voluntary Voice: A Book of Individuals (Vol. 1)
Evidently I've been published again, outside the realm of The Bull or Extreme How-To.
A short work of mine was included in the The Voluntary Voice: A Book of Individuals (Wasteland Press). Its aim is "to promote the non-aggression principle and the right to self ownership." I haven't seen a copy yet, but as I understand it the book is a compilation of essays on the subject of individuality and personal freedom versus collectivism and state control ... my kind of thing. I sent in my submission and never heard back, assuming I was rejected if for no other reason than I didn't send in an essay as assigned. Instead, I sent in a short-story, what you might describe as a piece of ideological micro-fiction. And then yesterday I got an email asking for my address, so I can be sent two complimentary copies. I check the table of contents on the book's Amazon page and lo and behold my submission, titled "Proud Nails", has made the cut. Very cool. My only regret is not having the opportunity to give it a final revision before press, but I'm grateful for any exposure my writing can get, and any opportunity I'm given to spread the word of a cause I truly believe in. So, go forth and purchase the book HERE..
-- M. Weber
P.S. - You can check out the organization who put together the book by clicking HERE.
Dear Spanky Bachus,
My email to "Honorable" Spencer Bachus,
"I'm very disappointed in your vote to impose an internet sales tax. You claim to represent conservative ideals, yet you expand the reach of government just like the democrats. I'm sure you justify your position by claiming the measure would "level the playing field" for brick and mortar stores that pay taxes. But what this will really do is help line the government (your) coffers, and since the businesses aren't set up to absorb the extra cost and hassle, they will inevitably pass the cost onto the consumer, i.e. your constituents. Both the consumer and small private business will suffer as a result, but the government wins. So do the mega-corporations like Wal-Mart and Amazon. Congratulations, Spencer Bachus, you've done it to us again. If you really wanted to "level the playing field" you would relax the outstanding tax burden on the brick-and-mortars rather than raise everyone else's taxes.
Rest assured that we're watching and keeping score, and nobody likes getting hit in the pocketbook. That's exactly what you're doing with this new tax. When you look back on your legacy, you can hold your head high and proudly proclaim, "Well, I raised people's taxes!" and I'm sure everyone in Alabama will cheer your name."
Tax-free Internet shopping jeopardized by bill
----------
In other news of eroding freedom:
CISPA passes U.S. House: Death of the Fourth Amendment? | ZDNet
This Week in America's Economic Decline
In light of the dire economic circumstances resulting from an utter failure of executive competence and leadership, I've come to the conclusion that people who still support President Barack Obama fall into one of five categories:
- They live on the dole, with other taxpayers footing the bill, i.e., Ayn Rand's "moochers".
- They're blinded by racial bias.
- They're ignorant, unengaged and indoctrinated by the media.
- They are the political bureaucrats, gov't unions and corporate cronies who benefit from his policies, i.e., Rand's "looters".
- They're unabashed state-worshiping socialists.
If someone can explain to me who I've missed, then please correct me.
If you're new to this blog, then please don't jump to the conclusion that I'm a hardline right-winger who stands against everything supported by the "left". On the contrary, I'm a firm freedom-loving libertarian who agrees with the "left" on many social issues.
But I'm also a husband and new father, embarking on the long road of raising a family, and the economic headwinds caused this president's policies don't just worry me. They kind of terrify me. They keep me up at night, stressing about my family's long-term economic well-being. And I don't think this aloof, jet-setting president has the slightest inkling how destructive he is to the average working family, and how coddling he is to those that suck from the system.
Nearly 50 Million Americans in Poverty, Worst Since LBJ
REPORT: Amnesty deal opens door to trillions in new welfare spending...
90 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF LABOR FORCEANALYSTS: January tax hikes to blame, not sequester...
OBAMA'S BUDGET: RAISE TAXES AGAIN...
I'll begrudgingly give a pass to the starry-eyed sheeple who voted him for president in his first term. But if you voted to re-elect this man -- and this will surely offend some people, but it's true -- then I quietly hold you responsible for contributing to our nation's downfall, as well as to the personal financial hardships that you, your friends, family and country will inevitably face in the future. When the fit hits the shan, realize that you did it to yourself, and sadly to the rest of us, too.
May God have mercy on us all.
- M. Weber
New Review of THE BULL from LeftInAlabama
I'm going to link you to the LeftInAlabama blog to read the review in its entirety. But I did want to highlight a critical point that blogger Larisa Thomas made in her critique, which involves a troubling news item that I was planning to cover here.
One of the issues covered in THE BULL is that of private property rights vs. govt' confiscation for corporate interests. Well, the jackasses in the Alabama GOP have just strengthened the right of the State of Alabama to seize private property if some big company such as an auto-maker sets there eyes upon it. Let me reiterate that this was done by REPUBLICANS, the same lot who bemoan big government into every microphone and then legislate differently behind closed doors.
Here's what LeftInAlabama writes:
Mayor Cornelius wants to clear the way to build a new shopping mall outside Fulton Springs that would garner "a predicted $1.3 million dollars in annual tax revenue." But there's a problem: a property owner - Mr. Stonewall - doesn't want to sell. As the mayor and his staff brainstorm ways to move the old man off his property, one staffer mentions a landmark Supreme Court case: Kelo vs City of New London, CT:
"... a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The mayor eagerly suggest that the city assert that right, but he discovers that "it's just not that simple,"as a staffer explains:
"It turns out that in the wake of the Kelo case, Alabama was actually the first state to enact new protections against local governments seizing property for private enterprise. In other words, right after the Feds gave us the green light, the state clipped our wings."
And Weber was absolutely correct. When he wrote the novel. But not now!
Here's the history:
Alabama became the first state to enact eminent domain reform after the Kelo decision, when Gov. Bob Riley (R) on August 3 signed legislation prohibiting cities and counties from using eminent domain for private development or to boost tax revenue. While property rights advocates praised the new law, they were quick to point out the state's definition of "blight" remains vague enough to allow considerable mischief.
Well, apparently the "blight" clause didn't give the legislature enough latitude and a group of North Alabama legislators decided to broaden the power of the state.
Like your house? Like your farm with its acres of open land and woodland? Better hope Toyota or Airbus or any other industry with deep pockets doesn't hanker after it, because last month the Alabama legislature and Governor Robert Bentley declared open season on private property.
Truly, it's a case where you can't even write meaningful satire because the state government keeps moving the bar.
And that stinks.
Anyway, I'd like to thank Larisa Thomason for her honest and insightful review, which you can read right HERE.
Oh, and here's a link to the AL.com article on the new land grab law.
Heard back from Mr. Paul (sort of)
Wanna see a form letter? I just got one from the office of Rand Paul. It's in response to correspondence I sent to him through an online petition in support of his recent drone-related filibuster.
Anyway, here's what he says:
March 28, 2013
Dear Mr. Weber,
Thank you for contacting me regarding my filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
My filibuster was the culmination of several months of bipartisan efforts to demand accountability and transparency from the Obama Administration regarding its use of drone strikes. Since taking office, President Obama has greatly expanded the use of unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists abroad, even going so far as to maintain a "kill list" of suspected terrorists-including some American citizens. This issue first gained prominence in September 2011, when Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen by birth, was killed in Yemen by a missile strike from an American drone. He had been targeted for months--long enough and publicly enough that his father actually protested in court but was not heard.
I have no sympathy for Americans who denounce their citizenship to fight against the United States, as al-Awlaki allegedly did. According to the evidence revealed to the press, al-Awlaki was by all accounts a traitor. However, he should have been tried as a traitor first.
The issue of the constitutionality of drone strikes was raised again in January 2013, when President Obama nominated Mr. Brennan to be Director of the CIA. Mr. Brennan has served as President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor since 2009, during which time he was one of the chief architects of the Administration's kill list and policy on drone strikes.
Following Mr. Brennan's nomination, a leaked 16-page Department of Justice paper shed some additional light on the Administration's use of targeted drone strikes. The memo claimed that it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad under three conditions: that a "high-level official" of the U.S. government determines that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; that capture is not "feasible"; and that the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. However, the memo raised more questions than it answers, including the Administration's claim that a threat can be considered "imminent" even without evidence that it may take place "in the immediate future."
A number of my Senate colleagues and I continued to press for answers, but the Administration repeatedly refused to release details about the frequency of drone strikes and the policies that govern their use. On Jan. 25, 2013, I sent a letter to Mr. Brennan, asking detailed questions about the Administration's views on the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially on American soil. In a February Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on his nomination, Mr. Brennan sidestepped many of these important questions, instead emphasizing that the Administration "has not carried out" drone strikes on U.S. citizens on American soil and "has no intention of doing so."
I was not satisfied with this response. The question that I and many others were asking was not whether the Administration had or intended to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believed it had the authority to do so. This remains an important distinction that should not be ignored. On Feb. 20, I sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Brennan raising this very question.
On March 4, Mr. Brennan responded to my letter, stating that the CIA does not conduct lethal operations within the United States, and therefore would not have the authority to conduct drone strikes on American soil. However, a separate letter from Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated that, while the U.S. government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes on U.S. soil, that it is possible "to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate...for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."
I was dismayed to read the Attorney General's response. His refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens on American soil was frightening, and an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans. Subsequently, I took to the Senate floor to filibuster Mr. Brennan's nomination in order to sound the alarm and pressure the Administration to clarify its position and take a definitive stance on the issue.
My decision to filibuster Mr. Brennan's nomination was not about partisanship. I believe the President has discretion in whom he appoints to serve in his cabinet, and have voted in favor of several of his nominees with whom I have had serious policy disagreements. The issue at hand was much broader. There can be no ambiguity surrounding Americans' due process rights under the Constitution. If the President finds it necessary to kill people in the United States, we need rules to govern the process, and we need to know what the rules are. Anything less is a blurring of the constitutional separation of powers and an abdication of Congressional authority. There can be no liberty when we combine the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. We cannot allow the President to set the rules, and then become both judge and jury in authorizing the killing of American citizens without due process.
I was humbled and honored that such a large number of my colleagues-on both sides of the aisle-came to the Senate floor to support my efforts and join the fight to demand answers from the Administration. On March 7, the morning after my 13-hour filibuster, Attorney General Holder sent a new letter clarifying the Administration's position on the use of drones on American citizens. His letter stated that with respect to the question "'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
Although long overdue, the Administration's response represents a step toward victory for due process. My filibuster led the Administration to finally go on the record and unequivocally state that it does not have the authority to kill noncombatant American citizens on American soil. While it is disconcerting that there was any ambiguity about this issue in the first place, the statement is an important affirmation of the Administration's views on our constitutional rights.
The Senate proceeded to confirm Mr. Brennan on March 7, by a vote of 63-34. However, the debate over our civil liberties and constitutional rights is far from over. The Administration needs to definitively state that it will not kill American noncombatants, regardless of geographic location. The Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans--at home and abroad--without exception. I hope my efforts continue to spur dialogue about the limits and scope of executive power and the defense of our essential liberties.
Please be assured that as I serve the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the U.S. Senate, I will continue to defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans. Thank you again for again for your message and please feel free to contact me again regarding any other federal issue.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator
The Vast Wasteland
The National Republican Congressional Committee offers a running tally of what it considers to be wasteful government spending. Dubbed "The Waste List", it's an interesting read, and it should make you a little sick if you're a taxpayer.
How do you feel about $2,000,000 in tax-subsidized cupcakes? Obviously we should cough up $25,000 for the Alabama Watermelon Queen Tour. And I don't won't to live in a country that doesn't grant $325,000 for robot squirrels.
I would submit, however, that this is an incomplete list that only includes those spending packages that the NRCC does not support, and not the pet projects that it does. It would be helpful to see a Democrat Party-sponsored waste list. We could then fuse the two together and target the whole rotten mess.
Anyway, here's the link to the list.
And allow me to twist the knife with a couple more similar outrages:
U.S. Spends $1.18 million on Puppets Amid Sequester
V.P. Biden's One-night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000
