now browsing by category
As with all power, the potential for abuse is most evident in those institutions who have it within their power, the use of violence and men willing to implement it. It is not that government itself is abusive, since it is nothing but a fiction, but rather that men choose to use government as a pretext for effecting their own abuses.
This is a neat little video that succinctly encapsulates the political and legal climate in the United States at this time. Sure, it is sound bites, some out of context, but regardless, there would be no reasonable justification for some of the statements. The video begs the question, or more appropriately offers the argument for, are we under martial law?
The Constitution lists specific limits on what the government can do with respect to searches and deprivation of liberty. It does not give a detailed process, however, other than to use words or phrases such as “reasonable”, “probable cause”, “due process”… and therefore, the courts and different agencies have been given a pass in defining for themselves what these words mean. In doing so, the penumbra of “terrorism” has been created, precipitated by the events of 9-11, under which guise all activity has been placed in circumventing constitutional protections. It is no longer the rights of individuals which are paramount in justifying a need for government; it is the protection of national security with the individual becoming a bogeyman and danger thereof.
The entity which cloaks itself as a government, but which fails to likewise adhere to limitations which are an inherent part of it, is nothing but a rogue, oppressive, violent, and imperialistic consortium of global interest such as bankers, corporations, and hereditary oligarchy. Families with roots deep in antiquity of modern history along with their counterparts in social control, such as the church, the press, education, and labor hold the reins on much of the power. Having infiltrated government, they now possess the mechanism by which corporations are created and regulated, much to the benefit of the corporation or government themselves, and to the detriment of the people greasing the skids in providing lavish compensation for those at the top cracking the whip and cozying up to government regulators.
“Mr. MkKoy, you are paranoid”, you will say. Where in the annals of history is it recorded that government debates and justifies the killing of its own citizens without constitutional limitations or due process? History is rife with well-documented accounts of tyrannies and despotisms springing forth from what were once prosperous, peaceful nations. Empires collapse, and the United States is no different. Do not be lulled into denial or complacency by the worn relics from a forgotten revolution as being a barrier between power-hungry men and your freedom. Do not think for one moment there exists in the mind of a government official a single synapse recognizing the sanctity of life. Theirs is about preserving and expanding the empire at whatever costs, even to their own. Do not dwell on anachronistic and lofty quotes from noble jurists of a by-gone era to point a finger and say, “See, government servant, the rights of individuals are superior to those of government and natural law reigns supreme!” Do not scramble for your citizens manual or Constitution when met with a battering ram splintering your door followed by laser sites and flash-bang grenades. Do not bemoan the “inconvenience” of a checkpoint when attempting to travel unfettered upon the public rights of way when you need only present papers, blood, or other evidence upon which you may be capriciously and summarily incarcerated.
Even when the machinery of government was new, shortly after the revolution and wet-ink Constitution, the gears uttered squeaks and framework shuddered under the load, often-times at the hands of some of that Constitutions most ardent proponents, as justifications for its violation began to ooze forth; the Whiskey Rebellion and Alien and Sedition Act readily come to mind, two affronts to the platitude of “limited government” from a new-born government exhibiting adolescent petulance towards its fawning parents. When a dissenting voice was raised in opposition citing constitutional protections, the government played dumb and asked, “What does that mean with respect to the Constitution?”, and the answer from the Marbury Court replied, “It means what we say it means.”.
Since that time, Americans have become consumed in hedonistic self-aggrandizement. We revel in the achievements of our predecessors in rebelling against a tyrant and drafting a constitutional house of cards to allay our fears from another tyrant taking power because “We are the People, and this is our Constitution!” We assumed the role of world policeman, arbiter of human rights, judge of atrocities, and judge-jury-executioner of terrorists. We consume on demand, salute without question, and obey out of fear. We are a fattened lamb ready for slaughter, or should I say suicide. We are the world’s bully and a joke to other countries. We are loathed and reviled. I share the sentiment.
I will stop short of calling for the indiscriminate execution of all government officers for the mere fact that it will solve nothing. There are plans afoot to do such things by some groups, to which I will say provide nothing but justifying through self-fulfilling prophecy the government’s need for doing what it does. Blood begets blood, and though fleeting and ephemeral as this existence is, misdirected and wanton taking of life is to emulate and pay homage to the thing we have come to despise; for it is its own milieu. What I will not stop short of calling for is an overt and concerted display of contempt and disobedience for that system. Do not acknowledge any government officer as your friend, compadre’, acquaintance, or representative. Do not stand for the National Anthem. Do not salute the flag. Do not procure licenses, pay taxes, or fill out forms with accurate information. This system is not infallible. As a matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence that it is on the verge of collapse and we are merely seeing its desperate act of self-preservation. Let’s exploit that opportunity to drive the wedge and split it apart. It relies upon, not the captains at the wheel, but the bodies in the galley and engine room to move the machine. Without our help, theirs are but futile commands at the wind.
Disobey, to whatever degree you may. At first, it will seem unsettling and frightening. With regularity it will become liberating and uplifting. Spread disinformation into their databases. Exhibit disrespect and contempt. Resort to your local communities and work within private circles for social issues. Shun people known to be government employees, even in your personal lives. Speak to them about the harm they do and how society considers them pariahs. Urge them to quit or resign, as their days are numbered. Lie, dis-inform, and cause doubt. Their system is only as good as the information we give them to use against us.
We may be under martial law, the United States is a failed experiment and nightmarish blight on mankind, the government may claim the right to kill us indiscriminately… but the system requires people to obey. It requires the sufficient mindset to submit to its edicts. All of this begins with families, children, and an abandonment of reason. When you step back and perceive the system for what it is, a fraud, then you will release your mind from the shackles you willingly placed upon it and see the world as a cosmological respite on a journey we barely have the ability to comprehend. Why spend it in an environment which gnaws at the conscience as being inherently wrong?
In my opinion, an un-manned aircraft over civilian airspace is already a threat to public safety due to the fact that human decision making has been removed from direct control and observation of the surroundings. Should the camera fail, the device is essentially flying blind and mechanical failure puts it in the realm of an uncontrolled object falling from the sky endangering life and property. Prudence is indeed called for when taking one of these out of the sky, but I believe a plea of necessity would prevail in justifying the destruction of the drone. If the government doesn’t want their drones shot down then don’t fly them.
WASHINGTON (AP) — People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday.
The FAA released a statement in response to questions about an ordinance under consideration in the tiny farming community of Deer Trail, Colo., that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. The administration reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.
In this Jan. 8, 2009, photo provided by the Mesa County, Colo., Sheriff’s Department, a small Draganflyer X6 drone is photographed during a test flight in Mesa County, Colo., with a Forward Looking Infer Red payload. People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday, July 19, 2013, in response to a proposed ordinance in a small Colorado town that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. In a statement released in response questions about an ordinance under consideration in the farming community of Deer Trail, the FAA reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns.(AP Photo/Mesa County Sheriff’s Unmanned Operations Team)
A drone “hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air,” the statement said. “Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane.”
Under the proposed ordinance, Deer Trail would grant hunting permits to shoot drones. The permits would cost $25 each. The town would also encourage drone hunting by awarding $100 to anyone who presents a valid hunting license and identifiable pieces of a drone that has been shot down.
Deer Trail resident Phillip Steel, 48, author of the proposal, said in an interview that he has 28 signatures on a petition — roughly 10 percent of the town’s registered voters. Under Colorado law, that requires local officials to formally consider the proposal at a meeting next month, he said. Town officials would then have the option of adopting the ordinance or putting it on the ballot in an election this fall, he said.
The proposed ordinance is mostly a symbolic protest against small, civilian drones that are coming into use in the United States, Steel said. He acknowledged that it’s unlikely there are any drones in use near Deer Trail.
“I don’t want to live in a surveillance society. I don’t feel like being in a virtual prison,” Steel said. “This is a pre-emptive strike.”
He dismissed the FAA’s warning. “The FAA doesn’t have the power to make a law,” he said.
The FAA is working on regulations to safely integrate drones into the skies over the U.S., where manned aircraft are prevalent. The Congress gave the FAA until 2015 to develop the regulations, but the agency is behind schedule. FAA officials have estimated that once regulations are in place, thousands of drones will be in use across the country for a wide variety of purposes, from helping farmers figure out which crops need watering to tracking sea lions in remote rocky outcroppings to aiding search and rescue missions.
But the Deer Trail proposal is the latest ripple in a spreading backlash against drones. Dozens of laws aimed at curbing the use of the unmanned aircraft have been introduced in states and cities. Privacy advocates have expressed fear that police will use drones to cheaply and effectively conduct widespread surveillance without warrants.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drone industry trade group, was concerned enough last year about people threatening to shoot down drones that it issued a statement warning that such comments were “irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful.”
Michael Toscano, president and CEO of the group, expressed similar concerns Friday, saying drones “are being designed to serve the public good….The myriad of important uses will be imperiled if they become targets. … The suggestion that Americans take up arms against unmanned aircraft also endangers citizens on the ground.”