At the April 2005 Minuteman kickoff, I first heard of Kyl's hopes for a federal bench appointment from a former AZ House member. Since then, I've encountered the belief dozens of times, not just from GOP insiders but also from politically-active citizens. So while Kyl's judicial hopes haven't yet made the pages of the Arizona Repugnant (Arizona Republic) or the East Valley Spitoon (East Valley Tribune), it's certainly no secret.

When I heard later in 2005 of Kyl's being chosen "Distinguished Citizen of the Year" by the University of AZ Law School Alumni, I thought "it really is falling into place." It's described on the blog: http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/03/we_dont_go_quie.html

Later that year in Scottsdale and in May 2006 in Sun Lakes, Kyl appeared at GOP-sponsored Town Halls where he was introduced as a front-runner candidate for appointment to the US Supreme Court! That he would bypass the customary federal "entry level" of district court judge might be a reflection of Kyl's "fast-track" expectations or perhaps just misunderstanding by the introducer. The important element is that Kyl didn't demur at all upon hearing the "introductory" predictions, which told me they were probably true.

It won't take long to see proof--less than 2 years remain in George Bush's authority to appoint federal judges. If Kyl is to get his seat on the federal bench, the deadline is January 19, 2009.


What's in "compromise immigration reform" for Kyl?

Kyl as Bush's Senate bag man on the Kyl-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty in return for the federal bench appointment explains why he's supporting something that offers Americans absolutely nothing except more empty promises of enforcement, virtually identical to what we heard in 1986.

George Bush is busily seeking a "legacy" to pretend for the history books that he accomplished something during the 8 years he spent in the White House. At this point, "illegal alien amnesty" is the best thing he can hope for. So it's clear to Kyl that delivering Illegal Alien Amnesty is the price he must pay for a federal bench appointment from George Bush.

During a "dot-connecting" conference call, several activists and I realized, "By Jove, I think we've got it."

The fix is in.

But George Bush isn't the only one saying "gimme" to Kyl for his federal bench appointment. All presidential appointments require Senate approval.

Knowing first-hand how difficult it's been for Bush's "conservative" judicial appointments to overcome filibuster by Senate Democrats, Kyl doesn't dare risk his appointment being stalled and eventually derailed like that of Robert Bork. Kyl knew he needed a little more insurance so chose the method employed so often by George Bush: pre-emptive action. "Ah," thought Judas Kyl, "what better way to insure they'll ratify my appointment than to give in to every demand they make on 'comprehensive immigration reform?' After I concede every ridiculous demand made by the illegal aliens, surely the Senate Democrats will ratify my federal bench appointment."

Whether Kennedy led the "immigration reform" poker game demanding a blank check from Kyl or whether Kyl just cut to the chase by emptying his pockets on the table with the first round isn't important. That Kennedy openly bragged to the Washington Post that "stakeholders" like National Council of La Raza, MALDEF (Mexican-American Legal Defense & Education Fund) and LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) had "veto power" over the draft legislation reveals that the fix was in from the beginning. (2) I doubt that Kyl so much as cleared his throat during the closed-door sessions for fear it might be mistaken for opposition.

The irony of the whole thing is that the illegal alien advocacy groups are now claiming the legislation is too harsh! The fines are too expensive, the conditions are too harsh, the requirement that a head of household leave the country to apply for legal residence for the family is punitive because "it will separate families."

These people must think we don't know about the "waiver process" that they will tutor their illegal alien applicants to demand at every possible opportunity. Can't speak English? Get a waiver. Haven't held a job? Get a waiver. Don't want to pay the $5,000 "fine?" Get a waiver. In the unlikely event that DHS employees refuse any demand by illegal aliens, you can bet the illegal’s will have a list of pro-illegal alien congress members with phone numbers to intercede enabling them to gain legal status and/or citizenship.

Stay tuned for updates...

That Kyl and his Republican cronies in the "Gang of 12" will vote for passage of "compromise immigration reform" is almost inevitable. (And who knows, perhaps others in the "Gang of 12" (3) have arranged to collect their own individual "30 Pieces of Silver?")

The "Gang of 12" include "Chappaquiddick Ted" Kennedy (D-MA), Jon "Judas" Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey "I Love La Raza" Graham (R, SC), Mel Martinez (R, FL), Arlen Specter (R, PA), and Ken Salazar (D, CO). That Kennedy has already authored and supported TWO disastrous immigration bills in 1965 and 1886 should be enough to make anyone run, not walk from this "compromise."

As a junior senator, Salazar rounds up Democrats' support while Kyl works on the GOP side. Kyl is actually a stand-in for fellow AZ Senator John McCain's role in 2006; McCain is running for President and has learned that advocating illegal alien amnesty while a White House hopeful makes his candidacy hopeless.

Will President George Bush actually deliver to Senator Judas Kyl the federal bench appointment as promised, or will George Bush renege on his promise to Kyl as he has to the American people? And will Senate Democrats stick by their "dark of the night" deal to rubber-stamp Kyl's appointment, or will Kennedy renege leaving Kyl to face angry voters? I doubt if Kyl got anything from "Chappaquiddick Ted" in writing, so it's not like he can sue for breach of contract.

Why not present the question to Senator Judas Kyl the next time you phone his office to express your outrage of his despicable betrayal, especially Republican voters who believed his promises and voted for him last November?

If you call your Republican senator, ask if he's supporting the Bush-Kyl agenda while getting nothing for themselves: Kyl's bench appointment, placating Senate Democrats at any costs, and providing a legacy for George Bush? Doesn't seem likely for a politician.

Mention the issue on your local radio talk shows.

Kyl needs to be exposed for his self-serving motives and told that we won't forget his treachery when his appointment needs Senate ratification. If he thinks he's hearing new words from his constituents now, wait until we pressure our Senators to vote NO on his appointment. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell may find that American voters don't have the short memories he thinks we do.

I have no doubt that Kyl thinks he's entitled to his lifetime spot on the federal bench. After he paid his dues as AZ GOP Chair and "served" the people of the United States in Congress, but that's not his decision to make. (He didn't serve in Congress for 20 years as an unpaid volunteer; he collected a handsome salary plus benefits paid by the US taxpayer.) "We the People" decide who deserves the trust of being a federal judge, not some hack politician. Let Kyl come clean with Americans on why he betrayed us, and WE'LL decide what Kyl deserves.

If we've connected the dots wrongly, it won't be long until we know. If January 19 2009 arrives without Kyl's promotion to the federal bench, I and my fellow "dot-connecting" activists will be the first to admit it. But we're not holding our breath.

What I'm really eager to hear when Kyl's promotion is announced is all the current Kyl apologists who tell of his "service to the nation," his devotion to conservative principles, his honor and integrity--their list goes on ad nauseum. Will they continue to defend Kyl when it's clear he's suckered them and left them holding the bag while he collects his 30 Pieces of Silver and dons his judicial robes?

(c) S. J. Miller, 2007. All Rights Reserved

Published originally (without graphics) at www.FederalObserver.com. Reproduction sanctioned by the author.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Later on Wednesday, a prominent and very successful businessman came in for a haircut. When he attempted to pay, the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The businessman was pleased and left the shop. On Thursday morning when the barber opened, there was a thank you card and four new books with titles such as, "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Late in the morning on Thursday, a well-known Democratic Party politician came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay his bill the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat smiled, shook his hand, asked the barber for his support in the upcoming election, and left the shop.

On Friday morning when the barber opened up, there was nothing waiting at the door except six more Democrats, two liberal Republicans, and nine illegal aliens – all lined up for a free haircut - which illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right, liberal and conservative, illegal alien migrant and citizen.

A conservative always pays his own way, never asking for something unearned.

The moral of this story: If you do something for just one liberal out of kindness or charity, the rest will invariably want something (everything) for nothing. How many people in American society, citizens and illegal aliens, are looking for (expecting) a free haircut every day of their life (on your dime)? Do they expect the free ride to continue? Democrats have offered them a free ride forever in return for their votes. What was known as "black box socialism" has been expanded to embrace "brown box socialism." (Search the archives for an explanation.)

Do you remember the Kevin Costner movie, "Field of Dreams" in which the central premise was, "Build it and they will come." Congress and state legislatures have successfully built the illegal alien "Field of Dreams," a system of unearned social benefits for illegal aliens that is so incredible illegal aliens are willing to endure remarkable hardship and even risk death to obtain it.

Is there any doubt why we have the numbers of illegal aliens we have today, with millions more on the way? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that illegal aliens are coming here for the free haircuts. If you want the illegal alien migration to stop, the free haircuts have to stop.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

The crusade against DDT began with Carson's anti-pesticide diatribe "Silent Spring," published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide anti-malaria campaign. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence--Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson's book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT's crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.

Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation--alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day.

But the scientific case against DDT was, and still is, nonexistent. Almost 60 years have passed since the malaria-spraying campaigns began--with hundreds of millions of people exposed to large concentrations of DDT--yet, according to international health scholar Amir Attaran, the scientific literature "has not even one peer reviewed, independently replicated study linking exposure to DDT with any adverse health outcome." Indeed, in a 1956 study, human volunteers ate DDT every day for over two years with no ill effects then or since.

Abundant scientific evidence supporting the safety and importance of DDT was presented during seven months of testimony before the newly formed EPA in 1971. The presiding judge ruled unequivocally against a ban. But the public furor against DDT--fueled by "Silent Spring" and the growing environmental movement--was so great that a ban was imposed anyway. The EPA administrator, who hadn't even bothered to attend the hearings, overruled his own judge and imposed the ban in defiance of the facts and evidence. And the 1972 ban in the United States led to an effective worldwide ban, as countries dependent on U.S.-funded aid agencies curtailed their DDT use to comply with those agencies' demands.

So if scientific facts are not what has driven the furor against DDT, what has? Estimates put today's malaria incidence worldwide at around 300 million cases, with a million deaths every year. If this enormous toll of human suffering and death is preventable, why do environmentalists--who profess to be the defenders of life--continue to oppose the use of DDT?

The answer is that environmental ideology values an untouched environment above human life. The root of the opposition to DDT is not science but the environmentalist moral premise that it is wrong for man to "tamper" with nature.

Carson's environmental ideology demands opposition to DDT despite the millions of malaria deaths its use could prevent. The large-scale eradication of disease-carrying insects epitomizes the control of nature by man. This is DDT's sin. To Carson and the environmentalists she inspired, "the 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy." Nature, they hold, is intrinsically valuable and must be kept free from human interference.

On this environmentalist premise the proper attitude to nature is not to seek to improve it for human benefit, but to show "humility" before its "vast forces" and leave it alone. We should seek, Carson wrote, not to eliminate malarial mosquitoes with pesticides, but to find instead "a reasonable accommodation between the insect hordes and ourselves." If the untouched, "natural" state is one in which millions contract deadly diseases, so be it.
Carson's current heirs agree. Earth First! founder Dave Foreman writes: "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."

In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a "necessary" component of a "vibrant biosphere" and seeking a "reasonable accommodation" with them.

Rachel Carson's birthday should be commemorated, not with laudatory festivities, but with the rejection of the environmental ideology she inspired.

By Keith Lockitch

The above article was first published on the internet as an Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute. Keith Lockitch, a PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. Visit the excellent website, www.aynrand.org for more information.

Red State Patriot commentary: ex-Vice President Al Gore has staked out a clear legacy of facilitating extreme measures to combat what liberals claim is a global warming threat to human existence as we know it. Will Al Gore achieve an unforeseen distinction in future decades, similar to Rachael Carson, one of having mindlessly decimated humanity? Will earth’s humanity once again suffer as the direct result of environmentalist social change based on junk science? Who will be blamed? Liberals who intone the global warming mantra today will accept no responsibility tomorrow. It is always “somebody else’s fault.” And DDT use is still banned.

Nature first and human life last. While most Americans would proudly describe themselves as conservationists, what kind of person is an Environmentalist? What kind of person sits back and allows millions of people to die needlessly? Apparently Environmentalists constitute that hard nucleus about which the Democratic Party forms. They have clearly become the source of the Democratic Party's proposed domestic and foreign policy initiatives. It is enough to make a person wonder, is there anything that does not require the death of some innocent man, woman, child or embryo that will satisfy liberals? From Iraq to the bedroom.

« Close It

American Indians have allegiance to their tribes, and despite the obvious location of their birth, native American Indians did not receive U.S. citizenship until it was conferred by congressional acts in 1887, 1901 and 1924.

Why would Congress even contemplate conferring citizenship on millions of illegal aliens? The answer is sadly that individual greed and blind pursuit of power in Congress has suppressed any and all considerations of patriotism, sworn duty, and the rule of law. To call congressional corruption a cancer would be to understate the problem.

Babies born to female diplomats, or the wives of diplomats, who happen to be in the United States at the moment of childbirth are NOT United States citizens because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

There is no logical or legislative reason that babies of illegal alien migrants, ostensibly seeking employment or simply United States citizen-funded social benefits, should automatically become American citizens. This loophole could have been rectified by any Representative or Senator in the last 50 years with a two-page piece of legislation – little more than 60 minutes of staff effort.

The purpose of the “citizenship clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment (that you sometimes hear about) was intended to assure that Americans of African heritage were citizens, thus overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier Dred Scott ruling that persons with an African heritage could not be citizens, regardless of their birthplace. Congress, in a rare moment of wisdom and humanity, wisely rejected stare decisis (judicial precedent) in overruling what most people consider the Supreme Court’s highly improper earlier "white-supremacist" decision. Today, an ugly chapter in United States history is shamefully repeating itself. Congress, for the darkest of reasons (unbridled self-interest), is desperately attempting to craft legislation with the help of Mexican activist groups such as La Raza, and orchestrate the passage of an "immigration reform bill" without public knowledge of its content, without congressional knowledge of its content, and without congressional or public debate. Collectively, the constitutional arsonists in Congress are making every effort to send to the President what can only be described as "brown-supremacist" legislation, so named because if and when it is signed into law, United States citizens of all ethnic backgrounds, will now serve their new masters, the Mexican (and OTM) illegal aliens.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment, gives authority over citizenship and naturalization matters to Congress, not to the courts and not to the Executive Branch. Repeat, no jurisdiction over immigration issues is vested in or accrues to the courts! The Executive Branch has as their singular responsibility the enforcement of federal immigration law (which successive administrations have refused to do for more than 30 years). In a shameful conspiracy of self-interest, federal, state, county and city administrations across America have similarly obstructed immigration enforcement measures, just as Governor Janet Napolitano has done so vehemently in Arizona whenever possible.

At least the Arizona state legislature, in stark contrast with Arizona's elected congressmen, has tried repeatedly to do something to stem the political, cultural, criminal and financial carnage from illegal aliens by passing numerous pieces of legislation championed by Representative Russell Pearce (and a few others), only to have every one of them vetoed by Governor Janet Napolitano.

Congress should have ended its silence on immigration issues long ago and passed a law stating that a child born to an illegal alien is NOT a United States citizen, if for no other reason than the child's mother is not "subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction."

In simple terms, a child born to an illegal alien should not be a United States citizen under any circumstances, regardless of the place of birth. Nor should children born in the United States to legal aliens become citizens until at least the child's birth mother or legal custodial parent becomes a United States citizen. And if the mother does not become a United States citizen before the child becomes 18, then the child at the age of majority can expect to stand in line and apply for citizenship just like everyone else. Under no circumstances should the marriage of a United States citizen to an illegal alien confer any change in immigration status or automatic citizenship on an illegal alien. Nor should any judicial precedent regarding immigration and naturalization have any force or effect in law in that any judicial precedent on its face is lacking constitutional authority in immigration matters.

The peculiar notion that foreigners residing illegally (criminally) in the United States should somehow enjoy the same rights as American citizens is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or federal law. This anomaly was created, as you might have suspected, by activist judges (United States Supreme Court case "Goldberg v. Kelly) who both encouraged and protected the large-scale entry of illegal aliens into the United States, as do most courts, as well as state and federal politicians today. Now it has become the U.S. Congress that is protecting at any cost large-scale entry of illegal aliens into the United States (anticipating their votes after they are legally transformed into legal immigrants.

What should we do with politicians who have willingly sold their American birthright to illegal aliens for a vote to remain in power? They include Arizona Senators such as John McCain and Jon Kyl, Representatives such as Jeff Flake and Governor Janet Napolitano. If you could get a candid comment from Governor Napolitano on her facilitation of illegal migration, she would probably smile, and with a hint of condescension say to you something like, "I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it."

These politicians deserve nothing less than your outspoken contempt, and certainly not your vote in any future election. In fact, Arizona would be better off if several of them sought political asylum in another state's jurisdiction after leaving political office. If the national security of the United States, and American citizenship itself, has become worthless to these politicians; if you and your family have no intrinsic value that makes you worthy of being defended from crime, identify victimization and lost jobs; if these politicians have more allegiance to Mexico and illegal alien migrants from Mexico than to United States citizens, surely you can envision your own future.

What are the odds that 700 pages of "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation pending in Congress will arrive on the President's desk for signature and contain the specific stipulation that only "citizens" of the United States will be permitted to vote in any United States political jurisdiction. It would require only a sentence or two in 700 pages of text. Only citizenship - and nothing less - should confer the right to vote. If an illegal alien wants to vote in the United States, their decision is clear - become a United States citizen and formally renounce allegiance to any other country.

Given that Congress is hell bent on granting legalized status to illegal aliens, making 20+ million illegal aliens eligible for taxpayer funded services, with millions more illegal aliens on the way, we should at least make some effort to protect our ability to vote out the scoundrels by safeguarding the 'privilege to vote' and reserving it to United States citizens - no exceptions. It is a safe bet that without the potential for the votes of today's illegal aliens, politicians would drop their support of amnesty and most guest worker provisions overnight.

How bad is it? One provision in the immigration bill would make taxpayers foot the bill for the legal costs of illegal aliens seeking citizenship by providing illegal aliens with federally funded lawyers. Other terms of the legislation would force the government to grant a Z-visa to gang members. Buried in the comprehensive immigration reform compromise is a provision that would 'accelerate' the implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (the implementation of the North American Union).

It is the singular intent of the Democratic Party that millions of illegal aliens, once legally in the United States with the signature of President Bush, will suddenly become legal voters. At the same time, they will instantly become eligible for every welfare program in the known universe even though they pay no taxes. Liberal politicians know that these newly minted voters will continue to vote into office only those politicians who support endless welfare programs at the expense of taxpaying American citizens (the top 50% of wage earners). The same politicians also know that millions of new Hispanic voters will overwhelm with shear numbers any voter opposition from United States citizens (and all other ethnic groupings).

There is a simple litmus test that should be applied to any "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation. Does it preserve the right to vote only to American citizens? If Congress collectively refuses to safeguard the right to vote, then the entire amnesty charade is all about their power, their re-election, and their intentional disenfranchisement of American citizens of every ethnic heritage. If Congress refuses to safeguard your right to vote, then 700 pages of immigration reform legislation authored by La Raza activists will be seen by all for what it is - 700 pages of law intended to advance the cause of the "brown brothers," and to anticipate every possibile means to prevent United States citizens from doing anything about it. Seven hundred pages of legislation is not needed to control illegal aliens; it is needed to devise ways to control the rest of us.

We simply must force individual congressmen show their true colors (even though most citizens already know that Senator John McCain's colors are not red, white and blue). The Democratic Party (mother of all income redistribution), and liberal Republicans must be made to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the amnesty they advocate for illegal aliens is not all about "voting." The challenge to Congress is this: with specific wording in the proposed 700 pages of immigration reform legislation, remove any and all "voting" privileges permanently from non-citizens, and do so as a central feature of any "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation. Congress must be made to stipulate in the legislation that any and all 'voting rights,' in any United States political jurisdiction, are reserved only for American citizens. If you want to vote, become a citizen by following the same process and procedures as any other lawful immigrant - simple as that. Upon achieving United States citizenship, while we're on the subject, let social security eligibility begin - not before.

Why not take the challenge one step further? Let Democrats and liberal Republicans demonstrate their patriotic intentions. While they say they respect their American constituency and the U.S. Constitution, they are only too ready to intentionally dilute and render virtually worthless the value of the votes of United States citizens - not unlike the inane refrain about how they support the troops. If you happen to be among those unfortunate taxpayers who don't think welfare programs should be so pervasive, particularly for illegal aliens, you're vote to curtail the scope of those programs will mean very little in the face of 20 million new voters who think taking your family income to subsidize their lifestyle, fund their medical care, and pay for the education of their children is a grand idea. What is the probable influence of 20 million newly minted illegal alien voters seeking social services and societal preference? What will happen to the value of your vote? What will happen to the opportunities for a quality education in English and employment of your children? What will happen to your access to Social Security and Medicare that is teetering on the edge of insolvency with the first illegal alien dipping their hands into the pot?

Let Congress unequivocally state in their proposed immigration reform legislation that they require complete compliance by illegal aliens with everything that is normally required of any other legal immigrant in order to achieve United States citizenship - including speaking English - no fast track, no shortcuts and no cutting to the front of the line - and no eligibility for taxpayer-funded social services before citizenship. That will never happen, you say. Assuming you are correct, you have your answer. You and your family, as far into the future as you can see, representing mutiple generations of United States citizens descended from United States citizens and legal immigrants, are suddenly not as important as the votes of the soon-to-be newly-minted illegal alien voters.

What is a United States citizen - first and foremost, a voter. Don’t be fooled by what will soon appear to be duplicity by Democrats and disarray on the guest worker legislation. Many amendments to the legislation will be offered for consideration. Democratic Party Senators and Representatives are simply posturing with their amendments which they know have no chance of passing. There is no intention that many of these amendments are adopted. Democrats are cynically putting forward these amendments disingenuously to give themselves deniability with their home constituency. They will claim, “I tried, but …..” Democrats and liberal Republicans (most of them) are putting a first class stage show just for the American public. This is entertainment theater of the first order. If you learn nothing else from this article, please understand that the amnesty bill has nothing to do with immigration. It's about growing the size of government and redistribution programs which liberals control and farming new voters to keep them in power.

Watch carefully to see who is more important to Democrats - United States citizens or the illegal aliens? When all is said and done, we will find that illegal alien amnesty is all about the future votes of illegal aliens and all about seeking perpetual power. It always has been about "them," without regard for you and your family, generations of American citizens. Perpetual power, once achieved, becomes absolute power - total dominion. Don't say nobody ever warned you.

With "comprehensive immigration reform" irrevocably goes the rule of law - but inversely. We can have one - or the other - but not both. Without the rule of law, all that remains is government "control" and our government has already demonstrated a remarkable penchant for dismantling the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has already been given the statutory authority by Congress to use United States military forces and the National Guard to repress a civilian insurrection and restore public order. Yes it has. Posse Comitatus is but a footnote in history.

Ayn Rand was remarkably insightful when she observed that the difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is only a matter of time. It would seem that the current path toward a totalitarian state has been chosen for us by the Democratic Party. The only question remaining is our willingness to go peacefully.

Red State Patriot
May 19, 2007

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

RESPONSE by Russell K. Pearce, AZ House of Representatives:

Thank you.

NO AMNESTY AS PROMISED! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF AMNESTY. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE A TED KENNEDY COMPROMISE, THE SELL OUT OF AMERICA!

Freedom and Liberty does not exist when elected officials conspire in secret to destroy this great Republic and the Constitutional Rights of its citizens.

NO government or elected official has the right to undermine the Rule of Law - EVER!

Because we now know that Congress endorses the INVASION OF AMERICA, we Americans will not and cannot abandon our duty to PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND our great nation - for its citizens, and the American Dream for our children and our grandchildren. We cannot be found to be "derelict" in our duty to God and Country, like those whom we have trusted enough to honor with the highest of elected offices.

« Close It

What good is a right to privacy in your personal papers and effects from government intrusion, if private citizens regularly wander through your house taking pictures of all your documents and possessions, and then sell them to the government agent standing outside your back door? It is even worse when the private citizens doing that business get a plethora of incentives, subsidies, and contracts, to engage themselves in the business of rifling through their neighbor’s houses. Let’s not forget that it was IBM that provided the census data management systems for Hitler to locate the Jews for rounding up in the holocaust.

The constitutional protections and legislation have severely lagged behind the technology, and I fear that all semblance of privacy is being lost to the twin headed monster of Big Government, and Big Business. The technical name for that style of governance is "Fascism." It may be convenient for national security types to hunt bad guys, but it is easy for a change in governance to redefine "bad guys." An example of the sliding scale by which the government and even differing administrations redefine who they want to persecute, is going on beneath the ripples we see in the new ‘right’ now. I'm not in the pornography business, but it sure doesn't seem like a threat to national security. Yet I know for a fact that the Feds are already using the laws written to combat terrorism and drugs to trace and prosecute pornography, and I'm not even talking child porn. This is one of the underlying (and under reported) elements of the Alberto Gonzales federal prosecutor firings. A lot of the prosecutors were not "putting enough effort" into pursuing those cases. Who is to say the next administration may target gun owners? Or bloggers they think contribute to "radical right wing sites", or supporters of Don Imus? How far can this go in the days of criminalized "hate speech?"

What we need is legislation, or a Supreme Court Ruling, that neither big business nor the government want to implement. Our personal information and credit reports should be private. We need federal legislation, extending to all states, that the right to privacy includes any and all personally identifiable financial/demographic/medical information. It should be a crime to transmit, but not to store and retain that information. The violation would be to transmit that information to a person or entity other than the person to which it pertains (any third party), without the written consent of the person to which the information pertains. The crime should be punishable by fine per incidence of unauthorized sharing of information, and should also be a cause for civil liability with a minimum presumed damage amount stated in the statute. This way persons applying for credit, or a lease, could voluntarily allow their data to be examined when they seek to accrue a benefit by assuring their creditor of their good history, however it wouldn't allow nosy persons/entities to snoop at their records without their knowledge or consent.

There should also be an exemption from this law for law enforcement, but acquiring the information, when personalized, should require a warrant, just like searching a person’s house, and the acquisition of a particularized warrant would exempt and immunize the agent and agency from the application statute on individual cases.

This is the only way a ‘right’ to privacy will continue to have any meaningful existence in this country into the 21st century. Otherwise, technology has rendered it a sham.

By David Roth
May 18, 2007

RESPONSE from Carol U.:
May 19, 2007

I hate to disagree. Reason being that a month ago I got a letter from TJX, parent company of TJ Max and Marshalls, etc. Someone had hacked into their files and they were concerned and wanted me to know and wanted to inform me as to what to do to see if my identity had been stolen. Since I did not have their credit card I wondered shy I had gotten the letter so I called. I was informed that since I had returned something to one of their stores without a receipt they used my driver's license and took down the number and since in AZ you can use your SSN as your license number they wanted me to be aware. When I moved to AZ, I did use my SSN as my driver’s license number. I thought it was a good idea. Then with all this identity theft going on I changed it several years ago. Not only did the company make me aware of all this but they provided me with the names, phone numbers, etc of the Credit Companies so that I could make sure that all was correct on my credit report. I did inform Equifax, etc and in a very timely manner I received my credit report from all three companies. I was happy to see that all was in order, that no one had stolen my identity and used it and all was right with the world. I do not consider it a violation of my privacy as long as I have nothing to hide in my financial life I am glad that someone has all my information at their fingertips. I guess I am a little jaded coming from my professional background but the only thing I care about is someone stealing all this info and using it in a negative manner. I think that there are far more important issues to get excited about.

RESPONSE to Carol from Red State Patriot:
May 20, 2007

Carol, never be hesitant to disagree!!! Good for you. We’re glad to see that people are thinking. That's the point.

I would like to respectfully suggest to you that the author was making an extremely important point that still remains unaddressed: The information (which the government is not allowed to collect and store in a database by law), is made freely available to the government by organizations such as Equifax. If the government is not allowed to collect and store such personal data for privacy reasons and the Bill of Rights, then it is a bit ludicrous that organizations such as Equifax, TRW and others, protected and facilitated by federal legislation, simply collect the information and provide it to the government upon their request. Such personal data and information would require a search warrant if it were being directly sought by the government.

In other words, an act which would otherwise be illegal is somehow OK, if you can get a third party to do for you what you by law cannot.

Congress might as well just repeal the Bill of Rights if the intent of the 4th Amendment is so easily circumvented. But that would take a Constitutional Amendment which is a long and tedious process. Better to just ignore the Bill of Rights.

The 4th Amendment reads in summary: 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.

The plain language reading is pretty clear. One can do the “dance of the seven maidens” trying to read into the plain wording something that is not being elucidated. The 4th Amendment was intended as a protection of the citizen (you and me) from the government. Are we going to ignore the 4th Amendment’s provisions? We can’t just
equivocate and say, “I have nothing to hide.” That’s not the point. There are much bigger issues at stake. It is your incremental loss of your property rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Each of the first ten Amendments is a form of “property rights.”

In addition, the U.S. Constitution provides several mechanisms for changing (amending) it, none of which include Congress unilaterally voting to change it; or the Executive Branch simply ignoring the Constitutional safeguards intended to protect citizens like you and me; or the federal Judiciary legislating constitutional changes from the bench.

As for the privacy dangers for citizens, I suspect the author envisions a fateful day when the government may use the information in some form of endgame when they decide to rule rather than govern, a day which might be much closer than most people consider possible. His assertions regarding IBM are a historical fact, sad to say, but you
probably already knew that. Data (and the information derived from the data) has historically been used for either good or evil, depending upon who was in control (the government or the citizens).

Anyway, good response. Keep reading. That's how we all keep abreast of important issues.

« Close It