« January 2008 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
By The People
20 January 2008
Who Are You?

Real ID is gauranteed to cause the greatest political division in America since the Civil War. The noise in the media every day is Iraq, Pedophilia, and Identity Theft. And then the coverage of the primaries is over and we turn the more of the same. What ever happened to the 4'th amendment anyway? If the the constitution (in article 1) gives the president his power to give orders and make decisions in wartime, then another another article of the very same constitution can take away or limit the power of president.

How is it no-one can see this well enough to impeach, arrest, try and imprison the man? Maybe he could spend his sentence on board a Naval installation to keep him safe... Somewhere tropical with a nice harbor and plenty of sand and blue water. An island in the Caribbean maybe?

Is anyone really in doubt about the need to secure the border? It seems unlikely that anyone who is a naturalized or native born citizen of the US especially in border states, would think that the steady stream of illegal aliens into the territorial US is a positive thing. The exception would be citizens who received their status through the unconstitutional process of Amnesty. Wasn't that another legacy of the Regan Era?

Now, a president has the authority to grant a pardon to persons convicted of a crime in federal court. But a blanket amnesty, prior to trial, and without a signed instrument naming the individual person(s) receiving the pardon has no real value. Because anyone could lie and claim that they were a member of the group legally entitled to that pardon.

For instance if a pardon was issued for illegals entering through Mexico is issued, then an agent of the North Korean army could enter through Mexico and gain a pardon for invasion of the US. (We're officially in a state of Cease Fire not peace with North Korea sense the 1950's and as a result at war 24-7 for longer than most Internet users have lived.) If you limit the pardon to Hispanics then Germanic or Jewish citizens of Southern Mexico, who cross illegally, would be discriminated against on the basis of race. The permutations are endless. And the results always ridiculous and unconstitutional.

Beyond that a the president does NOT have the authority to nationalize new citizens by edict. The naturalization process is pretty well set in stone by law and custom. And frankly, how stupid would it be to grant citizenship to every person entering illegally through Canada or Mexico, nations that both tried to expand their population by granting citizenship without any real screening process in the 1990's.

So some brain child develops the idea of ID cards. We can protect our borders with national IDs? Sounds so simple. It would even help to prevent crime. Put everyone on life lock, nationalize the database and require proof of citizenship when issuing IDs. Preston problem solved and two-birds killed with one stone. We can eliminate ID theft and secure the borders by making it impossible to buy a loaf of bread without an ID. It would starve the illegals into turning themselves in... Plus we can make the border secure the other way so no-one can leave...

Wait a sec that's how the NaZi's controlled the population, Identity and Traveling Papers. But just because a foreign dictator did something doesn't mean our domestic one can't do it too. So is it constitutional? Well let's look at the 4'th amendment. The president claims to be a strict constructionist. Great! By strict construction, where does the limitation of search and seizure in turn get limited or set aside by either War, the act of a foreign government, or of a private agency or corporation. The strict construction limits all searches by any entity whatsoever. And by extension strict construction, the 4'th amendment makes the act of collecting data on buying habits, Bank transactions, inventories, industrial secrets, and credit history (all forms of business papers); medical, dental, and social activities and records, school transcripts (person) and place of residence, private collections, books, jewels, music, etc (all forms of possession) illegal without a warrant.

Simply put credit reporting agencies are, by strict construction engaged in illegal search at best, from some angles they start to look rather like criminal conspiracy and criminal slander. A popular movie features a newspaper editor making up wild accusations without evidence or foundation. His victim complains, “that's slander!” The Editor replies, “I resent that, this is libel! Slander is spoken this is in print.” This is a common misconception, some would like to foster. In fact Libel is Civil action as in a lawsuit. Slander is the act of harming a person, directly or indirectly, socially or financially, by issuance of any untrue statement made in any media including speech.

So every error on a credit report is, at least in California, a criminal act. Criminalizing untrue statements is not violating freedom of speech, because any equally seedy, vial contemptible accusation is perfectly legal if provable. Nor does criminalizing it inhibit your ability to make untrue statements that harm others. It just makes it a violation if the harm occurs, and you then have to pay a price for the harm done, not for speaking in the first place. In the long run, even a tabloid could consider, fines, prison and probation as the cost of doing business.

But in the case of a Credit agency you have a concerted effort to collect and disseminate a narrow spectrum of information for the purpose of limiting a person's ability to do business, get work, acquire loans and mortgages and to open bank accounts. This is arguably conspiracy because the persons collecting the information have done so either without consent or with an extortionary condition that they will not hire, bank or do business with persons who don't give consent to have their private business papers made available electronically for the asking.

The aggregate of those consumers of Credit reports who then share credit information via reporting agencies are the parties to conspiracy, if any of the information is untrue or libel it necessarily makes that conspiracy a criminal one. Further if law enforcement or US domestic governments consume or report that information they become culpable for that conspiracy and for violation of the 4'th amendment.

By warehousing such information for the consumers of that information they become primary agents of the conspiracy. This is why government black-lists such as the no-fly list are criminal and unconstitutional. This is also why “Real ID” is criminal. “Real ID” as introduced by the US gestappo, The Department of Vaterland Security, obligates every state to in turn  require proof of citizenship in order to issue driver's licenses and state ID cards. In turn the patriot act requires that a person show a driver's license or state ID to open a bank account or use a Credit Card. It also requires a passport, driver's license or State ID in order to board a plane even on a domestic flight.

The aggregate and intention of these laws and policies is to force every traveler and every purchaser to prove citizenship in order to make a transaction or travel. This is precisely the draconian, totalitarian activity that I've warned about previously. Why is it wrong to keep illegals from buying or traveling? They will get caught and pulled into INS and it will solve the problem right? How, naïve or even patently disingenuous! Illegal entry into the US is a crime. There are federal laws governing it and were they enforceable by INS would have been perfectly suitable all this time. Enforceability is a matter of manpower and resources, nothing else. Other countries have used anti personnel minefields to draw permanent lines. Illegals are not refugees and not entitled to the same consideration as those seeking political asylum, unless we are willing to define Mexico as a civil rights oppressor and go to war with them.

But in light of the measures other countries have employed how is it we can afford to fund a war in Iraq and not fund a larger border patrol? I'm not suggesting mine fields. I'm saying why is a concrete wall and curtailment of personal privacy for lawful residents a better answer than quadrupling the size of the INS and Coast Guard? Simple answer is the goal is not to prevent illegal entry, but to use illegals as a red herring to hide the real purpose of simply curtailing personal freedom and privacy. The goal was always to make the people unable to defend themselves against the threat of domestic violence from a federal government become corrupted with power.

This is an illegal maneuver from any angle. Not only does it violate the 4'th amendment, it violates the right of the accused against self incrimination, and it violates the most foundational principle of US constitution and common law. Simply put you are innocent until proven guilty. Requirement of proof citizenship in banking and travel. Requirement of Identity in trivial transactions and travel. These violate the most fundamental premise. In essence we ALL and you the reader in particular, have been accused of being 1) a terrorist, 2) a sympathizer giving aid to the enemy and 3) an illegal alien present in the territorial US. And the burden of proof has been placed on you. Prove you are innocent.

Is this the sort of governance that generations of American Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Civil Service have fought and died to defend in two wars with England, two wars with Canada, a War with Mexico, a War with Spain, two wars in Europe, a War in defense of China, a War with Japan, a war in Bosnia and wars against communist insurgents in Korea, Viet Nam and South America? Is this really why people gave their lives? So that Bush could claim the president is entitled to whatever he wants as long as its “in the interest of national security”? Did they die as defenders of a war-like metaphor, using a probable cause like doctrine, in a freedom-lite environment without any restraints or oversight?

The last thing this country needs is a parliament where the president is eliminated and the executive powers are given over to the vice-president/prime minister. But the second amendment clearly intends that congress must be able to restrain and even remove a rogue president, and a vice president who has sought for generations to undermine the democratic nature of the republic and replace it with a neo feudalism, with himself and his corporate America peers as the new Aristocracy. Hail the new world Order and sich Heil!

? Fred Davis. fd4ds5 at 1:20 PM PST
Updated: 13 February 2009 4:10 PM PST

View Latest Entries