RSS

a donation a day keeps the drone strikes away

04 Mar

From SooperMexican

3/03/2013

Documents Show DHS Built Domestic Surveillance Into Drones-Can Track Cell Phones, ID If Citizens Are Armed

From CNET:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.

Federal government want drones that will determine if citizens are carrying guns

CNET has this fun warning:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show. . . . .

Homeland Security is now armed with enough ammunition for a 24 year-long Iraq War.
atk ammo
ATK is one company that won a contract with the Department of Homeland Security to provide 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition in 2012.

Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile

This is getting a little creepy.
According to one estimate, since last year the Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm.
DHS also purchased 2,700 Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAP).
homeland security mrap
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY AT GATEWAY PUNDIT.
The tanks have gun ports. They are owned by Homeland Security, which means they are for use WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

The 2nd Amendment exists because people have the right to resist tyranny, even if it emanates from their own government. 
From that, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE BETTER-ARMED (WITHIN IT’S OWN BORDERS) THAN IT’S PEOPLE.

The government is OURS, we are not theirs.

The fact that these tanks are owned by Homeland Security is, itself, a violation of our 2nd Amendment Rights. 

there’s a point to my adding the article below, a very important point about our freedom and how little by little the statists are determined to destroy it.

California Nursing Home Permits 87-Year-Old Woman To Die Rather Than Render Simple CPR, Because It’s Their “Policy”

—Ace

Oh, it’s you’re policy? I’m sorry, I didn’t realize it was your policy. Certainly if you have a “policy” you are justified in permitting a woman under your care to die without taking any action to help her at all.

California retirement home is backing one of its nurses after she refused desperate pleas from a 911 operator to perform CPR on an elderly woman who later died, saying the nurse was following the facility’s policy.”Is there anybody that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die,” dispatcher Tracey Halvorson says on a 911 tape released by the Bakersfield Fire Department aired by several media outlets on Sunday.

“Not at this time,” said the nurse, who didn’t give her full name and said facility policy prevented her from giving the woman medical help.

Halvorson pleads for the nurse to perform CPR, and after several refusals she starts pleading for her to find a resident, or a gardener, or anyone not employed by the home to get on the phone, take her instructions and help the woman.

“Can we flag someone down in the street and get them to help this lady?” Halvorson says on the call. “Can we flag a stranger down? I bet a stranger would help her.”

The nursing home defended the inaction, claiming it was a “policy” that nurses should only call 911 and otherwise render no aid themselves.

Let’s take a look at this.

First off, a “policy” exists to protect the institution promulgating that policy, not to help anyone else.

So when a company says “We’re just following policy,” they mean “We’re just following a protocol we created to protect our own interests.”

This is no kind of defense or justification. Yes, I know you were ruthlessly pursuing your own self-interest in permitting a woman to die. Having a “policy” about ruthlessly pursuing your own self-interest in permitting a woman to die doesn’t sanctify that as a noble or even acceptable.

Saying “We have a policy” is just a euphemism for “We’ve collectively decided to look out for ourselves instead of others.”

The other thing I get from this is how far we’re going in this society to prioritize Inaction over Action. Of course the nursing home has this policy to protect itself from lawsuit — the threat of lawsuits compels people to let people die in the street. Inaction — letting someone die — is a favored position, legally, over Action. If you Act, you may get sued. If you don’t act, it’s harder to get sued.

(Although in this case I think they’ll discover they’re damned either way, but the general point about Inaction being favored over Action still stands.)

Look at all the hurdles and obstacles the State puts in your way if you wish to start a simple business. The sort of business that 60 years ago no one thought you needed state permission to operate.

At every turn our society, through its laws, is transmitting the idea that Inaction — and sloth, and reliance on the state, and acceptance of one’s status, and fearing the consequences of action — is preferred to Action.

You don’t have to be an anthropologist to guess that when the state sets about at criminalizing most things and hyperregulating whatever’s left, it creates an environment in which the average person begins with the presumption that I ought better not do that rather than the mindset our Founding Father gifted us with: I am free do do practically anything, save the few things which are obviously criminal.

And you don’t have to be a conspiracist to notice this is exactly the sort of mindset the totalitarian state prefers in its citizens.

Bodies drained of blood cause no problems for the State, except for warehousing.

Compare to den Beste’s posts noting that citizens are more and more required to seek permission of the State to do things they just should be able to do, and to offer a justification for simply exercising their freedoms.

At every turn, we’re asked: How does it help society that you should be free to do this thing? And we have to offer some rationale wherein we increase the social good by having a freedom.

Does freedom really require a justification at every turn? Why does freedom require an affirmative defense, whereas prohibition — the reduction of citizen freedom and the increase of power in the State — is presumptively the correct position and wins on all ties?

Should the prohibitionists, not the freedom-seekers, be required to justify themselves, with the default assumption going to the freedom-seekers?

Dangerous, dark, dispiriting times.

It will not turn out well. (It never does, he added morosely.)

Via ‏@johnondrasik of Five For Fighting.

 

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 4, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: