Archive for the ‘Civil Liberties’ Category

Sen. Brown (D-OH): Confused About his Job

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

The other night I listened to Senator Sherrod Brown’s “E-Town Hall on Health Insurance Reform”.  I posted earlier about Sen. Brown’s excuse that he’s “clearly not a Constitutional expert” as his reason for thinking that the legislature has authority to force an expanded government controlled healthcare system upon us.

Something else caught my attention during his address, namely Sen. Brown’s response to "Robert of Concord Twp. in Lake County" about 2/3 of the way through he started talking about his understanding of his job as a US Senator. Sen. Brown said:

My goal is to – I took an oath of office when I was sworn in and when you gave me the privilege of representing you in the United States senate back in 2006 I took an oath of office with – from Vice President Cheney

That’s true, you can watch video of Sen. Brown taking the oath of office from Cheney.

Here’s a transcript of the oath administered in the video.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
SOURCE: US Senate, Oath of Office

Ok Sen. Brown – now we’re all familiar with the oath.  You were saying?

I pledged to do what I think is best for my – to listen to people in the state and do what I think is best.

Wait a minute – that’s not what you pledged.  You pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.  So if people from Ohio wish to undermine the Constitution, you’ve pledged not to “do what you think is best”, but to follow those instructions in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

For any politician who wants to last, you’ll need to listen to the people of Ohio and do what you think is best *within the confines of your oath of office*.  You can still make it your mission to reform healthcare, but there’s a right (constitutional) way and a wrong (unconstitutional) way to go about it.

If the people of Ohio demand a change to the Constitution then by all means, put that before the legislature, but don’t undermine your oath, your constituents, and your nation.

Brown went on to summarize:

Um, and I think – I want – I want a good bill. I want a bill that works for all Ohio. And I – and even people who disagree with me here – I know some of them are going to get pre-existing conditions and they are gonna lose their health insurance and I want to help them as much as I want to help people who agree with this bill. Uh – That’s what my job is.

Not even close.

UPDATE: Added direct YouTube links to quotes.

Posted in Civil Liberties, OH-15 | No Comments »

Sen. Brown (D-OH): “I’m certainly not a Constitutional expert”

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

The other night I listened to Senator Sherrod Brown’s “E-Town Hall on Health Insurance Reform”.

Sen. Brown didn’t answer any of the 7 questions I submitted he took a question from “Mike” who asked “Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government permission to be involved in healthcare, please cite article and section.”

I – I could do that. I’m not a lawyer – and I’m certainly not a Constitutional expert – but I’ve talked to people about this. Uh, the same part of the Constitution that allowed us to do social security and Medicare.

After a tap-dancing detour about how awesome it was that the government gave his family 640 acres through “land reform” (in other words, stealing it from Indians). He continues.

Article 1 Section 8 says ‘Yes you can do Social Security’, Article 1 Section 8 says ‘Yes you can pass Medicare’, and Article 1 Section 8 says ‘You can pass – um -  this healthcare bill’, so that’s the Constitutional cite that Mike asked for.

Actually Sen. Brown, Article 1 Section 8 (Powers of Congress) doesn’t say any of those things.  Here it is for future reference:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

As you can see, Article 1 Section 8 talks about all of the powers of Congress, so it’s hard to say which specific section Sen. Brown had in mind.  But let’s take a moment for a history lesson from the Social Security Administration website. Here’s an excerpt from the section entitled “A President Tries to Pack a Court”:

In the spring of 1935 Justice Roberts joined with the conservatives to invalidate the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act. In January 1936 a passionately split Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional. In another case from 1936 the Court ruled New York state’s minimum wage law unconstitutional. The upshot was that major social and political reforms, including social insurance programs, appeared headed for defeat.

It wasn’t looking good for Social Security, so President Roosevelt (FDR) decided to dilute the supreme court with his own appointments:

President Roosevelt’s response to all of this was stunning and unexpected. On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.

Fdrcart2[1]The average age of Supreme Court Justices at the time was over 71. This would have allowed him to appoint 6 new supreme court justices to tip the political balance of the court in his favor.

the Court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt."

Sen. Brown seems to be citing court rulings that were only made because of presidential threats to completely undermine the separation of powers and the Constitution itself – and that’s according to the Social Security Administration. Is this really his best Constitutional argument for the present healthcare proposals – that because the system has been abused in the past, and nobody has had the courage to fix it – it’s ok to keep abusing the system?!?

I suppose when you’re Democratic senator from Ohio, Constitutional and historical ignorance is bliss.

UPDATE: I added direct YouTube links to the quotes.

Posted in Civil Liberties, OH-15 | No Comments »

“Death Proof” Quote

Monday, July 27th, 2009

Finally got around to seeing the film “Death Proof” by Quentin Tarantino this evening.  Great piece of work with great atmosphere.  I think it also has one of my favorite in-movie conversations.  It goes something like this:

Lee: You carry a gun?
Kim: Uh-Huh.
Lee: Do you have a license to carry it?
Kim: Yeah, when I became a secret service agent, they gave me a license.
Lee: Oh, I didn’t know you were… Ok. I didn’t say it. Stop looking at me. I didn’t say it. God! Did you know Kim carried a gun?
Abernathy: Yes. Yeah. Do I approve? No. Do I know? Yes.
Kim: I don’t know what futuristic utopia you live in, but in the world I live in, a bitch need a gun.
Abernathy: You can’t get around the fact that people who carry guns, tend to get shot more than people who don’t.
Kim: And you can’t get around the fact that if I go down to the laundry room in my building at midnight enough times, I might get my ass raped!
Lee: Don’t do your laundry at midnight.
Kim: Fuck that! I wanna do my laundry whenever the fuck I want to do my laundry.
Abernathy: There are other things you can carry other then a gun. Pepper spray.
Kim: Uh, muthafucka tryin to rape me, I don’t want to give him a skin rash. I wanna shot that nigga down!
Abernathy: How about a knife at least.
Kim: Yeah, you know what happens to muthafuckas who carry knives. They get shot! Look, if I ever become a famous actress, I won’t carry a gun. I’ll hire me a dude dirt nigga and he’ll carry the gun, and when shit goes down, I’ll sit back and laugh, but until that day, it’s wild west muthafucka!

For a while now I’ve wondered why I don’t see more movies that feature characters who carry a concealed firearm for personal protection in everyday life.

Most movies feature people who have guns as part of their career, or “arm up” just to deal with a situation.  And too many feature heroes who knock out an armed bad-guy, only to leave the gun laying on the ground.

Considering that 39 states are “shall issue”, you’d think it’d become more common in movies and TV shows.  Unfortunately, most of these shows are filmed in “may issue” or “no issue” population centers that are behind the times when it comes to recognizing the liberties of their citizens.

Interestingly, though the “Kim” character doesn’t carry legally, it would have been possible in Kentucky, the setting for her part of the movie.  I also like how the dialog describe the way wealthy or famous anti-gunners deal with the situation – they hire armed security.

For those of us unable to afford private armed security, concealed carry of a firearm is a reasonable option – because a police officer is too heavy.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms, Quotes | No Comments »

Stupid to throw around “Socialist!”?

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Today Jill Miller Zimon ranted about “throwing around” the terms “Socialist!” and
“Communist!”. Her reasoning seemed to be that Bush also advances socialist policies, therefore it’s “stupid” to call a spade a spade.

Since Jill included a definition of “stupid”, I was hoping she’d include a definition for socialism too so we can make a reasoned decision as to whether or not Bush/Obama are socialists.

Socialism
    • Economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all.

      SOURCE: Encarta Encyclopedia

Sounds just like the economic policies coming out of Washington lately.

Is it really “throwing around” a term when it appropriately describes a concept?  It’s clearly not stupid in this case.

I also wonder why Ms. Zimon seems to object to Obama’s clearly socialist policies being labeled as such.

The argument seems to be that since both Democrats and Republicans are advancing socialist agendas, maybe it’s a good idea if they agree to a truce.

If you step back and assess your own attitudes and behavior, only to find them repugnant – isn’t a better course of action reform rather than trying to marginalize uncomfortably accurate terms?

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Economics | 3 Comments »

Does America Want a Climate Action Mandate?

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Dennis Spisak and Progress Ohio want you to think that a clear majority of Americans want a “Climate Action Mandate”.  People actually said they want a mandate?!?  Well, not really.

According to a poll sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund (sponsor of the DDT genocide), Americans believe that we should address climate change now in a way that creates jobs and re-builds the economy.  It should be noted that mandates aren’t the only way to accomplish this – but progressives tend to favor the use of Government force to further their social goals.

Spisak asserts that survey results of 78% constitute “a majority of Americans”. We don’t yet have final voter turnout numbers, but it’s estimated that about 53% of the voting aged population turned out. Let’s do some math:

53% x 78% = 41% (not a majority)

51% / 53% = 96% of voters surveyed needed for a true majority

It’s not nearly as impressive, and an inconvenient truth for progressives who hang their hat on the notion of “majority rules” and “might makes right”.

Spisak suggests that “investing in clean energy will create millions of new jobs and rebuild the economy”.  It sure sounds nice to be able to make lemonade when life gives you lemons, but the idea that misfortune causes economic benefit (also known as “the parable of the broken window”) has already been soundly refuted.  That hasn’t stopped Progressives at all levels from touting it nearly 160 years later:  

Obama says he will "transform the challenge of global climate change into an opportunity to create 5 million new green jobs," which he likens to the economic activity triggered by the personal computer. This way of looking at climate change is a variation on the broken window fallacy, according to which the loss caused by a smashed window is offset by the employment it gives the glazier.

By the same logic, Obama should view war, crime, and hurricanes as opportunities to create jobs. All three generate economic activity, but we’d be better off if the resources spent on bombs, burglar alarms, and reconstruction were available for other purposes, instead of being used to inflict, prevent, or recover from losses.

Likewise, overhauling manufacturing, transportation, and power production to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide may or may not be justified, but it is properly viewed as a drag on the economy. We’d be better off if we didn’t have to worry about, and use resources to minimize, climate change.

SOURCE: Obama’s Job Fetish, Reason, 10/22/2008

That said, I’m concerned that Spisak seems to misunderstand the scope of the president’s authority to impose the mandates he favors.  A quick skim of Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution, I couldn’t find anything about a power to impose mandates on we the people.

In fact, Spisak’s view seems to conflict with Article I Section 1 of the Constitution that states:

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Moreover I couldn’t find any authorization under Article II Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to impose such mandates.

Dennis concludes with:

It’s clear that the public no longer buys the tired argument that economic progress and environmental protection are at odds with one another.

This may well be the case, and I hope that more people come to understand that pollution is a form of economic waste (inefficiency) that all people should work to reduce and eliminate.  I just don’t agree that mandates are the best way to affect change, or that the Executive or Legislative branches of the Federal Government are authorized to meddle in the issue.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Economics | No Comments »

Give? Take? What’s the Difference?

Monday, November 10th, 2008

The Houston Chronicle today has the headline U.S. gives $40 billion to save AIG, gets ownership stake – shouldn’t that read “U.S. takes $40 billion to save AIG, gets ownership stake”?

After all, the US can only “give” what it steals first.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,

Posted in Civil Liberties, Economics | No Comments »

"What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne,"

Saturday, November 8th, 2008

…but Barack Obama seems poised to give it a whirl.  Citing support for "common-sense" gun control, Change.gov, the official website of the office of the president-elect lists the following approach:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Presently, all purchases through a firearms dealer must be run through the National Instant Check System (NICS) after the applicant fills out Form 4473.  The record of the inquiry must be purged within 24-hours to prevent an illegal firearms registration scheme.  Considerable evidence exists that some law enforcement agencies are already keeping illegal lists of gun owners.  Repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment would ensure that the Federal government will have a shopping list of who owns what guns in the event that congress decides to confiscate all or some guns (more on that below).

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

This is code for requiring trigger lock and disassembly requirements that prevent property-owners from using their firearms for lawful self-defense.  By following NRA Safety Training guidelines for the safe use and storage of firearms for self-defense, firearms pose no danger to children – and ensures that criminals are unable to obtain loaded firearms.  Instead of expanding training efforts by showing gun owners more effective ways of defending themselves, unimaginative ill-informed bureaucrats will impose overly broad mandates that prevent legitimate and safe uses for firearms.

They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

“Closing the gun show loophole” is code for making it illegal for individuals to sell guns directly to each other with no middle-man.  This happens every day with no ill-effects.  It is already illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a “prohibited person” such as a criminal.  So where is the gain?  To stop illegal firearms sales – there is none.  Criminals will still steal firearms – and other criminals will still sell them to people who shouldn’t have them.  What it will do is drive all legitimate firearms sales through licensed dealers who will be required under the Tiahrt Amendment repeal mentioned above to catalog all firearms sold and provide that information to Federal authorities.

No firearm could ever be made childproof – nor could a car, a pair of scissors, or a steak knife.  Firearms are designed to be used by adults. The proposal to “childproof” firearms is a popular way of spinning an attempt outlaw of all firearms under the guise of “consumer product safety”. If you ban all firearms that are not childproof, and it’s impossible to make a tool that should only be used under adult supervision childproof, the effect is an outright ban.  Undoubtedly, police and military will be permitted to continue to use firearms that are not childproof – this legislation will only be applied to innocent individuals who have broken no laws and hurt nobody.

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

SOURCE: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

The fact of the matter is that most firearms used in street crime are relatively unremarkable handguns.  With the help of Hollywood, the anti-gun forces have led Americans to believe that military weapons are commonly used on our streets.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.  Weapons suitable for “foreign battlefields” area already tightly regulated, so this leaves every day firearms as the primary targets of confiscation – the last time these firearms were singled out based not on ballistic performance or lethality, but by appearance alone as if looks could kill.

Ultimately, we’re in for one hell of a ride.  Congress is likely to propose and pass sweeping legislation that will pave the way for a complete ban on technology that millions rely on to defend themselves and their families.  The biggest problem with what “works in Chicago” is that it doesn’t even work there.  Chicago, with it’s near total gun ban is delighted that it may manage to end the year with under 500 homicides.  In Miami, a city where defensive firearms ownership and use is legal and common, the city recently celebrated 40 days in a row without a homicide – the longest stretch in 52 years.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms | No Comments »

Campus Area Shooting After Man Stabs Officer

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008
Problem is widespread as evidenced by 7 violent attacks in 7 Days at The Ohio State University campus

Often when the issue of safety on campus arises – typically due to news of a violent attack on or near campus like this one, the media and educators assert that they are shocked because “campus is supposed to be a safe haven” from violence.  Organizations like The Brady Campaign capitalize on such nonsense with absurd campaigns like “The Pledge”.

Over at “Of Arms and the Law”, they make a good point that:

a person who is not deterred by the thought of life in prison is not likely to be deterred by the thought of breaking a promise

The problem is that violent individuals could care less about the wishes of civilized educated people to be left alone – it’s like lions hunting at watering holes on the African savannah – the criminals go where the soft targets are.

Federal law already prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from possessing a handgun, even for lawful self defense – and even if the individual has had police, military, or other training in the proper use of firearms for self defense.

Older students, faculty, and staff are also prohibited from carrying firearms to defend themselves by Ohio law. My wife is a student at Ohio State and also a firearms instructor certified in concealed handgun and defensive firearm use.  My brother is also a student and has undergone Ohio’s concealed handgun training – yet both are prohibited from defending their lives on campus, and as a practical matter, in the surrounding neighborhoods as they travel to and from class each day.

The story near the Franklin campus was only in the news because it involved injury to a police officer.  Let’s take a peek at violent crimes where my loved ones go to school over the last seven days (10/15/2008 through 10/21/2008). 

We see that in that short window of time there were six people robbed and one raped – all situations where defensive firearm use may be appropriate.

The corporate media in town tells me that these attacks “aren’t news” because “they happen all the time”. Could it be that the fact that gang attacks on college students continue to be news BECAUSE they continue to happen “all the time”?

The FIRST robbery (10/15/2008) happened near High St. at 10:01p where a group of black males assaulted the victim and stole his MP3 player and cash. This is not a situation where Mace, a loud whistle or personal alarm, or car keys are an effective defense. The safest way to end a violent robbery by a gang is to respond with a firearm.

The victim was white and lives in the campus neighborhood (the watering hole), the predators (three of whom were arrested) came from an area Southeast of Whitehall, Tamarack Circle area in Northeast Columbus, and the neighborhood Southeast of the I-670 and I-71 interchange.

How does a gang of four people from different parts of the city end up getting together for a night of robbery – and why did they pick campus?  They came to the university area because they knew that the statutorily defenseless residents of the area were less likely to fight back.

The SECOND robbery (10/17/2008) happened at 11:05p in the charming neighborhood at Iuka and Woodruff. in this case, two Caucasian males aged 20 and 78 respectively were carjacked from their Cadillac and their cell phone were stolen (along with an expensive textbook). A description of the assailant was omitted from the report.

The THIRD robbery (10/18/2008) occurred at 2:21a when an inebriated white female walking alone in a bad neighborhood was struck in the back of the head and had the contents of her purse stolen.  She was unable to provide a description of the suspects. One might wonder how armed students in the campus area could protect irresponsible people setting them selves up to be the ideal robbery target.  With concealed carry, the robbers won’t know who is armed and who is not – a sort of “Viceroy Effect”.

The FOURTH robbery (10/19/2008) took place at the CVS* near Lane and High just off campus at 7:14p.  My wife frequently stops there if she needs medicine on the way home.  I never enter a CVS store without my firearm, and this store is no exception.  If properly executed, most of the customers would probably not notice that a robbery was taking place – but if the robbery goes bad and the robber starts shooting, I’d rather be able to fight back than serve as somebody’s meat-shield.

The FIFTH robbery (10/19/2008) at 2:30a near the intersection of Oakland and Adams.  Three suspects approached a white 19 year old male (prohibited by law from possessing a firearm), put a gun to his head, and demanded his phone, wallet, and baseball cap.  The robbery started when the three asked the individual about the final score of the OSU game.

In candid discussions with me, OSU and Columbus police have been unsympathetic to students walking in the neighborhood.  When I was robbed at a COTA bus stop returning home from class one day they questioned why I was in the neighborhood at all and insinuated that I was there to buy drugs or for some other nefarious purpose. While licensed to carry, I the law left me to defend myself with a can of pepper spray. While no property was stolen, my medical bills were in excess of $700.

OSU recommends “walking in groups” and “carrying valuables with you” to avoid robberies and prevent thefts from cars and dorm rooms. Unfortunately, my firearm is the most valuable thing some students carry to campus and and state law requires that the life-saving tool be left in the car or at home.

The public needs to get serious about Concealed Carry on Campus and stop handwringing any time an attack like the one last night destroys their naive view of the world.

UPDATE: According to Columbus police, drug store robberies are up more than 400 percent over a year ago, totaling 56 in 2008 compared to 16 in 2007 and only nine in 2003.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms | 1 Comment »

Ohio’s 15th Congressional District Candidates and The Law

Saturday, October 18th, 2008

It dawned on me today that I hadn’t checked the criminal records search for the candidates in the OH-15 Congressional race.  I’m sure the Republicans and Democrats vetted their candidates to ensure that there are no felonies or anything really embarrassing, but it never hurts to check – and sometimes you can gain insight into the candidates views on the nature of law.

After reviewing Franklin County court records; Stivers, Kilroy, and Eckhart all had traffic offenses. Noble had no traffic offenses.

The interesting thing is how the candidates dealt with their offenses.  Mary Jo Kilroy was caught speeding while not wearing a seatbelt. She paid $140.  Independent candidate Eckhart was fined $80 for an improper right turn – and he paid.

Steve Stivers on the other hand had several offenses.  Cited with a “Prohibited Turn”, the charge was amended to a “Mufflers/Smoke/Gas” offense with a $0 fine. 

A later “Stop Sign” violation was treated the same way. The charge was amended to a “Mufflers/Smoke/Gas” offense with a $0 fine.

A pair of “Traffic Control Device” violation charges were amended to “Horn/Siren/Alarm” and “Inadequate Brakes” violations – both with $0 fines.

Even when Stivers was caught driving 80mph in a 65mph zone, the charge was amended to – you guessed it – a “Mufflers/Smoke/Gas” violation and the $107 fine was reduced to $20.

Ohio’s 15th Congressional District Candidate Traffic Violation Summary:

Candidate Violations Fines Paid
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) 1 $120
Don Eckhart (I) 1 $80
Steve Stivers (R) 6 $20
Mark Noble (L) 0 N/A

Everybody makes mistakes – and when people do make mistakes, it’s best to take responsibility for them.  Some of the candidates seem to learn quickly from their mistakes – while others seem to make skirting the law an art form.

It’d be interesting to hear from Stivers and Kilroy about their opinions on speed limit laws – especially Federally mandated speed limit proposals.  In the case of Kilroy, does she support Federal mandates on seatbelt use?  And does Stivers support “red light cameras” that might enforce stop sign and “traffic control device” violations?

It’s estimated that there are over 4,000 Federal Crimes specified in the US Code alone – and you’re responsible for ensuring that you don’t violate any of them.

While it’s best not to break the law at all – the current Federal legal climate makes this impossible.  To address this problem we should elect libertarian candidates who will begin revising and consolidating the existing law and to bring it in line with the legislative constraints imposed by the US Constitution.

We need to be careful that we do not elect candidates with a view that it’s ok for people to be randomly subjected to punishment for arbitrarily enforced crimes.  We should also be wary of candidates who habitually skirt the law.

A candidates jurisprudence manifests itself in traffic law, but it gives us a hint of what’s in store when it’s time to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Posted in Civil Liberties, OH-15 | No Comments »

Christian Concerns with the Libertarian Party?

Monday, March 10th, 2008

A friend of mine pointed out a post on a political forum, and I thought I’d take the opportunity to clarify a few points that the original author seemed to overlook:

However, the core problem with libertarianism is that the philosophy refuses to acknowledge that our rights come God (like the Declaration of Independence states).

The philosophy of liberty (Flash animation) takes no position on God because that’s the role of a philosophy.  People make such acknowledgements – not philosophies.  It does make an effort to analyze why some acts of people are good, and others might be bad.  None of this seems to be in conflict with biblical teachings.

Arguing over the nature of our creator is a distraction from key facts that all people must recognize. 

We exist. 

We can make a personal choice to resist tyranny against our persons. 

If we are absolute in our insistence on liberty, it can only be taken by killing us.

Let’s look for a minute at what it takes to be a libertarian.  According to the Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO), you are a libertarian if you sign the following pledge:

‘I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.’

Based on what you have read in the Bible, what part of this pledge should any Christian take issue with?

Instead, it relies on the sovereignty of man and the false belief that liberty in and of itself is the answer to all our problems.

The philosophy of liberty makes no claim as to the origin of our rights – only the recognition that they exist in all people.  If anything, long term study of libertarian concepts leads one to the conclusion that when one person forces another to do something, the result is often suffering.

Abortion

The author goes on to offer his opinion on the issue of abortion:

The libertarians’ stubborn refusal to recognize unborn children as human beings with the same constitutional rights as everyone else still baffles me. If we were talking about three-year olds, this insane argumentation flies out the window in about ten seconds. The only differences between an unborn child and a toddler are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (easily remembered as the S.L.E.D. argument).

It’s important to remember that a libertarian should always defend self ownership and oppose the use of force against others.  This applies to fetuses too – and abortion deserves much discussion because the interests of the fetus and mother may conflict.

It is my personal view that the time a fetus spends in the womb is a gift from the mother – and that the gift of life should not be taken at any age.

This view does pose some problems.  Scientists are already able to generate stem cells from a variety of human tissues.  Someday scientists might be able to collect living cells from someone’s handkerchief, coax them into becoming an embryo, and perhaps being born as alive and human as you and me.

At that point will every skin cell we shed be considered an abortion?

I’m not sure if it’s a result of imagining a future where that sort of technology is available, but some people object to this sort of technology and seek to use government force to obstruct it.  Astonishingly, the free market (a natural force) clearly celebrates medical advances in sustaining premature babies out of the womb at earlier and earlier stages of development, as well as advances in fertility.

Something is going to have to give.

In the mean time I’d propose that if the people believe abortion to be murder, we should include it in state laws where the rest of the murder statutes are kept.  I would wonder though where people get the notion that it is the duty of man to punish men for their sins when Christian doctrine seems to place that responsibility firmly in the realm of God.

Marriage

On the topic of marriage the author said:

Human beings did not invent the institution of marriage and people have no authority to redefine the institution to suit their deviant nature.

The institution of marriage is clearly an establishment of religion.  Our Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it would seem that the author seeks to use the Federal government as an implement of force to impose his social views on others.  I don’t know about the author, but I object to government issued marriage licenses because it attempts to inject government control into a matter that is between me, my spouse, and God. 

It is my understanding that God is perfectly capable of handling such matters without help from the government at the insistence of authoritarian busybodies.

(Illegal?) Drugs

Next the author foists his puritanical views on drugs upon the reader:

Since when is drug use an inalienable right? Are we seriously advocating for cocaine to be made available at CVS? Should employers be forced to higher cocaine users? What about the dangers to children?

What is drug use?  Fundamentally, it is putting something in one’s own body.  A body that you own.  People put all manner of unhealthy things in their bodies.  Should that be prohibited?  Could that be prohibited?  It can’t be prohibited in maximum security prisons.

The author asks when drug use became a right.  I think that’s best answered in (2004 Libertarian presidential candidate) Michael Badnarik’s book “Good to be King” which explains the difference between a Privilege and a Right.

Unfortunately today, it is probably possible to buy cocaine illegally just outside many of the CVS locations or grocery store pharmacy’s in town.  The black market product is of unknown potency and purity – unlike the commercial products sold inside.  The drug alcohol, now sold at locations all over the city was once a black market commodity.  More serious than the health effects of drinking bathtub gin were the health effects of black-market turf-war justice. 

According to John Lott, 90% of gun crime happens in the 3% of counties with the largest drug problems.  He has also found that gun crime dropped by 60% upon the end of prohibition.  In view of these facts, I still encounter gun owners that are ardent proponents of the war on drugs that fuels the war on our gun liberties.  Maybe they’re on drugs?

Hopefully upon reading this far, the author will understand that libertarians oppose the use of government force to achieve social goals such as a drug-free society (of course, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are probably ok with him).  With this view, how could a libertarian stand by and allow the government to force employers to hire cocaine users?

As for the dangers of children, this is the responsibility of the parents and guardians of the children.  All manner of substances exist in our society that are dangerous to children, yet somehow we generally seem to get by.  I suspect this is because people (including children) are able to make rational comparisons between the relative dangers of say, allowing alcohol to fall into the hands of children as compared to allowing them to come in contact with high voltage wires.

Conclusion

In reviewing the authors claims, I’ve detected a pattern.  This pattern trends toward the government having a right as “a God-ordained institution” that may interfere in the lives of individuals “as a means of achieving political or social goals”.

Libertarians however believe that political goals should be achieved with compelling arguments and rational debate.  When it comes to social goals, we have faith that people will do what is right in accordance with their personal relationship with God and do not feel that God needs help from from government to beat down moral dissent.

The author closes with:

There are certainly huge deviations from what Ron Paul believes and advocates.

I’d have to argue that this is pure speculation.  Considering his very libertarian debate answer that sex in the military should be treated the same regardless of whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual seems like a fine example.  Ron Paul’s position on the War on Drugs would also seem to indicate a libertarian approach.

Maybe the author woke up this morning and decided Dr. Paul wasn’t his candidate after all but can’t bring himself to say it.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Economics, Firearms, Ron Paul, Technology | 1 Comment »

N.Y. governor reportedly in prostitution ring – Politics- msnbc.com

Monday, March 10th, 2008

It should be interesting to hear how this plays out.  Note the careful choice of words – he wasn’t caught in a “sting”, the media says he was part of a “ring”.

Federal prosecutors last week arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation, the Times reported.

A person with knowledge of the case told the Times that the governor is one of the men identified as clients in court papers.

N.Y. governor reportedly in prostitution ring – Politics- msnbc.com

When you’re involved in a ring, it means you’re a player getting the spoils.  So for example, to be involved in this prostitution “ring” he’d have to be either a pimp or a prostitute.

6. group of people operating dishonestly: an organized group of people who work together in a dishonest or unethical way
a gambling ring

ring (1) definition – encarta.com

When you’re involved in a sting, it means that you were a dope and didn’t think you would get caught, but that’s what happens.

7. crime police undercover operation: a complex undercover operation to catch criminals ( slang ) ( often used before a noun )

sting definition – encarta.com

I’d imagine that for political reasons he’s trying to cast it as involvement in a “ring” because there’s some confusion as to his role (was he working with them, or patronizing them).  Still, considering that the confusion leads people to believe that he had a larger role than being a “John”, I wonder how implying deeper involvement is a good thing.

That said, Vice Cops are America’s “church police”.  The government should not place restrictions on contracts between consenting adults.

Posted in Civil Liberties | No Comments »

A Look Ahead

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

Ohio has been seeing it’s share of presidential campaign ads on TV.  Mostly from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in my market.  I’ve found a few of the ads to contain troubling authoritarian messages.

Take for example Obama’s “Choices” ad with footage of him at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:

[applause] It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, that makes this country work.

No man is my keeper, thank you.

Clinton was even more direct in promoting her plans for our future with her “Fighter” ad narrated by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland who said:

I think she’s a person who has devoted her life to caring about other people­ making sure that America works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Sounds nice doesn’t it…  except when you remember that when Democrats talk about “making sure” of things, they mean using force against anyone who refuses to go with the program.  She’s going to ensure that Americans don’t work hard to fuel their own dreams and ambitions – but everyone’s.  What a noble cause – to prohibit such selfish behavior!

“Making sure that America works for everyone” is hinting at how Clinton’s policies would seek to redistribute wealth.  Then it pours on a class-warfare dig on “the privelaged few”.

People who devote their lives toward keeping others and robbing the privileged to fund everyone are authoritarians and socialists.

But don’t worry – we have McCain, right?  In April of 2007, Reason Magazine published Be Afraid of President McCain, The frightening mind of an authoritarian maverick.

Does he not understand that there are at least some people in American life who take liberty as seriously as McCain takes his notions of national duty? Judging by a comment he made recently on the Don Imus radio show, the answer seems to be no. Defending campaign finance reform, McCain said, “I would rather have a clean government than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government.”

When we have “lesser of two evils” like these, it makes sense to start seriously considering the other evils in the race.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Quotes | No Comments »

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

My brother sent me a link to The Consumerist which had some interesting articles on individuals being assertive about their liberties. 

I found one story to be especially interesting for a number of reasons such as the customer’s attitude toward an ignorant police force who needlessly harassed him, and the way the media portrayed this upstanding citizen when the ordeal was settled.

On the issue of the police, the customer seemed to take the position that his intent was to create firm legal precedent, but upon learning that they existed, he felt no need to litigate further.  Unfortunately, lawsuits are what should happen when the City infringes on civil liberties and violates such precedents. 

The point of a legal precedent is to provide others with an easier path to a legal victory in a lawsuit and to put aggressors on notice that they will lose, so it seems inconsistent that the customer here elected to back down.  At the very least he should have requested a settlement covering all court fees and his time and trouble for having to deal with the fiasco.

As glad as I was to see someone standing for their rights (in this case, the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches) in such a case, I was troubled by another aspect of the customer’s reasoning.  In his initial blog post he said:

I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today.

I understand that he didn’t say “I must” understand, but I don’t see how it’s any more reasonable to be required to show a permit to fish, drive, or carry a weapon.

Since I’m more familiar with firearms law in Ohio, I’ll use the “permit to carry a weapon” example in the quote.

Under Ohio law and the Ohio constitution, there is no requirement to obtain the permission of the state to purchase firearms.

Moreover, there is no law against walking around with a gun in a holster.

The reality is much the same as the shopper experienced.  The police are ignorant of the law, and creative about which other laws to apply as an excuse to arrest a person and “resolve the situation”.

In the case of one Ohio man, the nonviolent act of buying gas at a gas station with a gun in his holster evoked this response from police (YouTube video).

The result of this case was identical to the our brave customer – case dismissed.

So I suppose my question for the consumer is, considering that he seems to understand and respect his rights enumerated by the 4th Amendment, why does he “reluctantly understand” a non-existent requirement to show a permit to carry a weapon?

The state of Ohio does require a license to carry a firearm concealed at this time, but Alaska and Vermont do not.  Are citizens of those states somehow more trustworthy?

It should also be noted that according to a Feb, 2008 article in The Columbus Dispatch, an estimated 1 in 80 Ohioans are licensed to carry concealed firearms, and anyone else may carry a handgun in a holster unless otherwise prohibited by federal law (for reasons such as being a convicted criminal, being insane, or being under 21 – which is apparently right up there with insanity and criminality in the eyes of the Federal government).

Only two states prohibit carrying concealed firearms outright – Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Firearms | No Comments »

Dick on Hillary

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

A neighbor sent an email supposedly from Dick Morris with the following assertion about Hillary Clinton:Dick Morris

3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Hillary may “want to grant constitutional rights”. Unfortunately, she can’t – nor does the Constitution “grant” rights. If a person takes the time to read the Constitution it is clear that rights are inherent in all humans.

A good way to consider whether something is a right or a liberty (or as authoritarians call them “privileges”) is to evaluate the nature of the activity – is it inherent in all men, or is it something special that we must have permission to do.

For example, look at the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. The government cannot take your “right” to free speech away. No matter how much the government punishes you, you still have the ability to share your thoughts and ideas with others. The only way to ensure that they do not speak against a government is to have them killed.

This is also true of the 2nd Amendment – our right to keep and bear arms exists as long as our will to survive exists. The government may punish us for bearing arms – but even prisoners in jail devise weapons. The right to keep and bear arms can only be removed entirely by killing them.

Conversely, many leftists assert a “right to public education”. This is not a right because it is not inherent in the individual. There may well be a right to self educate oneself – but not to force others to subsidize your education or that of children.

Occasionally I hear of a “right to feel safe”. This one is completely made up. Feeling safe is a mental state that has no bearing on reality and the presence of natural or man-made dangers. While driving is statistically one of the most dangerous things we all do, many people “feel safe” doing it.

Feeling safe depends on the mindset of the individual. 

For an excellent discussion on rights vs. liberties (or privileges), please take a moment to read a chapter from a good book a friend of mine wrote:Good to be King by Michael Badnarik

Good to be King by Michael Badnarik – Chapter 2, Rights vs. Privileges

I couldn’t believe that Dick Morris could make such a blunder with that

statement, so I checked it out – it seems that he really did write the contents of the chain mail I received.

So I’d guess that he’s either ignorant of the nature of rights as explained above, or he’s aware, and with his quote above, is asserting that Hillary doesn’t want to kill enemy combatants because allowing them to live could be the only possible way she could “grant rights” to them.

I’m betting the former.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties | No Comments »

Collective Right?

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

I recently came across a Letter To the Editor (LTE) in the Toledo Blade, here it is:

2nd Amendment is about collective right

In The Blade’s Dec. 27 Readers’ Forum there was a letter headlined “Other amendments suffer in 1939 ruling.” The letter writer questioned if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a collective right, or an individual right. Obviously, if one were to read the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” then one would know that the Second Amendment is a collective right. “Militia” is a collective word (done by or belonging to all the members of a group), which explains who the people in this amendment are.

The National Rifle Association’s deliberate omission of the militia language is nothing more than a constitutional illusion created by mass advertising to further a commercial and monetary goal.

It is this deliberate omission that confuses some people about the meaning of the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting, or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias.

Besides the 1939 Supreme Court case, United States vs. Miller, there have been 35 Supreme Court cases and numerous federal court cases that quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. Out of all of these cases, the courts that have stated a firm position have said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute or individual right.

And for those who are wondering, I own numerous guns.

Don Kosmider

Monclova

SOURCE: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/OPINION03/801170324

Don’s letter contains key factual errors.  For one, he asserts that “‘Militia’ is a collective word”.  To me it seems as if he is arguing that Militia is not only a term for a group of individuals, but also an exclusive group.  Let’s see how the law defines militia:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

It is mildly exclusive.  People under age 17 aren’t in the militia.  And people over 45 years old aren’t in the militia.  Presumably because it’s assumed that people outside of these age ranges are not generally suitable for military service.  It also excludes women, though women have proven themselves in combat and military service.  Aside from those constraints, all males at least are in the militia and have the right to keep and bear arms.  The LTE author seems to have a smaller subset of people, perhaps National Guardsmen in mind.

The author also brings up United States vs. Miller to assert that “the courts that have stated a firm position have said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute or individual right.”

A common myth is that the Miller ruling laid the groundwork for legislators to impose restrictions on gun ownership based on any characteristic they found expedient. 

The fact is that in the Miller case, the court found that the defendants did not have a right to own arms that were not suitable for military use as part of their participation in the militia.

The gun in question was a sawed-off shotgun.  Interestingly, if the court had known at the time that sawed-off shotguns are occasionally employed by the military, the ruling might have been different and saved us a lot of Constitutional heartache.

If anything, the Miller decision set a precedent that all firearms owned must be suitable for national defense – for modern military use.  It’s interesting that the anti-gun elements in our society have used Miller as an excuse to specifically ban “military style weapons” as was the case under the Clinton Gun Ban.

The LTE author asserted “There is nothing in the language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting, or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias.”

The fact is that there is nothing in the language of the 2nd Amendment remotely suggesting restrictions on firearms use – aside from the statement that they should be suitable for militia use.  As such, the military style weapons we own may be used for all lawful purposes.

It should also be noted that Mr. Kosmider ignored the fact that the Constitution only enumerates individual rights.  He didn’t address why he feels that while the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, when writing 2nd Amendment, the framers suddenly became interested in defending “collective rights” of states for example.  His support of this position would be especially interesting to me considering that only individuals have rights.

Posted in Civil Liberties | No Comments »

Bush Administration "Pretending" to be Anti-Gun?

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was due to sunset, Bush explained that he was in favor of the ban and that if the Congress passed a renewal of the bill, he would sign it.

I asked my pro-Gun Republican friends what they thought about that, and the consensus was that – for political reasons – Bush had to “pretend” to support the ban when in fact he did not.  Of course that was the most naive view, Bush apologists had all sorts of excuses at the time.

Of course, it could have been that he genuinely was in favor of the ban because he sees the 2nd Amendment protections as problematic in a Constitution that he described as “a goddamned piece of paper“.

Now the Bush Justice Department has filed a brief supporting Washington DC’s unconstitutional gun ban.

Let’s see what the Bush apologists have to say for themselves now.

The favorite candidate of  pro-Constitution gun groups such as the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is clear.  They favor Ron Paul because his message of liberty and protection of Constitutional freedoms is consistent and strong.

Aside from Congressman Paul, most of the Democrat and GOP field seems to think that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with hunting.  When they view guns as overkill for sporting purposes, they seem to fall in line with Jim Zumbo on the issue.  Let’s hope that like Zumbo, they experience an intervention that gives them some time to think about the ramifications of their unconstitutional positions before, like Bush, they are swept into office for fear of the leftist in the race.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Civil Liberties, Ron Paul | No Comments »

Back Doors?

Wednesday, January 16th, 2008

Of course we can’t eliminate the possibility of an elaborate government disinformation plot, but stories like this seem to indicate that encrypted data security is alive and well.  Here’s the meat:

For more than a year, the government has been unable to view drive Z.

A government computer forensics expert testified that it is “nearly impossible” to access the files without the password, the judge wrote. “There are no ‘back doors’ or secret entrances to access the files,” he wrote. “The only way to get access without the password is to use an automated system which repeatedly guesses passwords. According to the government, the process to unlock drive Z could take years . . . “

I’ve been an advocate of encrypting as much personal Internet traffic as possible since I learned about the technologies over a decade ago.  The defendant in this case used PGP, it has strengths (such as the ability to encrypt different types of content) but for most people I feel that S/MIME is a better tool for encryption of email because it is so transparent to the end user, more easy to use, and already installed on most computers.

People ask me “how secure is this?” and my answer has always been to explain that no encryption is unbreakable – it just takes time.  When you use the strong RSA encryption used by PGP and S/MIME, you buy a lot of time – in this case, over a year.  I generally tell them to consider the level of secrecy of their information compared to the level of sophistication of the prying eyes.

I started using encryption because I didn’t want my IT colleges to casually read my emails (which are sometimes stored as simple text files on the email server).  Email is like a postcard – anyone, at any time, with access to a postcard can read the entire contents – even potentially change the meaning of the message.  So employing encryption prevents tampering and eavesdropping.

So is some hacker or IT person going to waste a year decrypting some inane email to your mother?  They might, but if they did they might think twice about whether or not it was worth it to encrypt other emails.  On the other hand, the governments of the western world might be able to team up and crack a file containing plans for a terrorist attack in minutes or hours, but judging by this case, they’re not willing to leverage that sort of potential for a kiddie porn case. 

The net result is that reasonably good people using strong encryption probably face zero risk of a brute force attack on their data – and since it’s fairly easy to set up and use, why not take advantage of such wonderful odds?  If the court upholds the ruling that a person can’t be compelled to hand over the password, the argument in favor of routine encryption of personal data becomes even stronger. 

EPIC had this to say:

“The consequence of this decision being upheld is that the government would have to find other methods to get this information,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “But that’s as it should be. That’s what the Fifth Amendment is intended to protect.”

Of course, the enemies of liberty fret that drug dealers and pedophiles will use the technologies to avoid prosecution:

Mark D. Rasch, a privacy and technology expert with FTI Consulting and a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was “dangerous” for law enforcement. “If it stands, it means that if you encrypt your documents, the government cannot force you to decrypt them,” he said. “So you’re going to see drug dealers and pedophiles encrypting their documents, secure in the knowledge that the police can’t get at them.”

Yet again a government shill laments the restriction of government application of force to intrude on personal liberties.  He uses the extreme cases, focuses on the negative, and fails to mention the benefits of widespread encryption and civil liberties benefits to the law abiding.

Bear in mind that encrypted emails and other items that are accessible with two keys are risky because either sender or recipient could expose the contents to prying eyes – or even forward it along unencrypted.

For those interested in taking advantage of encryption, here are a few resources:

S/MIME Secure Email Tutorial
Secure Instant Messaging with Skype
Encrypting Data in Windows XP Professional

Posted in Civil Liberties, Technology | No Comments »

Free Speech Zone

Thursday, August 16th, 2007

Today I was out volunteering my time canvassing for a presidential candidate.  I was delivering fliers to people on a list of reliable party voters in my neighborhood and it had been relatively uneventful aside from the occasional “Good afternoon” exchanged with passing neighbors out for walks. 

As I was climbing the mile-long hill out of the Olentangy river valley, I noticed a house with a POD and a bunch of furniture out in front.  A woman in a car pulled up and got out, then upon noticing the furniture started screaming at a man who seemed to be doing some kind of work in the garage.  She went from 0-60 in no time flat.  One moment she was casually stepping out of her car, the next she was engaged in a full-on tirade.  I assume it was her house (the county auditor lists it as belonging to a Julia Sycks-Alldredge). 

About 3 houses up the hill and across the street, I had an address on my list, so I laid down my bike near the street, walked up to the door, and unobtrusively placed the flier under the doormat with a few inches sticking out so it couldn’t blow away but it’d be noticed. 

I was out of water and it was a hot day, and I only had 8 houses to go when I noticed the woman from down the street yelling something in my direction.  She seemed to be demanding to know what I put on her neighbors porch.

I picked up my bike and crossed the street and thought, you know, it’s really none of her business.  She’s not on my list, and as far as I know, it’s not her house (according to the County Auditor, the houses do not belong to the same person so it seems my first guess was correct).  She didn’t seem to be in a good mood so I figured I’d offer her one as well and I said “It’s a political campaign flier, would you like one?”

She immediately responded that she did not want one and that the neighbor did not want one either.  Then she said that the neighbor was handicapped and could not pick things up.  I pondered this for a moment.  Maybe she was telling the truth, but I saw no evidence of this.  Furthermore, I know many elderly people who cannot pick things up – and their neighbors often help them in this task.  At any rate, all I knew is that this woman several houses away was *ordering* me to go pick it up, and I didn’t know her from Eve.

I asked the woman if the house was hers.  She didn’t really answer, but becoming increasingly irate, she stormed up the street to the front porch of the house and said “Fine!  If you won’t pick it up – I’m calling THE POLICE!!!”.  Then she explained that I was really in for it because she “works for the police department”.  My response was that in that case she should be aware that it is illegal to file a false police report.

She angrily asserted to the police dispatcher that I had placed an item on *her* porch and that when asked, I had not removed it.  Indeed, if this were the case, I would sympathize.  In fact, even if she would have lied and said she owned both houses, then I would have probably retrieved it and apologized for the misunderstanding.

She demanded my name and I said “I’ll gladly give it to the police when they arrive.” to which she replied that I had really done it now because the police were on their way.

Knowing the police in my city, it could have been a half-hour or more before they arrived – and they could have never bothered to show up.  Furthermore, the woman could have been lying about calling the police at all.  With that in mind, I decided to finish up the street at a leisurely pace just in case the police really did want to infringe on my civil liberties on her behalf.

I easily dropped off fliers at the next 8 houses, then began a leisurely ride back to my house.  Suddenly a police car (31-R) pulled up beside me and the officer asked if I could stop to talk for a minute.

He said “Hey buddy, why am I getting calls about you putting stuff on peoples porches and not taking it off?”

I explained that I was canvassing for a presidential candidate based on a list of registered voters with that party and had been for days in the neighborhood without incident.  Then I told him of witnessing the woman unleash a tirade on someone at her own house before turning her authoritarian rage my way.  I explained that when ordered to remove the flier I asked her if she owned the house and she did not indicate that she was the owner, and that considering that fact I owed her no more credence than the many neighborhood dogs that had barked at me earlier in my day, I did not comply.

I explained that if the woman opted to make an issue of it, I’d be happy to push back for her filing a false report to the police and, considering she said that she worked for the police department, impersonating police.  The officer smiled and said “It’d be hard for me to believe that she has anything to do with the police department”.

The officer explained that I had to remove materials if people asked me to, and I clarified that I had to remove them if the property owner asked me to.  This woman did not indicate that she was the property owner – and every other indication was that she was 16B (the Columbus police code for a crazy person).

The officer then smiled and said “Heh, she probably is.  You didn’t break any laws, and I won’t be filing a report, just remember that if people ask you to remove stuff to do so if it’s their property.”  I said I’d continue to do that, then he said he was glad to see people out exercising their rights to free speech and becoming involved in our nation’s political process.

I explained that he could expect to see me canvassing in the neighborhood in the future and he smiled, nodded and drove off.

Who knows what the woman’s problem is.  Clearly she was having a bad day.  But that’s no reason to harass people walking down the street and waste the time of the police when they could be dealing with crimes.

Posted in Civil Liberties | No Comments »