Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Right to Privacy and the Law

7:44 PM by Hegrins · 0 comments
As everyone who reads this knows I'm a big advocate for the right to privacy. I had to write about this because I thought it very interesting that a 2002 Law and Order episode spoke about the right to privacy and it even cost the police a conviction with maximum sentencing.

Facts of the show
  1. Shrink is killed
  2. Killer is a convicted felon forced into therapy.
  3. Right to privacy was violated when the police cracked shrinks PW to access patient records wich were used to coerce a confession. (the reason they cracked the file was because the date modified was the day after the murder. They knew who the person's file was, but wanted to find out what it was before it was changed and what it was changed to.)
Now the emotional person would say, hey they have that right to search since she was murdered, but I say no they didn't. These are the grey lines that are missed out on when right to privacy is voilated and condoned. The law protects you the person and the police can gather sufficient evidence through proper channels or other means that are lawful. Here's the problem though, a politician trying to get elected takes up the case for his political platform. Now he tells everyone we need to give the police more rights to search because this man didn't get a maximum sentence because of a road block. We as emotional citizens would then allow this law to be passed and then the police can use this law as another tool to catch criminols. The thing is that can be used in so many instances that it would seem to be abused, weather intentionally or unintentionally, but it doesn't matter it's abused.

Now the other part of the story. During the last of the investigation they find that the killer was able to attain information about the victim from a company that compiles research on people upon request. The government decided to investigate the company. The end result was the the company gave a convicted felon personal information on people. The company ended up being taken down by the government.

Ok, so, if we would have allowed the police to have access to client information without a search warrent and condoned their actions because he was a top suspect after seeing the file was modified of a specific file justice would not have been served. You might say, no, they cought the killer, but justice was not totally served without the company that was providing personal information. The killer will spend many years in prison, but creepers could have potentially had access to personal information indefinately or until they were brought before the law.

The police have all the tools they need. Other than new technology the greatest asset to the police is the local citizens. If the police are constantly violating our inalienable rights provided to us by our creator (weather you believe in God or not). We need to think really hard if we want to give up our rights when they really don't need to be. By giving up our rights we actually can create strife between those who are supposed to protect us and those who are supposed to be protected. Once we give up even just a small portion of our rights we will never receive that freedom back and it's just a slippery slope from there on out. Just think before you act and don't use emotion to help guide a decision because it will most likely put you down the wrong road which there may be no return on.

Gun Control

11:30 AM by Hegrins · 1 comments
My personal opinion, the government doesn't have the right to tell you that you can or can't cary a gun. I believe the most legislation they should be allowed to legistlate within reason is types of guns allowed to be sold. I say types of guns in hopes that you realize that a .357 is more lethal than a .22 type of regulation. Unfortunately if the government decided to outlaw .357's they would eventually outlaw .22's also because it's just another slippery slope as usual. My father sent me an email of a news article that published a US Marine's Ret. letter. I think this makes a valid point.

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret).



Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. C Caudill USMC (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Civil right to privacy

9:17 PM by Hegrins · 0 comments
About 3 weeks ago the police showed up at my door. To give you a little back story on the issue, here I go. The day before my wife and I showed up and gave our 30 day notice to break our lease early and made a whole bunch of complaints against management and maintenance. The very next day while the staff are putting up flyers they called the police stating that a man and woman were fighting and a baby was screaming (pretty much I was beating my wife and kid). The police showed up at my door and I answered their questions. I made a big mistake by letting them in my hosue because they then started searching my home. I made a complaint to their supervisor and was told the they didn't need a warrent to search my home which is a complete violation of my fourth amendment right to privacy. To make thing worse I talked to some police down by the waterfront during one of parades. I was told if I didn't like the law that I could go somewhere else. How can someone who's sallery I pay and who is a public servent, I stress servent, tell me if I don't like it go somewhere else. I was and am sticking up for my rights given to me by the Constitution of the United States of America. I then wrote Glenn Beck, the ACLU, my state legislature, and now Sen. Merkley and Sen. Wyden. Posted below is my email to both Senators.

Dear Sen. Merkley,




I have recently requested help from the ACLU regarding my most recent confrontation with the Beaverton Police. Here's the basics. The police showed up for a domestic violence call that was made by my complex managers. When the police showed up I answered their questions as they asked them. They told me they received a call that a man and woman were fighting and a baby was screaming. The call took them around 20 minutes to show up to my front door. I explained to them that my wife had left for work 4 hours prior to the call being reported.



Facts they were provided with:



they were able to see in my window and saw me feeding my child as they came up to my door.



Explained my wife was at work.



Opened door to invite them in (not to search)



Once the police officers entered my home they immediately began a search of my home opening doors, windows, and closets. The police failed to do their job and violated my right to privacy. I



If the police were doing their job correctly they would have done a proper investigation instead of going from a to z without hitting b c and so on. If they would have tried to contact my wife or asked where she worked they could have verified my story. Instead of doing their due dillegence they decided to leap without any real facts to back up their claim. Another thing they failed to do was get my permission to search my home, I would have given permission, but instead I was treated as guilty until proven innocent. The worst thing they did was allienate yet another citizen. Considering their success in their job requires contacts and cooperation with the public, the more they alienate the worse it makes it for both parties.



I decided to make a complaint to their supervisor. When I was able to talk to the supervisor he told me he was the one who sent the officers up to my door. He told me he spent several minutes outside my door listening to see if somethin was wrong. Why would he wait outside my door around the corner listening if there was a true danger, seems to me he had reasonable doubt there was anything going on. I was also told that the police have the right to search my home without permission due to community care taking act and protective state.



Sen. Merkley, I think you and the police forget, I pay your sallery. If it wasn't for me and my wife going to work and paying our taxes, you would have to print more money that you have no collateral for. As a citizen who pays for the police to uphold my rights given to me by the constitution, I don't feel like I'm getting my monies worth. I originally was upset with the police especially when I told them they were violating my rights and was told if I didn't like it move somewhere else, but then I had to look at cause and effect. You politicians seem to slightly chip away at our rights until they are no longer valid. We pay you to keep our rights and protect them, not take them away and turn us into a police state.



You need to make this right by educating the police on when and where they can perform searches, how to treat the public (since they get our paychecks from us), and that their primary responsibility is to protect and defend the constitution.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Cap and Trade

10:46 PM by Hegrins · 0 comments
Ok, enuf is enuf. Uncle SAM has overstepped its boundries. If you do no know what cap and trade is let me explain to you what I know. This is being targeted at busnesses and private residences (apartments and homes).

"A specific type of emissions trading system where total emissions are limited or 'capped'. Permits are allocated or auctioned up to the set cap, and a market allows those participants emitting less than their quota to sell their excess permits to emitters needing to buy extra to meet their cap.


fsd.monash.edu.au/environmental-sustainability/climate-change-glossary-key-terms"
 
Ok, words are pretty, but what does this really mean. We are going to be taxed based upon our emissions. Now if you have money and you go over your emissions you can purchase credits. If you don't have money and you go over your emissions well, you may be penelized or even better, the government has access to a device to shut off outlets. I am going to post some quotes from glennbeck.com from an interview. I will post the whole atricle link afterwards.
 
"CHAFFETZ: It's called the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack Transparency Act of 2010 and what it would allow us to do is issue FOIA, the freedom of information requests that the public can ask for, members of Congress, anybody can ask for to get the documents that are within Fannie and Freddie. Amazingly enough, they don't believe that they're subject to the questions -- even as a member of Congress, I'm on oversight government reform, I'm a ranking member and they won't answer my questions. So, we're going to have to change the law.




GLENN: And why do they say that?



CHAFFETZ: Well, I love this quote from this letter. You know, they're subject now to the Federal Housing Finance Agency and their general counsel, this Alfred Pollard, sent me a letter --



GLENN: And he's currently with whom?



CHAFFETZ: He is the general counsel for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.



GLENN: Go ahead.



CHAFFETZ: All right. So, he sends me a letter and I'm asking for information specifically about Franklin Raines and what they are doing with -- what in the world they were doing getting passed for cap and trade issues, but he said by his determination it, quote, would be costly, burdensome and potentially unproductive, end quote. So, he's decided unilaterally that even though I'm requesting it as a member of Congress, he is not going to provide me any documents.



GLENN: Costly and unproductive?



CHAFFETZ: And burdensome.



GLENN: And burdensome. Well, I hate to burden them. They're already burdened enough with $1 trillion worth of debt. Jason, what have you find out on the outlet lock that they have the patent on?



CHAFFETZ: Well, they say in this letter that, oh, this is just a guy on staff and they were using it to try to make sure that it doesn't, you know -- it doesn't allow surges on computers. Well, bologna. I went, they went so far to get all their attorneys engaged and they went and got these patents and what it does is it allows you to take an individual unit, you can go up to the actual outlet and it says it's for home. It doesn't say it's for business.



CHAFFETZ: And they go into their home and they can actually turn off your energy so you -- literally it locks down your energy in your home and the concern that some of us have is that if they're pursuing cap and trade, this would allow them to also go and say, do you know what, you've used to much energy this month, you're not going to be able to access the very outlet that's in your home.



GLENN: .... if you look at all of the facts, cap and trade is done by all of the usual suspects through the carbon climate exchange. What they're doing is they're trying to sell communities and people this new technology, for instance, ..... So, they go into your house, they put the technology of the solar panels in, they change your outlets, et cetera, et cetera. That's one piece of the technology they own the patent on. The second piece is the way to measure the carbon that you are burning in your home. Then they come at the end of the month and they say, okay, great. Energy cost is this. You know, you would have paid -- you would have paid this without this technology. So, pay us 10% of the difference. That's how they get paid, but if you don't pay, if you -- if something happens or if you use too much energy, this outlet can only be opened with a special tool that only they have the patent to. So, if they lock down your outlets, how do you get electricity?



CHAFFETZ: I love what they say. This is what Alfred Pollard wrote to me just on June 7th. He said, quote, the device prevent unauthorized or unqualified personnel from connecting equipment to outlets such as vacuum cleaners or heaters which may cause circuit overload, tripped circuit breakers and result in the loss of alteration of data residing on the computer systems powered by the same electrical network.



GLENN: Excuse me. When did we have a -- when did we have an outbreak -- why is Fannie Mae or Freddie Mack, why are they all of a sudden concerned about my circuit breakers in my home if my wife plugs in the vacuum?



CHAFFETZ: Well, she may be unqualified or unauthorized. You know --



CHAFFETZ: We smile and we laugh but at the same time, I take this very seriously because you have one of these very large organizations going out and getting a patent for this. What in the world were they thinking about whether they went and did this?



CHAFFETZ: Well, we have to get this bill passed, because the American people, the media, you know, members of Congress, we have to be able to look at the records in Fannie and Freddie. They're in conservatorship as of September 2008. We're on the lines of nearly a trillion dollars. We deserve to be able to look through their records and their correspondence.



GLENN: Real quick, do people need to do anything? Do they need to call or is this going to pass or what?



CHAFFETZ: Well, yeah. We're going to need to get them fired up. You can go to jasoninthehouse.com. I'll have information up there. We've got it out on americaspeakingout.com and we'll get a bill number and get it introduced. I'm thankful to ranking member Lamar Smith out of Texas, ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Darrell Issa. We're going to keep going"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/41895/


Ok, so if you look up what the original design of cap and trade is, you will see that this is designed for businesses. Now it's being expanded to everyone and not just businesses. This patent, that Fannie and Freddie have so conveniently put back out into the open market for everyone to have, is designed as a household electrical cap, not for businesses. Explain this to me, Dictator Obama, why are you taking food out of my kids mouth and clothes off of our back?

I recently talked to an accountant for an energy company and asked him how this would affect me and my family. I was told that my electric bill would double. I already pay $130 a month for electricity. I don't think I could handle double that. Another thing is one of my classmates works in a wharehouse. He has told me that if cap and trade is passed that he would lose his job because his company couldn't handle the increased cost. I know we're in a recession here in the US. Why would we want to start putting more businesses out of business since we're relying on them to put America back to work?

One last rant. If we're looking for better forms of energy why would we cut our leg off to save our arm? The goverment has made sure to squash anything that would take us off of fossil fuels. Start pursuing technology instead of taxing us so you can have another blank check to force upon us your agenda of big givernment. Overall the less we have the more we have to rely on the government. The more we rely on the government the more control over us we have. That is Communism. The government has made sure to tell you what you can and can't do such as smoking in order to get any type of governement help that they end up forcing you on. As my grandfather used to say, "If I give you a dollar, I own you until you pay me back."

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Free energy

9:08 PM by Hegrins · 0 comments
Since Ford decided to go with oil based combustion engine, the world’s oil reserves have had a timer set on them. We use oil for a lot of things such as plastic, gasoline, power plants, and many other resources. As our technology improves and we depend more and more on our power grid, the world’s oil reserves are a major concern to the consumer weather they would like to admit it or not. The world’s oil reserves are estimated to be empty or at least at catastrophe level within the next 40 years (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html). Some estimates state that the world will be out of oil by 2026. No one knows for sure when the oil will run out, but there is one fact that oil will eventually run out. The Government has already made a decision on the next fuel source we will use, natural gas, but how long will that run. Also, with the world becoming more dependent on fuel for electricity and cars, we are eventually going to be passing on the same problem that we are currently in to our great grand children. Another thing that has to be looked at is what types of harm are we doing to ourselves, the planet, and the environment when we start drilling for alternative fuels. Scientists are now starting to link earth quakes to our careless drilling for oil (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791704575114033928306688.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews) or other natural resources.




Now that we know the problem, what’s the solution? Zero Point Energy is the solution. Zero point energy uses magnetic fields that the earth naturally generates electricity. There is currently research being done on this alternative source of energy (http://www.kewego.it/video/iLyROoafM3UN.html). This technology has been harnessed in smaller forms to be able to allow your whole house to have electricity with a generator that is about the size of a tomato box. The reason you haven’t heard about it is because of the energy companies and the Federal Government suppressing this technology (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf (start at pg. 44 and read section 181-188). The energy sector of our economy is so big that those who are in power believe this poses an economic security risk (http://www.rense.com/general72/oinvent.htm and http://www.dailypaul.com/node/122315 ). The energy sector of the economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States) is one of the largest sectors in our economy.



What can you do?



1. Write your state representative or senator expressing your concern with our energy problem and ask them to encourage forms of energy that will not use any of earth’s non renewable resources. (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml) (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)

2. Tell your friends, neighbors, and co workers about what you have heard and learned today so that they might do the same.

3. Continue your research on the subject and help move along a better, healthier, and long lasting form of energy that we can use well into the future instead of passing the problem down from generation to generation.

Let's begin

6:26 PM by Hegrins · 0 comments
Hi,

I am an angry American. When I watch the news it gets very depressing. I start to think about what we are as a country and what we should be. Currently our political system is a bunch of liars and bigots who tell us what we want to hear so they can get elected. We elect them, then they rob us blind to give it to someone else. Not only that, they are power hungry, we are evolving into a police state. I think if you asked any American they would say I hate it when people outside my normal life start telling me how to live, but yet we give up our freedoms because we still nievely believe our politicians.

Now that I have complained, lets get to a solution. I will take a little time every so often and post what I think should be the solutions to our problems as a country. Feel free to respond, just one rule, be mature about how you respond.

1. Problem: Those that have families don't get to spend much time with them. Why don't they get to spend time with them? It's because we rely on a piece of paper that has a drawing on it that we call money. Because we need money to pay rent/mortgage, electric, food, and basic necesities we spend from the age 18-65 working long hours to bring this pretty paper home. In exchange it turns into the tragedy of the commons because in exchange for that pretty paper we miss out on our wives/husbands/childs life. We do it though so we can give them the lives they deserve because we love them.

Solution: Let's get rid of money. If you look at the Fed and how the fractional reserve system goes we'll be in this rat race forever. I think every american should get 10 acres of land just for themselves. It's yours, the government can't come in and take it, no one can take it from you. You as a citizen of this earth and country deserve a place to go home that you aren't in debt to someone else for. You can grow and hunt your own food (sorry if you find that barbaric, but come on just because we are urbanized doesn't mean we're less or more civilized than a bear or fish). If you think it's too vague let me expand.

  • you are responsible for your own food
  • every citizen is required to put in contributions to society to help take care of basic needs. For example if you were to spend 20 hours a week to go into a meeting center to volunteer to help your fellow man and help with their health, certain manufacturing, and whatever basic needs that society needs.
  • Those who don't contribute don't get the rewards. Fair is fair, you have food and shelter and no one can take it from you. If you feel that you don't want to participate and just want to live on your land self sustaining yourself, why not.
  • All government should be localized to population centers.
  • One person is selected to represent the country to the world so that we can trade goods and services with the rest of the world (i.e. lumber, fruits, computer parts, iron, and so on)

I know some will say this is communism, no this is not. This is pretty much how our founding fathers set up our country to begin with without every citizen getting their own piece of land for free. Some people would say this throws us back to the stone age. I would think you're wrong because I'm not asking you to gather straw and use rocks to start your fire.

I think this would be a positive thing to happen because it would then give you time to spend with your family to grow and build it the right way. I think this is something that would in the end bring about better and closer families not to mention a stress free world that would allow us to focus on our personal evolvement without being sidetracked by work, bills, and other distractions.

Your Donations will help this Blog serve you better Thank you

Let's Think Radio

Listen to internet radio with harygarfield on Blog Talk Radio

Let's Think | Blog Talk Radio Feed

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon

There was an error in this gadget

Popular Posts