Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Terry’s Tidbits

November 28, 2005

By Terry Gray

strider1@insightbb.com

USA Patriot Act

          Did you let your congressman or senator know that sunsetting the USA Patriot Act was fine with you?  I heard so many senators stand up and say that we need this act to protect our people and that the act did not interfere with law-abiding citizens’ rights.  Therein lies the rub.

          Our founders wrote the Constitution as a rule book.  They included the Bill of Rights in case our founders broke the rules in the rule book.  While I agree that we hear little of the rights of citizens being violated by the USA Patriot Act (mostly because the violations are secret), we need to consider what the Bill of Rights was intended to protect us from.  Our founders recognized that benevolent governments can turn malevolent in a blink.  Removing our rights because we are not being outwardly hurt by removing them is an act of malevolence and one that our rights protect us against.  Any talk of weakening or removing ANY of the rights of our citizens should be taken as a malevolent act of a government in transition.  The weaker our rights become, the weaker we become.

          If you have been silent on this issue, your silence will be guaranteed in the future.

          As if she read my mind, I got a letter from Congresswoman Anne Northup just now.  Maybe she isn’t reading my mind; maybe the feds are monitoring my communications, considering me a terrorist.

          I want to share some of her responses to my letter to her about the USA Patriot Act. 

          Northup:  “I believe the House Judiciary Committee has performed significant and in-depth oversight of the Act and how it has been implemented.” 

That is nice Anne; I’m so glad the government believes that the rights of the people have not been trampled.  What a relief.

          Northup:  “H.R. 3199 makes permanent fourteen provisions which are generally considered to be controversial.  For two other provisions-Section 215 relating to the acquisition of ‘tangible things’ and the ‘roving wiretapping’ authority-the legislation recognizes the continuing concern over these provisions and so extends their authorization for only ten years.” 

Wow, another great relief.  Ten years should be plenty of time for people to get used to having diminished freedoms.  It should also be enough time to engineer our kids, indoctrinating them to the loss of freedoms that they’ll never even knew existed.

          Northup:  “I hope you will take comfort from the fact that H.R. 3199 makes some changes to provide even greater assurances that our civil liberties are protected, including allowing recipients of subpoenas under Section 215 to consult with an attorney and challenge them in court.”  Holy 6^th Amendment Batman, what a reprieve. 

          I believe that what Anne is admitting to here is that recipients of subpoenas in the past were not allowed the right to representation.  I can’t believe that the Bush administration is actually admitting to this assault on our Constitution.

Northup:  “The House also overwhelmingly passed an amendment, which I supported, that would require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to personally approve requests for library or bookstore records, providing an additional layer of oversight and accountability for Section 215.”

          This woman is completely and totally out of her mind.  This is telling me that cops now have the authority to “oversee” subpoenas for records of what we read without a judge.  How in God’s name is this an “additional layer of oversight and accountability”?  I see it as a definite oversight – one that leaves out our 4^th amendment completely.

Northup:  “I am sorry that we disagree as to the significance of this legislation but I am sure we agree that protecting our homeland from terrorist threats and activities is of premier importance and one that demands the highest level of scrutiny.”

          We don’t disagree as to the significance of this legislation; we disagree as to who is getting screwed.  I think it is very significant to further the power of the federal government and to bending me over.  Isn’t it amazing how politicians can bend this stuff?  Yes Anne, I agree that protecting our homeland from terrorist threats and activities is of premier importance.  That is why I will work to remove you and your ilk from office in the next election. 

Study This!

          Another study is out which demonstrates (cough) that smoking bans reduce heart attacks.  Pueblo Colorado passed a smoking ban in 2003.  Between 2003 and 2004, heart attacks decreased by 30%, according to the study.  Big whoopee. How many of the people that had heart attacks before the ban died from those heart attacks so were no longer at risk?

          The first “ground breaking” study was in 2003 in Helena Montana.  Heart attacks decreased “sharply” after a smoking ban was enacted.  The Helena Montana study has been termed an “un-study” by most serious researchers.  It simply measured nothing except a decrease in heart attacks in one of the city’s hospitals.

          There are a lot of questions to be asked before a study such as this has any real significance.  I would ask how many cities without smoking bans experienced a decline in heart attacks over the same period.  Even more important is the question, if over 1700 communities in the United States have enacted smoking bans and only Pueblo and Helena have shown a decline in heart attack rates, what gives?  We are talking about 2 out of 1700 here and I can’t help but think someone is being hoodwinked, don’t you?

          Hot off the press:  A solar flare yesterday was associated with several internet networks going offline and power disruptions to several U.S. cities.  A lone smoker had been spotted earlier standing directly under where the solar flare occurred.  Investigations continue.

Inside nor Outside

Washington State just enacted a law to ban outdoor smoking and smoking in cigar lounges.  The propagandists raised $1.4 million for publicizing all the “negatives” of second hand smoke, and real Americans raised $14,000 to fight the propaganda.  “People who object to secondhand smoke are much more likely to be worried about the immediate smell and discomfort. But they feel that if they pretend to believe the smoke is not only bothering them but might be killing them, their complaint becomes a legally enforceable right” said Townhall columnist Jacob Sullum.  That sounds about right.    "We know tough indoor laws are a motivator to quit," a spokesman for the Washington Department of Health told the Everett Herald. "We want to help people do that."  Imagine, enacting legislation based on smell and comfort.  Imagine, enacting legislation to make it difficult for free citizens to enjoy a legal product in order to protect them from themselves.

Antis have yet to explain the existence of 80 and 90 year old smokers or people who have lived in second hand smoke-laden environments for most of their lives, like the pub owner in Boston who lived to a ripe old age of 103.  In fact, most of us over 40 grew up with “deadly” tobacco smoke.  I’ll explain it for them: money.

Nazis in Louisville

          In Louisville, Department of Health Nazi Dr. Troutman was on the news on Tuesday espousing the virtues of good health provided by smoking bans.  He said that the Health Department wasn’t trying to remove peoples’ rights but to encourage a healthier community.  His reasoning was that workers would have a cleaner environment in which to work and the ban may encourage people to stop smoking.  Of course, he mentioned children. 

Rights were removed by this legislation regardless of what Dr. Troutman says.  Dr. Troutman has a funny way of thinking about things, and those funny ways of thinking about things have become mainstream.  There is little legislation that sets out to remove rights, but, in almost every case, someone’s rights go missing.

          Mr. Troutman’s comments and ideology come straight from the Nazi playbook.  It would be frightening enough if he knew that playbook.  However, it goes way past frightening in that he doesn’t know the Nazi playbook and naturally follows the Nazi doctrine of “It is for the homeland.”  He uses children to fight his war, he encourages our citizens to turn in their neighbors, and he refuses to acknowledge any freedom of choice in this issue. 

          Councilgirl Tina Ward-“Pew” is mad because some areas of some bingo halls have been added to the exemption list.  She “wisely” tells us that if the smoking ban included all businesses then nobody would quit playing bingo.  “People go to play Bingo, not smoke.”  Yes “Pew”, and you go to city council meetings for what reason?  I go to a video store for videos but I might want some microwave popcorn, too.

          “Pew” is right to a degree, but on a much more profound level than she yet realizes.  This mentality could pertain to most anything.

          “Pew”, people who want to play smoke-free bingo need only go to smoke-free bingo halls.  If they can’t find smoke-free bingo, then they are perfectly in their right to open smoke-free bingo halls, unlike those who would like a smoking environment in their businesses but are stopped by the law. 

          The bingo exemption is a very weird thing.  It actually recognizes private property and the right to use it.  The bingo halls that are exempt are the ones where the Halls are owned by the purveyors of bingo.  Yet if another privately owned business wants to allow smoking, it cannot.

          Councilboy Tom Owens says that this whole smoking ordinance removes the level playing field by offering exemptions.  Sorry bud, you are the one who removed the level playing field by passing the ordinance.  Technically, Mr. Owens can reply that he voted against the ban.  True, but why did he vote against it?  He did it because he said the ban wasn’t strong enough.

          We have a Nazi city council with more power than should be legal.  And guess what, we voted for them.  Well, I didn’t.  I ran against one of them – the dumbest one.  I lost.  What does that say about my district?

Marzian on the go.

          State representative Mary Lou Marzian has a bill in motion that would raise the tax on cigarettes by 173%.  She wants an additional 71 cents per pack effective July 1, 2006.

          Where will the money go?  It will go to pay for dental care for indigent “children” under 21, among other things.  It has long been pointed out that most smokers come from lower income families.  So the parents of indigent children will now spend more for cigarettes, while the rest of us smokers pay for their kids’ teeth.

          I don’t care about the teeth of poor kids.  Instead of giving their parents handouts such as free dental care, how about telling them to get jobs and to stop popping out kids that they can’t afford?  I care even less about the dental health of a 20 year old “child”.

          The money from the extreme tax will also go to subsidize teacher education, build and renovate more schools, and to the general fund.  I disagree with the tax, period, but I am also curious to see how much actually makes it out of the general fund into the mouths of poor kids with rotting teeth, a condition that I didn’t cause but which was likely caused by substandard education in our public schools.

          I emailed my state representative and senator.  Have you?

Cell Hell

          Our city council is interested in passing a ban on using cell phones while driving.  I feel so much safer knowing that those who share my road may only still be able to flip the radio, put on makeup, drink coffee, eat, yell at Junior, and study their schedules for the day.  Council members say that they want to make sure that nothing bad happens on our highways because of cell phone use.  Instead of punishing those who are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, how about punishing those too stupid to be behind the wheel in the first place?  Instead of making it a crime to drive while using the phone, make it a crime to cause an accident while on the phone.  That would be much more appropriate.

Thieves Love Our City
          The new regulations on burglar alarms seems to be having an effect, and not one that our wonderful city leaders had in mind.  Because they have made it more expensive to get an alarm, if one goes about it legally, many people who would have alarms have opted not to get them, or they buy them from shady characters for less. 
          The reason for the ordinance was to cut down on false alarms, which occupy law enforcement’s time responding to false alarms.  In attempting to free our police officers from the mundane duty of serving the community, our city council has forced otherwise legitimate alarm installers to go to class and become licensed.  Many of these installers have never had a false alarm.

          The ordinance opened the door for unscrupulous characters to sell alarms at cheaper prices than those who have “sheepled” for the government and jumped through the hoops.  This will likely cause more false alarms, not fewer.  It will also hurt legitimate businesses, many of whom pushed for the ordinance to try to oust the little guy.  When will people learn to leave government out of our affairs?

          So while there may or may not be fewer false alarms, there are more properties that are not protected at all, giving thieves more unprotected or under-protected targets and cops more situations, potentially dangerous, to which to respond.

          Now, can someone shut off that car alarm on my street that goes off every morning around 2?

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN