Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
This Letter Puts All the Pieces Together

This Letter Puts All the Pieces Together

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by jerry_wildbill3448
This Letter Puts All the Pieces Together
This Letter Puts All the Pieces Together

More info:

Published by: jerry_wildbill3448 on Apr 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 This letter puts all the pieces together. Utopia isn't an option, but keeping yourliberty is an option. Please read and share this information asap - for life and liberty!If you are awake, please wake up your neighbor, your church, your PTA quickly now!For more information:http://r3publican.wordpress.comhttp://axiomamuse.wordpress.com===== Article for Submission The Battle in the States: Freedom Vs Protection By Tom DeWeese and Mark Lerner Across the nation, state legislatures are struggling totake back their Constitutional rights as they also seek ways to protect us fromoutside threats. This has led to some near schizophrenic legislative sessions withlaws swinging widely from left to right. Making it more difficult to get a handle onthe situation is the fact that there has been an outgrowth of near "rabid" anti-immigration groups that have sprung up demanding near-Hitler-style tactics to "fix"the problem. While the situation is certainly serious and demands action, thesegroups openly admit that they are willing to surrender their liberties if that is what ittakes to end illegal immigration. They may deeply regret that cavalier dismissal of liberty. Once lost, it is rarely regained. To address these issues, three very distinct,but widely variant legislative actions have appeared in the states. First, legislationdealing with protecting the integrity of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereigntyhas been introduced across the nation, passing in at least 21 states. The states arereacting to the frightening growth of the federal government through anti-terroristlegislation such as the Patriot Act and Real ID, as well as the outrageous spendingincluded in the bailout and stimulus bills. Second, to address the illegal immigrationissue, legislation in many states would provide state law enforcement with theability to share information through direct electronic access. Many law-enforcementagencies are eagerly supporting such legislation. Yet, this type of legislation clearlycontradicts the intent of the states sovereignty effort. Third, again racing back tothe other side to protect personal privacy from federal surveillance, there islegislation introduced to prohibit the collection of biometric samples/data, socialsecurity numbers and the use of RFID chips in state driver's licenses. One mightask, what do these pieces of legislation have to do with one another? They each goto the heart of a battle being waged across our country to decide how muchConstitutional power the federal government has to collect, retain and share thepersonal information of each citizen, and how much power it has to force states toprovide it? Tenth Amendment legislation is exactly what the name implies - thatstates have Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and powers. It puts the federalgovernment on notice that states will not act as its surrogates. The legislation
 
unequivocally tells the federal government that its power comes from the citizensand the states and that federal powers are limited and defined rather thanunlimited and arbitrary. Fusion Centers As for those patriots who believe the illegalimmigration is so dire that liberty should be thrown on the bonfire, perhaps theyneed to better understand what they are demanding. Legislation introduced inseveral state legislatures, and currently in debate, allows state and local law-enforcement agencies to have direct access to one another's databases. Some of the anti-immigration patriots might see it is as prudent legislation until one takes acloser look. Most states now have Fusion Centers. Fusion Centers were originallyintended to allow local and state law-enforcement to work alongside federal officersso that activity suspected of being terrorist related could be identified andresponded to by all three law enforcement entities in a coordinated manner. FusionCenters have representatives of all three working side-by-side in one office. FusionCenters are funded primarily by the federal government. Some believe them to bean effective tool to fight terrorism with little that one could find objectionable. Theproblem is, Fusion Centers have overstepped their intended purpose. This is typicalwhen dealing with the issue of technology and invasive databases. Mission creep is just too easy. In state after state we see Fusion Centers focusing on all suspectedcriminal activity, including misdemeanors. Some would ask you to believe that themountain of information about citizens being accumulated actually stays within theborders of a state unless a citizen is suspected of terrorist activity. However, theFusion Center in Oklahoma has been directed to develop procedures for the sharingof information with the FBI and DHS. This means that direct electronic access is notlimited to just state law enforcement agencies and departments. Since local, stateand federal authorities are working together, there is no plausible reason to believefederal law enforcement will not gain access to all information a state lawenforcement or local law enforcement authority would have. The Missouri OutrageAll citizens should take note of a document produced in Missouri by that state'sFusion Center. That document targeted activists, including supporters of Ron Paul,Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. It directed Missouri law enforcement to give specialattention to those holding such political beliefs and consider them to be a securityrisk and potential domestic terrorists. According to the same document, members of militias should also be singled out. According to the Missouri report, anyoneadvocating limited government and objecting to the massive growth of the federalgovernment is to be considered a security risk. Whether a citizen is a Democrat,Republican or Independent, the idea that citizens supporting their candidate of choice should be categorized as domestic terrorists is outrageous. The document isso inflammatory that the Lt. Governor of Missouri suspended the head state lawenforcement officer in the Fusion Center. It is also worth noting that the OklahomaFusion Center will develop privacy protocols. One might reasonably ask why theprivacy issues were not fully addressed before the Fusion Center becameoperational? However, the issue of the collecting, retaining and sharing of citizen'spersonal information is not unique to Fusion Centers. Law enforcement in each statehas information sharing agreements, not only with federal agencies/departments,
 
but also with foreign entities and international organizations. There is a literal webof Memorandums of Agreements, laws and other mechanisms such as participationin international organizations that has entrapped all Americans. The most personaland sensitive information of Americans is being shared globally. Oklahoma's SB 483A prime example of such dangerous legislation that could lead to an internationalsurveillance state is Oklahoma's SB 483, which will authorize the Commissioner of Public Safety (DPS) the authority to enter into "agreements" with other stateagencies and allow these other agencies "direct electronic access" to the DPSdatabase of computerized photos. Moreover, the Federal Department of HomelandSecurity is targeting such state databanks and clearly has stated it wants full accessto them. It then intends to share them with international databanks. That is whyevery state must carefully consider the dangerous side-effects of such legislationbeing promoted as simply an answer to illegal immigration and terrorism. AsOklahoma State Representative Charles Key says, such legislation is "incrementallyputting into place systems that could, 1) violate citizens constitutional rights, 2)unintentionally harm innocent citizens, 3) allow for the continual effectivedissolution of our rights enumerated in the Constitution." Biometric data and SocialSecurity numbers The final piece of the puzzle is the third tier of legislation makingrounds in several state legislatures that would prohibit state governments fromcollecting biometric samples/data and social security numbers of citizens who applyfor driver's licenses. In direct opposition to bills such as SB 483, Oklahoma isconsidering such legislation which calls for the removal of existing biometricinformation and social security numbers from the state motor vehicle database.Such legislation is intended to protect our personal privacy. Under the provisions of the Real ID Act of 2005, states that comply with that law are required to collect thedigital facial biometric samples of all citizens who apply for a state driver's license.In layman's terms, this means you can be identified while walking down the streetby a CCTV/surveillance camera. Your facial image would be scanned and the imagewould be converted to biometric data and compared to images stored in state orfederal databases, including your motor vehicle database. Again, in Oklahoma,some lawmakers have figured out the only way to stop the federal government andinternational organizations from getting their hands on citizens personal informationis to stop collecting the information and putting it in state databases. It is importantto note that the legislation does not impede Oklahoma law enforcement fromcollecting the information either through a search warrant or as a result of a personbeing charged with a crime. One lawmaker stated it should not be a "novel" ideathat the presumption of innocence is protected or that privacy means something. APennsylvania lawmaker stated that we have been told many times since 9/11/2001what privacy does not mean but we do not hear what it does mean. Abuse of powerby the federal government is and has always been a concern. Our forefathersaddressed the potential for abuse in our Constitution. Since the 1950's we havewitnessed many abuses of power including revelations about what the FBI, NSA andDHS have been doing since 9/11/2001, invading personal privacy, monitoring phonecalls, home invasion without notice or warrants, etc. The abuses have become a

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->