Musings of a Free Man, the way things look to me

Chuck · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 11 Location: Way up the Holler

Freedom

What does it mean? Freedom to succeed?
Freedom to live your life the way you want to?
Freedom to grow your own food, butcher your own meat, freedom the start your own business?

How about freedom to fail? Because unless you're willing to accept that you might fail, you have no freedom at all.
Your so-called safety net is actually a snare, and will strangle the freedom right out of you.

Take for instance, the arguement that medical care from the government is a right. In order to get that right, all you have to do is give the government access to everything in your body. Wanna smoke pot? Wait until the government is the one doing your blood tests. Same with tobacco, alcohol, and trans-fats.

Think you have freedom to travel in America? Try going through a DUI checkpoint and not telling the officers your plans for the evening, as well as where you've been.

Think you have freedom of religion? Try teaching your kids to pray before every meal, and then send them to school. Watch any high school Salutorian try to open his/her speech with a prayer

Think the arts have freedom of speech? Try publishing a satire of Islam. Or saying certain words in the public arena. Ever hear of hate crimes?

Think you have the right to bear arms? Try shooting a burglar in the leg. OR ty to buy a fully automatic rifle.

Innocent until proven guilty

The right to be secure in their own person from unwarranted seraches and seizures

These concepts are doomed to the history books. Our children are being taught from an early age that they must prove they're innocent, without even being accused of anything.

Take drug tests for student athletes. Why should ANY student, let alone a student being involved in extraciricular activities, be forced to pee ina bottle? If there is an accusation of drug use, let the accuser come forward. If the accusation is credible, then have the student take a drug test. If it comes back negative, deal with the accuser. And compensate those falsely accused. Stop teaching our children that it's proper for them to prove their innocence, unless someone is willing to put their name and reputation on the line with an actual accusation first.

Like DUI checkpoints.
Can anyone show me exactly where in the US Constitution that government is permitted to close a public road and not permit one to pass until they have proven they are innocent? The cops are not looking for any one person. There is no emergency. They're not looking for escaped prisoners in someones trunk. They're just stopping EVRYONE traveling on that particular road and looking for anything they can find. And refusal to cooperate is considered probable cause for even greater intrusions into one's privacy. This is EXACTLY the type of searches the founding fathers had in mind when the Fourth Admendment was written. And the Fifth.

And red light cameras
Where does it say that if you are accused of a crime, and you are innocent, you must act as a policeman and help them solve it? Proving your innocence isn't enough, you must accuse someone else of committing the crime, even though you weren't there and didn't see it happen. It's like being accused of robbing a bank, proving you were 400 miles away in another state, and unless you solve the crime yourself, being found guilty of it anyway.

How is this Constitutional?

It's common knowledge that both the states and federal governments are building fingerprint and DNA databases. How is this Constitutional?
Example: I taught Industrial Electric and Motor Control, and PLC Programming at the local technical school. Part time, adults, night school. I was stongly recruited, due to my skills and work history.
As part of my yearly teaching certification, I underwent a background check.
Then, last year, the State started requiring teachers such as myself to submit their fingerprints as part of the certification process. This violates the Fourth Admendment against unreasonable searches. How? Everytime there's a bank robbery, burglary, murder, or who knows what else committed, and fingerprints are found, they would check to see if anyone in the database has a match.

Why aren't the cops allowed to just go door to door seeing if anybody in the neighborhood has a match to the incrimminating prints? Because they must first have probable cause, a reason to suspect that person did it. Fourth Admendmant says so. So how can the government check all teachers, lawyers, gunowners, and anybody else's fingerprints they may have happened to collect? By saying that the prints were given to them volunteerily. No one is forcing me to take that job, but taking it means I give up my Fourth Admendment rights.

At least four of my daughter's friends went to college for teaching, child care, and one went to work with the criminally psycologically "challenged". All are good kids, smart, and all are already have their prints in the system. None of them were told that they would be checked against any crime ever comitted, they thought they were passing a background check. Just what kind of crime to you suppose they were expecting these college freshmen to have committed?

Just a few examples of how our children, and adults, are being taught to submit rather than stand up for themselves.

Think about it

I welcome all replies, will discuss any or all parts of my posts.

I put it down here because I hate any form of censorship
Please don't move it

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:55 am Post subject:

This would have been fine in rants. I don't censor people--I just move posts to different areas. You've posted this in an area designed for people to rank and throw insults at each other. I'll keep it here because you requested it, but know that there wasn't anything wrong with it and no matter what, it wouldn't have been censored.

As far as the subject at hand--everything has become living life as a cog: Do what you're told, use only as directed, all restrictions apply, we're watching you.

teacher · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 26

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:51 am Post subject:

teacher · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 26

[quote="Kizzume"]

Chuck · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 11 Location: Way up the Holler

teacher · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 26

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:26 am Post subject:

Usually if the dog and the cat get into a fight, the dog is the one that's in trouble, because cat claws and teeth are very sharp and go much faster than the dog's.

As far as the subject at hand--I think the scariest on your list are the DUI checkpoints. I just think the idea of being able to pull people over and search their vehicle when they haven't even shown signs of doing something wrong is just plain WRONG.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject:

What about checkpoints?

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject:

Freedom. If you try to trade freedom for security you will achieve neither.

To me, if checkpoints can pass through the constitution, there's not much that couldn't. Checkpoints are such a blatant infringement on people's rights--it's guilty until proven innocent, and that's just not cool.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject:

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico