Maryland D.O C. : Is This For A Background Check, Or 4th Amendment Violation?

reply to post by timewalker


Everyone has their reasons behind the use of e-mail.

Whether to e-mail Grandma and Grandpa in another states.

To communicate with prospective jobs.

Or just to yack with people around the world through Instant Messenger.

Freedom of Speech is guaranteed, but not if you do not fight for it, and fight for we must.

Did you know at one time the United States Postal Service was going to try to charge for e-mail's?

Digital stamps.

Currently, and, technically the Internet is under the U.S. Federal Postal System, or they are trying to do so.

Quote from : General Accounting Office : September 7, 2000

The Honorable Thad Cochran
Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and
Federal ServicesCommittee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable John M. McHugh
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Postal Service
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

This letter responds to your requests to review electronic commerce (ecommerce) initiatives of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).

Members of Congress and postal stakeholders have raised issues related to the merits of USPS’ development of nonpostal products and services, including those that are e-commerce related.

As USPS has recently developed and implemented a number of e-commerce initiatives, you requested us to provide information on the status of USPS’ e-commerce activities and related legal and regulatory matters.

Specifically, our objectives were to describe USPS’ (1) e-commerce initiatives that have been implemented or
are being developed, (2) goals and strategies for the e-commerce area, (3) processes for approving these initiatives, and (4) expected performance and results to date related to e-commerce initiatives.

During the course of our review, we identified areas where USPS can improve its management
of its e-commerce activities, and this report discusses these areas as well.

An additional objective was to describe USPS’ views on how major federal laws and regulations apply to its e-commerce initiatives and to identify legal issues that have been raised concerning its e-commerce activities.

USPS is in the early stages of developing its current e-commerce program.

We previously reported on USPS’ new products and services, including several e-commerce activities piloted or implemented during fiscal years 1993 through 1997.

Since then, USPS has discontinued its earlier ecommerce activities, some of which have helped USPS develop new ecommerce-related products and services.

That is an 84 page letter/P.D.F. from 2000.

Go to page 28 to see where it is speaking of an Electronic Postmark.

Dig deep?

I have not even scratched the surface of how deep and where I am intending on digging.

The Maryland Division of Corrections is clearly violating the Fourth Amendment. to the United States Constitution. All Officers of the US Air Force (always first), Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and NOAA Commissioned Corp, take (3331) this oath,” I, [name], 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!”
Officer of the National Guard take this Oath,” I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Fellow Officers, we know our duty!
SKL, SnF
Thx for the heads up

reply to post by Violater1


I love one part of those oath above all others.

...against all enemies both foreign and domestic....

This is not just an oath to proctect us against people the Government deems as enemies.

At least not if you know how to interpret the laws.

An enemy can be those same people which swear oaths of office who are committing criminal actions.

And people who violate our Constitutional Rights fit that specific profile.

The biggest problem is too few American's actually know their rights let alone defend them.

They wait until they are arrested before they give a damn about that and by then it is too late.

As well as too damned expensive due to lawyers with their uselessness becoming a commodity.

Due to an ignorant populace too lazy to know, defend, and comprehend their rights.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

...Most people desperate for a job will in fact volunteer to do that mandatory thing the deminishes them and compromises them as a legal path to paying their bills through gainful employment.

Gainful employment that now in 8/10 cases can only be obtained through the State or large corporate style monopolies that have all kinds of voluntary/mandatory things you must submit to in order to get a legal paycheck.

Yet the truth is that list of voluntary/mandatory things crows as do the monopolies that are the very few places that people can turn to for legal employment and income....

As usual Proto you have seen to the heart of the matter.

Just how "voluntary" is this decision?

If the person is without a job, he has the choice of losing his home, credit ratings, savings or submitting to "voluntary" giving up information. Worse a refusal may become public information and prevent the applicant from gaining access to other jobs.

No matter how the government or corporations spin this it is not actually "voluntary" especially since it is not applied to all citizens but only to some.

For me a good test of voluntary is would this be information I would give to a stranger I had just met and liked.

E-mail - Yes
Phone # - yes
Address - Maybe
SS# - NO!
Bank Acct# - NO!
passwords -NO!
Private letters from friends - NO!

So if it is not truly "voluntary " then what is it?

Coercion
in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical or moral force....

..... In the law of contracts, the use of unfair persuasion to procure an agreement is known as duress. Duress , in law, actual or threatened violence or imprisonment, by reason of which a person is forced to enter into an agreement or to perform some other act against his will. such a contract is void unless later ratified. encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

Coercion
The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats....

In the laws governing wills, coercion is present when a testator is forced by another to make provisions in his or her will that he or she otherwise would not make if permitted to act according to free choice. It is an element of both duress and Undue Influence, two ways in which a testator is deprived of his or her free choice in making the will....
Coercion, as an element of duress, is grounds for seeking the Rescission or cancellation of a contract or deed. When one party to an instrument is forced against his or her will to agree to its terms the document can be declared void by a court....

The coercion of small businesses by a cartel to fix prices of particular items supplied to them is a violation of antitrust laws, which are intended to prevent the restraint of competition in commerce. Laws regulating labor-management relations are violated by coercion when the employer coerces employees not to join a Labor Union or when a union representative pressures, uses physical force, or threatens an employee into joining the union....

COERCION, criminal law, contracts. Constraint; compulsion; force.
2. It is positive or presumed. 1. Positive or direct coercion takes place when a man is by physical force compelled to do an act contrary to his will; for example, when a man falls into the hands of the enemies of his country, and they compel him, by a just fear of death, to fight against it.
3.-2. It is presumed where a person is legally under subjection to another, and is induced, in consequence of such subjection, to do an act contrary to his win. A married woman, for example, is legally under the subjection of her husband, and if in his company she commit a crime or offence, not malum in se, (except the offence of keeping a bawdy-house, In which case she is considered by the policy of the law as a principal, she is presumed to act under this coercion.
4. As will (q.v.) is necessary to the commission of a crime, or the making of a contract, a person coerced into either, has no will on the, subject, and is not responsible. Vide Roscoe's Cr. Ev. 7 85, and the cases there cited; 2 Stark. Ev. 705, as to what will, amount to coercion in criminal cases.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Duress
Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.

Duress also encompasses the same harm, threats, or restraint exercised upon the affected individual's spouse, child, or parent.

Duress is distinguishable from Undue Influence, a concept employed in the law of wills, in that the latter term involves a wrongdoer who is a fiduciary, one who occupies a position of trust and confidence in regard to the testator, the creator of the will.

Duress also exists where a person is coerced by the wrongful conduct or threat of another to enter into a contract under circumstances that deprive the individual of his or her volition.

As a defense to a civil action, the federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that duress be pleaded affirmatively.

Except with respect to Homicide, a person who is compelled to commit a crime by an unlawful threat from another person to injure him, her, or a third person, will generally not be held responsible for its commission. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by crimvelvet


Bingo.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8aa7b8ba62d3.jpg[/atsimg]

Keep it up.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

....The biggest problem is too few American's actually know their rights let alone defend them. They wait until they are arrested before they give a damn about that and by then it is too late. As well as too damned expensive due to lawyers with their uselessness becoming a commodity. Due to an ignorant populace too lazy to know, defend, and comprehend their rights.

I was just commenting on another tread that a course on the Constitution, Federalist Papers and the law should be a required course in High School.

Any one who trusts a lawyer is a FOOL.

I had to go through five lawyers to find a relatively honest one. I also went to the nearest law library and looked up the relevant laws and cases and gave my lawyer the information. He was unaware of some of it.

Ignorance of the law cost my spouse and I about $500,000. There are millions of others who also have been conned, scammed and taken advantage of because of an ignorance of the law. I took two law courses at the Community College and I would strongly urge everyone to do the same. They were Contract law and Employment law - the absolute minimum a US citizen should have.

Also if you are EVER in a criminal case as the victim NEVER EVER trust the DA. Get your own lawyer if you truly want justice. The DA and the judges just want to push as many cases through court as they can each day. It is up to you to see you actually get the justice you deserve.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas




Now I have to clean my computer screen!

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I was just commenting on another tread that a course on the Constitution, Federalist Papers and the law should be a required course in High School.

It should be.

Then again school is about teaching people what to think not how to think.

And law is taught in organizations like the Boy Scouts of America.

As a Merit Badge.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Any one who trusts a lawyer is a FOOL.

Anyone who trusts anyone with their life is a fool.

Lawyers or otherwise.

I've never put my life in someone else's hands and I never intend to do so.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I had to go through five lawyers to find a relatively honest one. I also went to the nearest law library and looked up the relevant laws and cases and gave my lawyer the information. He was unaware of some of it.

What do you get when you shove 300 layers in the the deepest trench in the ocean?

A good start.

A lawyer is only as good as the money which got him or her through law school.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Ignorance of the law cost my spouse and I about $500,000. There are millions of others who also have been conned, scammed and taken advantage of because of an ignorance of the law. I took two law courses at the Community College and I would strongly urge everyone to do the same. They were Contract law and Employment law - the absolute minimum a US citizen should have.

Two lawyers cost my stepfather his ability to walk properly, cost him all of the money he could have gotten, and my family our bread-winner.

He's still alive and has been crippled for 20 some years now.

Due to negligence of the lawyer, the doctor, the hospital.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Also if you are EVER in a criminal case as the victim NEVER EVER trust the DA. Get your own lawyer if you truly want justice. The DA and the judges just want to push as many cases through court as they can each day. It is up to you to see you actually get the justice you deserve.

It was suggested that I become a detective.

I said that this is a political dead-end.

The person said I could become a District Attorney as a result.

I said why on Earth would I waste my time doing that?

A District Attorney is only one thing.

Convictions.

And I see just as many problems on both sides of criminality.

Within Law Enforcement as within the criminal community.

As per usual both sides of the conflict are wrong.

Why would I want to be in the middle of a losing battle where no one is after what I want?

Which is the truth.

I usually find it right in the middle of the left/right paradigm between laws and criminal actions.

I've learned far too many times both sides of a conflict are in error.

And someone is profiting on both sides playing both sides against the middle.

Sorry about your monitor.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I forgot to add the link to SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION et al. v . NELSON et al.

Here it is: www.law.cornell.edu...

reply to post by crimvelvet


All of that is extremely fascinating.

I have no qualms about a full and thorough background check.

Those happen all the time and are to be expected.

You can ask for an e-mail address as a part of the pre-employment background check all day.

I have zero issue with that.

But not the password.

The password is what secures the e-mail and or social networking account from many things.

It secures it from intrusion, vandalism, deletion, you name it, it secures it from happening.

A Federal, state, and or civilian corporation has no right to the content of the e-mail.

Nor to the access of gaining said content.

Asking for the password is a step too far and is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

It borders on a violation of our 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment Rights as well.

I have no issue with a pre-employment background check searching for open content.

Meaning social networking websites, e-mail accounts, and or their affiliations.

As I said, open content, meaning freely shared information, as in the case against the Dallas Police Officer in the thread I used as a demonstration of one of the things I do not consider a violation, the Dallas Officer shared thoughts on abuses of other people, and or semi-racial and or predujicial commentary of a nature which makes said Officer not only sound imcompetent in the task of being a Police Officer, but questions her moral, ethical, and or belief systems to the highest standard.

So, that being said, let any Government agency seek out and ask for e-mail addresses.

And or social networking user name/member names.

If said affiliations are used as a means to bar employment due to a reasonable standard?

Fine.

But you cannot ask for the password, nor can someone ask for content of said website/e-mail address, that steps into dangerous ground.

I have no issue with a Government agency searching for memberships either of controversial and or explicit e-mail services and or websites.

Especially if said job is a Government and or sensitive job.

But the content and or password is a direct violation of Constitutional Rights.

Do not get me wrong.

If someone was a member of a website devoted to prison breaks and said employee was trying to become a Prison Guard, it is quite clear, something is questionable, if same member was on a pro-illegal drug website, and was trying to become a D.E.A. Agent, obviously, unless they are trying to create a cover for undercover work, something is quite fishy in Denmark.

But the content and or communication between people in a closed-source website/e-mail service is protected.

If someone is a member of Facebook and is stupid enough to have the content open to all people and something questionable and or illegal is found, this is not suspect, at least not in my mind, but then due process kicks in, and the person is still protected to a certain degree based upon their Constitutional Rights as well as their right to defend said actions in a court of law.

As well as a legal means to redress grievances against barring employment and or unlawful prosecution.

Data-mining only goes so far and should only go so far.

But we as citizens have to have basic common sense and know our Constitutional Rights.

Common sense is not common enough and people knowing their Constitutional Rights in uncommon.

A responsible citizens knows their rights and where they are protected as well as limited.

And yes, I do see those rights as both protected, as well as limited in certain cases.

But that is a discussion for a whole other thread unless something specific comes up.

Within the confines of this threads original and expanded topic.

I know just how open and or expandable this thread is since I wrote it knowing the boundaries.

As well how to change and or add to them.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

But the content and or communication between people in a closed-source website/e-mail service is protected.

Unfortunately the US Government does not see it that way. Worse the Supreme Court seems willing to back the GOVERNMENT up and not the US citizen.

This is from a fight between the USDA and farmers:

"In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA....” Linda Fallice

Now that statement could be chalked up to the private opinion of a loud mouthed little Hitler in a government position and not the view of the USDA.

Then you have this:

An outspoken anti - Animal ID exhibitors is denied vendor space at a Farm Expo because the State Dept of Agriculture had her banned. The vendor went after the Expo and this is what was revealed in the course of the legal action.

NAIS Supporters Fighting Dirty

.....The ACLU took my case - the first one in the USA involving NAIS - and went after my State Dept of Ag.

My State Dept of Ag vehemently denied any wrongdoing. They turfed it all on the shoulders of the expo organizers, claiming that they simply asked that they be moved to another location in the expo away from me.

Technically it should have stopped there, as the ACLU does not normally go after a private corporation in matters like this. But the ACLU believed the whole story 'stunk of censorship' and did not buy the State Dept of Ag's excuse. They then had conversations with the expo organizers and a very interesting story emerged in where even names were named from my State Dept of Ag. They informed the expo organizers that I had been at a huge Farm Expo last August (Untrue as I working). They claimed that I harassed people, was rude and obnoxious and had even caused a riot to break out over NAIS! They also stated that they were 'in fear of being on the same grounds' as me for fear that I would cause another riot. Of course the expo organizers made the decision to ban me. Who wouldn't after hearing such a story from a govt agency? My first reaction was to laugh over this absolutely ridiculous 'story' then I really got angry. I was NOT at said Farm Expo but I did know people who attended. NO riot broke out!

My State Dept of Ag also provided the expo organizers with numerous e-mails that I had written about NAIS - going back an entire year. I saw these e-mails from our State Dept of Ag with my own eyes. It was then that I realized they are actually tracking me on the internet.....

I am fairly sure she is talking about e-mails and not articles or comments to articles because I KNOW there is a loose group of farmers in e-mail contact with each other.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Unfortunately the US Government does not see it that way. Worse the Supreme Court seems willing to back the GOVERNMENT up and not the US citizen.

Of course the Government does not agree with that stance.

It is contrary to their own interpretation.

But then again, individual people, interpreting upon the behalf of the Federal Government usually are idiots.

And or completely out of line, and or interested only in their power, and maintaining said power.

Government is not an all-powerful entity.

It is nothing more than a functionary unit meant to do certain functions on behalf of the people.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
This is from a fight between the USDA and farmers:

"In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA....” Linda Fallice

Now that statement could be chalked up to the private opinion of a loud mouthed little Hitler in a government position and not the view of the USDA.

First and foremost, what a crock of crap, farmers have just as many rights as everyone else.

This is a case where either the U.S.D.A., or an idiot acting upon the behalf of them, acted in error.

And was counting upon the ignorance of said farmers.

Especially in regards to the R.F.I.D. chip program and farmers animals.

Those animals are the property of the farmer and it cannot be mandated that bio-chips be injected.

That goes against Constitutional Rights guarding about commerce.

Specifically, the 10th Amendment, a guarantee in regards to keep commerce in check.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Tenth Amendment of the United States of America

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

Text

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Basically said, the Federal Government has limited power, in regards to commerce.

That is an abuse of power based upon an intimidation tactic and nothing more.

The U.S.D.A. knows farmers have no money to fight in court and intentionally tried to entangle them.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Then you have this:

An outspoken anti - Animal ID exhibitors is denied vendor space at a Farm Expo because the State Dept of Agriculture had her banned. The vendor went after the Expo and this is what was revealed in the course of the legal action.

I am fairly sure she is talking about e-mails and not articles or comments to articles because I KNOW there is a loose group of farmers in e-mail contact with each other.

Again, a case wherein the Department of Agriculture, used intimidation and or coercion.

They know they have limited power and or are abusing it.

Especially in the case of the R.F.I.D. chip.

Organizations like Destron Fearing and I.B.M. are behind the R.F.I.D. chip program.

Quote from : Destron Fearing Website

Destron Fearing is a global leader in innovative animal identification.

With presence in over 40 countries worldwide we seek to provide real world ID solutions to match the ever increasing complexity and opportunities related to animal identification.

Since 1945 we have provided innovative products addressing the needs of livestock producers, companion animal owners, horse owners, wildlife managers and government agencies.

Destron Fearing provides a full complement of radio frequency identification products and software solutions to automate the collection of critical livestock production and carcass information.

Individual and herd information can then be easily transferred between all parties involved in the production and retail of meat products. Information sharing allows the food industry to meet the discriminating demands of the market place.

An international organization spreading its power through a local event like a Farm Expo.

Notice as well about the date of 1945.

This is in regards to the birth of the information databases.

All of this ties both directly and indirectly into the background check and or Constitutional Rights.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c9c27969530.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

Was IBM, "The Solutions Company," partly responsible for the Final Solution?

That's the question raised by Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust, the most controversial book on the subject since Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Black, a son of Holocaust survivors, is less tendentiously simplistic than Goldhagen, but his thesis is no less provocative: he argues that IBM founder Thomas Watson deserved the Merit Cross (Germany's second-highest honor) awarded him by Hitler, his second-biggest customer on earth.

"IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler's program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success," writes Black.

"IBM had almost single-handedly brought modern warfare into the information age [and] virtually put the 'blitz' in the krieg."

The crucial technology was a precursor to the computer, the IBM Hollerith punch card machine, which Black glimpsed on exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, inspiring his five-year, top-secret book project.

The Hollerith was used to tabulate and alphabetize census data. Black says the Hollerith and its punch card data ("hole 3 signified homosexual ... hole 8 designated a Jew") was indispensable in rounding up prisoners, keeping the trains fully packed and on time, tallying the deaths, and organizing the entire war effort.

Hitler's regime was fantastically, suicidally chaotic; could IBM have been the cause of its sole competence: mass-murdering civilians?

Better scholars than I must sift through and appraise Black's mountainous evidence, but clearly the assessment is overdue.

The moral argument turns on one question:

How much did IBM New York know about IBM Germany's work, and when?

Black documents a scary game of brinksmanship orchestrated by IBM chief Watson, who walked a fine line between enraging U.S. officials and infuriating Hitler.

He shamefully delayed returning the Nazi medal until forced to--and when he did return it, the Nazis almost kicked IBM and its crucial machines out of Germany.

(Hitler was prone to self-defeating decisions, as demonstrated in How Hitler Could Have Won World War II.)

Black has created a must-read work of history.

But it's also a fascinating business book examining the colliding influences of personality, morality, and cold strategic calculation.

--Tim Appelo

I.B.M. was specifically caught by our Federal Government trading with the enemy.

IBM RFID Commercial - The Future Market


Which has not lead to a dismantling of I.B.M. but expanding their power such as in the video above.

T.S.A. : Birth of A Monster, Coup Against American Rights, F.E.M.A. Started and D.A.R.P.A. Finished

Which has only lead to more abuses of Governmental powers.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

First and foremost, what a crock of crap, farmers have just as many rights as everyone else.

This is a case where either the U.S.D.A., or an idiot acting upon the behalf of them, acted in error. And was counting upon the ignorance of said farmers.

Further evidence shows it is government policy and not an idiot acting outside the policy of his agency.

Note this lawsuit is concerning private contracts:

FDA's Response to FTCLDF Suit over Interstate Raw Milk Ban
"Growing numbers of people in this country are obtaining the foods of their choice through private contractual arrangements such as buyers' club agreements and herdshare contracts. FDA's position is that the agency can interfere with these agreements because, in FDA's view, there is no fundamental right to enter into a private contract to obtain the foods of choice from the source of choice."

The agency has long opposed 'freedom of food choice' but its response to the FTCLDF complaint represents FDA's strongest public statement yet on the freedom to obtain and consume the foods of one's choice.

FDA's Views on Freedom of Choice

Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]

* "It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]

* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]

* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]

* FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]

* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]

In point of fact the evidence shows the USA, "home of the free" no longer exists. It has turned into a collectivist nation thanks to the continuing betrayal of the Supreme Court.

The Fifth Amendment states: no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." For the FDA to contend that your choice of food, food which is the absolute basis of life, is NOT a basic freedom just blows my mind.

What next are we going to be forbidden to eat pork because it "offends" the Muslims? Or meat because it "offends" the Vegetarians. Or milk, cheese and eggs because it "offends" the Vegans???

Once the Supreme Court started playing politics with the Constitution, it allows all sorts of encroachment on our freedom to happen until there is nothing left.

G. Edward Griffin states it very clearly. He does not use the superficial divisions of "right" "left" Socialist, Communist, Corporatist, Fascist, Trotskyites, Maoists, Fascists, Nazis Neoconservatives or the rest because all are just different flavors of collectivism. Instead he looks at them from the point of view of their goals. Surprisingly ALL their goals are similar because they share the same ideology

So, to deal with this word, collectivism, our first order of business is to throw out the garbage. If we are to make sense of the political agendas that dominate our planet today, we must not allow our
thinking to be contaminated by the emotional load of the old vocabulary...

...It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time – at
least in the Western world – can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff... It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other.

Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a philosophical chasm that divides the entire Western world. In the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia, there is a third ethic called theocracy, a form of government that combines church and state and compels citizens to accept a particular religious doctrine.... www.freedomforceinternational.org...

Griffin then goes on to define the characteristics of Collectivism.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:
1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

...These principles themselves that cause injustice, scarcity, and freedom's demise. History has already shown this truth in the form of despotism under Nazism (the so-called Right) and Communism (the so-called Left). It is sad that intelligent people with knowledge of this history still cling to the myth that they are opposites when it is so clear they are merely different manifestations of the same ideology.
www.freedomforceinternational.org...

It is now obvious that the USDA, the FDA and unfortunately the Supreme Court have taken the stance that "Rights are derived from the state" As Griffin has shown this is a very dangerous stance because it means the only freedom allowed is the freedom the government is willing to grant you.


I ran through all of this because the issue is much bigger than whether Maryland D.O C. can demand passwords during a Background Check or the FDA can forbid the drinking of raw milk. The real issue as Griffin points out is wnether WE have rights and the Federal Government is limited to a very narrow range of actions or whether the Federal Government has unlimited rights and "allows" us certain "privileges"

The new improved version of "FREEDOM" is so very well illustrated in this letter from Governor Easley's office on the subject of a USDA program (Premise ID and Animal ID) that had no Congressional LAW backing it!

Governor Easley’s staffer’s reply…

As for the “coercive tactics” of requiring children to sign up for this voluntary program: Exhibiting at the N.C. State Fair is not mandatory any more than driving a vehicle is mandatory. However, if you voluntarily choose to show at the fair, there are stipulations attached to that choice, such as entry forms to be correctly filled out, entry fees to be paid, health examinations, etc., just as if you drive a vehicle you must have a valid driver’s license. That a choice carries conditions does not change the voluntary nature of the “choice,” any more than requiring a driver’s license makes driving a vehicle mandatory by law.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

I just ran across something in the "National Broadband Plan". It could by nature, destroy sites like this one here.

Where we discuss freely, knowing full and well that all things here are public, but we like to have some anonymity. Mainly from our family and friends, LEO will get us anyway if you call for craziness. And rightfully so.


I give you the profile destroyer.

1. Establishing competition policies.

H - Clarify the Congressional mandate allowing state and local entities to provide broadband in their communities and do so in ways that use public resources more effectively.

I - Clarify the relationship between users and their online profiles to enable continued innovation and competition in applications and ensure consumer privacy, including the obligations of firms collecting personal information to allow consumers to know what information is being collected, consent to such collection, correct it if necessary, and control disclosure of such personal information to third parties.

National Broadband Plan - Executive Summary

I am so anti sell phone now.

I'm really old school. I don't have one, I don't want one, I don't need one. No FB either suckas.

Anyway. I thought this might tie directly to your thread here. I'm ready to just about kill the whole internet thing, nah. good research!


Wanted to add. There are so many people with phones, I don't even bother with a payphone either. Just ask someone. I will know about any emergency as well by all the people panicking.

Our days are numbered at ATS.

One more thing here. They will probably use sites like this as an example. My blog will probably be gone too, because I do most of my stuff here then put it over there. To hide the anonymity of my profile here at ATS.

No offense, but to keep the freakazoids here from seeing my story posted under my name.

I'll just say it here. I had the blog linked to twitter, and I got an email from twitter on a private server that I had a follower Agent **, I went to Twitter, no followers, refreshed my private email and poof, gone before my eyes.

I had the screen up.

I have no problem with Agent ** following me, just don't cloak yourselves.

That is a crap policy.

reply to post by crimvelvet


I have to agree with you, and disagree with you, with some finite reasoning.

The information you're referencing is in regards to public health.

When we're speaking of something of that nature it is quite different.

Non-pasteurized milk can kill you.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Pasteurization

Pasteurization is a process of heating a food, usually liquid, to a specific temperature for a definite length of time, and then cooling it immediately.

This process slows microbial growth in food.

The process of heating wine to preserve it longer was known in China since AD.1117, and is documented in Japan in 1568 in the diary Tamonin-nikki, but the modern version was created by the French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, after whom it is named.

The first pasteurization test was completed by Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard on April 20, 1864.

The process was originally conceived as a way of preventing wine and beer from souring.

Unlike sterilization, pasteurization is not intended to kill all micro-organisms in the food. Instead pasteurization aims to reduce the number of viable pathogens so they are unlikely to cause disease (assuming the pasteurized product is stored as indicated and consumed before its expiration date).

Commercial-scale sterilization of food is not common because it adversely affects the taste and quality of the product.

Certain food products, like dairy products, are superheated to ensure pathogenic microbes are destroyed.

That is not a commerce issue, specifically, it is a health and welfare issue.

It does influence and or reference and reflect a commerce issue.

But over all it is about the safety of people getting the end-product.

While I do thank you, as well as respect you for bringing that up in regards to this topic, I disagree.

Now, this is not to say that a Government agency, and or one individual cannot abuse this power.

It can and does happen quite frequentely, far too frequently, if you ask me.

Over all however I see it as a public safety issue more than an abuse and or exercise of indiscriminate power.

And G Edward Griffin is not the only person who does not use the right/left paradigm.

I speak on the evils, idiocy, and criminality of both sides.

Plus going towards the neutrality of the middle.

reply to post by timewalker


I have a cell phone.

I have no service though.

I have been without service for over a year now due to the exhorbitant costs.

And work being a nightmare to find.

You know what?

I do not miss it one bit.

I use payphones when I need privacy, away from prying ears, knowing they can be tapped.

Otherwise I use people's phones when I'm visiting or I ask people to call for me.

I have e-mail for everything else and for quite a few reasons.

I can give different e-mail address to different people to isolate and separate those individuals from communicating with each other, in case I screw up and blanket send a reply back to the incorrect people, and as well so I have everything digitally documented.

I send myself a copy out all outgoing e-mails so no one can ever say I said something I did not.

I also save ALL important e-mail which is about 90% considering the things I e-mail about.

But thank you for bringining that up in this discussion.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Thanks,

I am not trying to derail you here. I am just pretty upset about the whole fiasco.

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Thanks,

I am not trying to derail you here. I am just pretty upset about the whole fiasco.

I never thought you were trying, attempting, or unintentionally derailing this thread.

You were speaking on a subject that touched upon the premise of the original intent of this thread.

Internet anonymity is closely tied with privacy of the contents of an e-mail.

As well as cell phones and privacy being major issues.

I do see those becoming less and less safe from stringent Government overstepping their power.

Then again I know how to tell if a cell phone is being tapped just like a land line.

And I can tell you how each and every agency sounds and more than likely why they are tapping you.

Phone taps give off very, very distintive sounds, because to shunt a line into a tap it is inteferring with your phone service/quality, something the old landline system never considered, back when rotary phones were still a big hit, and the majority of Government agencies do not know, realize, or care that you can tell if a cell phone is being tapped, but if you know it is being tapped they might as well have put a neon sign on your phone saying do not bother even being serious.

Because Uncle Sam is listening.

It is after all called a lack of discretion when a Government agency is monitoring you.

Government agents are as obvious as a man with a rattlesnake stuck up his butt streaking down Main street.

Ray Stevens - The Streak


I just love that visual.

Its almost as bad as companys who do credit checks on their employees,when it comes to getting a job,or a raise. I can totally understand a criminal background check,but credit,especially if your not in the business to handle money? I just feel its an other invasion of privacy.

Credit Checks

Recent statistics are scarce, but when the Society for Human Resource Management polled its members in 2006, 43% of their companies ran credit checks on some or all potential hires. That was up from 25% in 1998.

Plenty of people don't think that's fair, including Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and 26 of his congressional colleagues, who on July 9 introduced H.R. 3149, which would prohibit the use of credit information in most employment decisions. Two states, Hawaii and Washington, already do so.