Disaster Preparedness

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 3 of 5

 

A friend of mine happened upon a group of people sitting on the grass in a New York park discussing the nature of disasters with a writer named Rebecca Solnit. He is a fan of her work and so he stayed to listen as she talked about the mainstream media depiction of disasters: Everyone for himself; females screaming helplessly; males raping and stealing TV sets; the lone hero saving his family, and; authorities struggling to restore order.

 

In reality, Solnit said, people do not panic. They help one another and work together even putting themselves at risk to do so. People are the first to establish first aid, food, water, etc. while the authorities, as we know, step in much later. When people come together to help and support one another there is a natural sense of elation and an awareness of how things should be. She pointed out that recognizing things can be better is often the first stirrings of revolution.

 

Unlike people, authorities do panic after a disaster. They are fearful of change which they do not control, and they are fearful of the revolutionary possibilities. All of these elements were evident in the recent Occupy Movement and they are present in the current Patriot language. Solnit has written about this in her book A Paradise Built in Hell, which provides some analysis of the aftermath of the possible disasters mentioned above.

 

For example: Global weather changes are going to create social havoc as a result of shifting weather patterns, flooding, loss of food production, and loss of available drinking water. The same goes for other manmade disasters such as cyber-attacks and terrorist-attacks. Some of the people are going to spend time building armed barricades and others are going to spend time changing the system that has created the mess. Love for our children and grandchildren say that we should be doing the latter, but that shouldn’t include giving up our rights.

 

We should learn a lesson from Hurricane Sandy where the relief from people working together to help each other exceeded all the efforts of city government, FEMA, and the Red Cross. The same holds true for major earthquakes and other natural disasters. The solution is to organize locally, get to know the people in our communities and find out who needs extra help. We should hold neighborhood functions regularly to assess and strengthen collective readiness, and set aside supplies and tools for the neighborhood as well as for our own use. It’s also important to be trained and ready, such as attending Community Emergency Response Team courses.

 

Whether we like it or not, we are all part of a complex interdependent system of human beings. We need to find well-being in each other; and recognize that there can be no peace in our communities or around the world unless there is social and economic justice. That can't happen until multi-national corporations and big money are driven out of the government and democracy is returned to We the People.

Christ Our Light

Dying He destroyed our death
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
John 3:16

 

 

Rising He restored our life
"I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”
John 11:25

A More Perfect Union

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 2 of 5

 

It wasn’t by accident that those who wrote “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union”, included the right of free speech and the right to bear arms. During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the new central government. The various state conventions demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. As a result The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”.

 

The Second Amendment says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a single shot black powder rifle but not a semi-automatic rifle: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a revolver but not a pistol: It doesn’t say it’s okay to own a hunting rifle but not a self-defense rifle. It clearly states the right of The People to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Remember too that whereas the word militia has been repeatedly invoked to challenge firearm rights, it has been upheld as referring to the people.

 

I realize that the constitution can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society, and in this same way the Bill of Rights can be amended or updated to reflect the needs of current society. However, it is a very slippery slope, and the government will have a tough time selling a change to the Second Amendment while “promising” not to mess with any of the others. I don’t think it’s a good idea, and I especially don’t think it’s necessary.

 

Nevertheless, many people still refuse to accept that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with private firearm ownership, pointing out that “None of the gun owners they know are part of a well-regulated militia”. They go on to say that “Even if the 2nd amendment is interpreted to apply to private ownership, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions on behalf of public safety”. They argue that the 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are far more precious, and yet we can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, or slander others, and even assemble with others and wave signs near anyone protected by the secret service.

 

I would suggest that similar to the regulations on free speech and free assembly there are already plenty of laws restricting and regulating firearm ownership and use. Applying more gun controls to law abiding citizens is not going to reduce crime.

 

I will however, agree and admit that the Bill of Rights argument is weaker today than ever. The country we live in is different from the country our Founding Fathers formed and it may no longer make sense to protect the right to own firearms on that ground alone. Our firearms are not going to protect us from a government that is trying to take our freedoms. If it comes down to that, no matter how many guns we have we will be bringing small arms to a very big gunfight. They will have tanks, armored vehicles, bombers, missiles, and drones, and they will simply confiscate our guns from our cold dead hands.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the loss of freedom has happened many times in other countries and it almost always followed the confiscation of guns: It can happen (again) in the United States. If you don't think so remember the plight of the American Indian, and more recently the internment camps full of Japanese American citizens who lost everything. The fact is our government panicked and the citizens of the US were separated into us and them categories which resulted in the loss of freedom for Americans on their own soil. I understand that the internment camps were a reaction to an outside threat and that today we can say we learned our lesson, but don't tell me it can't happen again or that later reparation makes it all right.

 

I understand why some people think firearms are woefully under-regulated. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and frankly a lot of fun to shoot, but so is a tank and I don’t own a tank. My point is that once we start down the path of registration and confiscation of “scary looking” firearms we are at risk of losing our freedom; either from the inside or the outside. For that reason, acknowledging that I've resisted organizations like the National Rifle Association for years, I now feel compelled to support the NRA, The National Association of Gun Rights, The Liberal Gun Club, and other organizations like them.

It's Not OK

Meta Data Madness

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 1 of 5

 

Any time we react in fear instead of relying on our core beliefs and principles, bad things happen. We live in a time of relentless fear mongering by the government and the mainstream media, and it's only natural to react to those fears. We all need to make, as best we each can, dispassionate decisions in the face of uncertainty. As example, many unprepared people live happily with the small risk of encountering an intruder; after all nothing in life is risk free.

 

It seems to me that hate-mongering and scapegoating are tools used by the 1% (to use recent Occupy terminology) to keep the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves rather than uniting against the forces that are impoverishing so many people. The government and mainstream media continually distract us with issues that don't impact the bottom line of the 1%. Firearm ownership is one of these issues and frankly I don't think that those in power care; they just want us distracted so that far more important matters can be settled unreported and behind closed doors.

 

For example: The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed in the House despite a campaign against the bill from civil rights groups who say the sharing of such information threatens online privacy. CISPA would provide sweeping liability protection to private companies that share information about cyber threats with the Federal Government, including the internet activity of private citizens.

 

Congress is using the recent events in Boston to push the CISPA legislation which it considers to be urgent. “In the case of Boston, they were real bombs. In this case they’re digital bombs. These bombs are on their way. That’s why this legislation is so urgent. For if we don’t and those digital bombs land and attack the United States, and Congress failed to act, then Congress has that on his hands”. It sounds too much like CYA instead of good policy, and luckily (this time) the Senate has given little indication that the bill will come up for consideration.

 

But don’t relax, the federal government is already using a program to monitor online internet traffic and enforce CISPA-like data sharing between Internet Service providers and the Department of Defense. Although it’s often quoted that “Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws”, it’s actually a secret Federal Justice Court that renews this access. Every three months they also re-authorize the collection, storage, and analysis of telephone “meta data” for almost all phones. Evidently this has been going on for the last seven years, without our knowledge.

 

The Pentagon has explained to internet service providers (ISPs) and other system administrators how to let their customers know that their traffic is being fed to the government. The Defense Department’s Defense Industrial Base cyber pilot program has been renamed to Enhanced Cybersecurity Services. It “expressly covers monitoring of data and communications in transit rather than just accessing data at rest”, and it goes on to say, “That information may be disclosed for any purpose, including to the government”.

 

In the meantime the Justice Department is under investigation for secretly collecting the phone records of Associated Press (AP) reporters; including their work, home, and cell numbers. The AP is protesting what it calls a massive and unprecedented intrusion into the process of gathering news. It says the Justice Department is flouting 1st Amendment rights in its attempt to prosecute what it calls a criminal leak investigation. The Justice Department’s response is, “We’ve been doing this for the last seven years, what’s the big deal”.

 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is also currently under investigation for applying extra scrutiny to applicants with statements that "criticize how the country is run" or that sought to educate the public on how to "make America a better place to live". An IRS official admitted that the agency made "mistakes" in the past few years with tax-exempt status applications submitted by groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names. In New York all public cameras are networked into a central location, where software can keep track of suspicious behavior, and Oakland California is beginning a similar project. Civil defense camps, phone monitoring, and drones over American citizens are only the things we know about.

Liberty Lost

Lady Liberty

As everyone in the world knows, Lady Liberty stands on Liberty Island in the middle of New York Harbor. It is a robed female figure representing Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, who bears a torch and a tabula ansata (a tablet evoking the law) upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. A broken chain lies at her feet.

This statue is not only an icon of the United States it is an icon of freedom. Lady Liberty still personifies freedom from despotism: She still stands for political independence, autonomy, self-determination, self-government, and self-rule; but the freedoms she respresents are being threatened.

Freedom from arbitrary, unjust, or despotic government or control.
Freedom from external or foreign rule.
Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, etc.
Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint.
Freedom or right to frequent or use a place.
Freedom of choice; such as liberty of opinion and liberty of worship.
Freedom to deliberately deviate from normally applicable rules or practices.
Freedom to act or judge on one's own.
Freedom to act, believe, or express oneself without externally imposed restraints.
Freedom from servitude, confinement, or oppression.
Freedom to engage in certain actions without control or interference: Specifically the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

"When liberty becomes license dictatorship is near." [Will Durant]

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" [Patrick Henry]

"Liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or human happiness or a quiet conscience." [Isaiah Berlin]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." [Thomas Jefferson]

"Liberty is precious; so precious that it must be rationed." [Lenin]