"Theses licenses essentially assign a new national ID# to citizens that can then be read through wallets, purses, and walls by anyone who is willing to spend $50 at Radio Shack. The first time you show your license at one of the big box stores they'll be able to associate you with that number. That sounds like something out of China, not the United States."" EXPANSION OF RFID ENABLED DRIVER LICENSE PROGRAM RECEIVES HARSH CRITICISM, February 20, 2009, Michigan House Republicans
http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=5410&District=93
Thanks for sending this to me Darren!
With opposition like this, its guaranteed to succeed here. At least he admits to being told to "take it or leave it". I'm glad to see thats still an option. An activity that is granted, licensed or permitted, is not a liberty or right.
ReplyDeletePicking at Homeland Security schemes rather than challenging its very existence is the major fraud that these bought and paid for politicians are actively supporting with their pretense of concern for the constituents. He says he has "many constituents who want a secure ID", but is he ever asked how many? Is it three, four, maybe his wife and children? Are they educated idiots or college professors, or is there any difference? Do they believe they need an ID because failure to ID is now a crime in many states? How did that happen? These politicians know the answers because this is all their handy work. Their fingerprints are all over it, but no one ever asks them to account for it.
How can we call it treason when they claim constituent support and no one objects?
"But people wanted this" was the standard response to my complaints in Seattle about the ID database pilot test. I always responded, "So? I never wanted it and it's my liberty you're assuming is yours to take. Well it's not, and it never can be either." (and boy was I ever proven wrong, eh?)
ReplyDeleteDon't you love it when people cry like babies about their "Rights?" What if Americans understood the principles for liberty and stopped believing ACLU "rights" propaganda?
Etzioni could never have claimed we'd gone "too far" in the US with individual rights if groups like the NLG hadn't carried on the legacy of Emma Goldman's Fabianism.
To me our freedom is like marriage vows, "What God has brought together let no man put asunder" (or something like that?). Nothing irritates me more than to witness an American groveling before a public official for their rights.
Those of us who know our rights have at least a chance of preserving them. When my 'community' set their sights on my property for an easy taking, I requested the hearing that was offered. Everyone else who had gone through this process had not done so because they didn't believe it would make any difference. They all went and hired expensive lawyers, and 3 out of 4 that were in process at that time lost. I was the only one who presented his own case before the Council. The meeting lasted less than 10 minutes, and the Mayor dismissed me with the remark, "The City has no further issues to discuss concerning the property on the southwest corner of Franklin and Marion.". I thanked them and took a seat in the audience to watch the proceedings.
ReplyDeleteA lady was called and she sat down and began sobbing "Please don't take my dads car, he was injured and couldn't work, so he couldn't buy insurance or tags, but he will be going back to work in a few weeks and he'll need that car." The council calmed her fears assuring her that they would "work with" her and "help" get the matter resolved. Every poor SOB who allowed the City to "work with" them ended up loosing their house or car in the process. I didn't have the stomach to watch it so I got up and left. I tried to help some of them, but there was no way. They all had a "good lawyer". The only one who won the first round, was then sued by the City to recover upwards of $20,000 in legal fees. After a couple of years, he eventually won that too, but only because he had been approved for a HUD loan to remodel the house.
To top it all, this same fellow told me that because he had been run through all that mess, he was going around town and filing reports on every property owner where he thought a house didn't look as good as his. He named my place in particular. I told him the City had already had a bite of me and decided they didn't want any more. That can only be interpreted one way. It could only mean that he approved of that action and wanted to see more of it. To my knowledge, he had no success. I would like to think it was because some people were paying attention to what was happening on my corner.
I heard later that the mayor had left town in fear of his life. I said, I hope it wasn't anything I said. He had made it a point to compliment me on how nice my place looked, but I hadn't done anything.
bobby!
ReplyDeleteBy what grounds did you vanquish them so quickly? I must know?
I read the violation notice. Very important!
ReplyDeleteIt read in part and I quote: "The City Council has received a complaint of a vehicle nuisance violation on the property at the southwest corner of Franklin and Marion. ...You may apply for a hearing within ten days of service of this notice. ... blau, blau, blau" end quote.
I recalled the legal description of my property, and understood that it was not so identified in the violation notice.
At the hearing, the Mayor opened with "I came by your place today and I didn't see those trucks. What did you do with them?"
I replied "I didn't request this hearing to discuss my trucks. I would like the Council to address a question concerning the identification of the particular property mentioned in this notice. I live on that corner, but my trucks were parked on the street so I'm a little confused. Would the Council describe it more specifically for me please?
That exchange took maybe two minutes at the most. The Mayor continued to control the discussion but all he had left to say was comments on how much my new privacy fence improved the appearance of my place. The other members appeared to be preoccupied with re-arranging their papers. I thought they believed there must be some mistake. That I was there for some other matter.
After the Mayor had exhausted those pleasantries, he dismissed me as I mentioned. I left the table with the mouths of the other members gapping open. I imagined that they had dozed off and couldn't believe so much time had elapsed. It was obvious to me that the Mayor was the only one who understood the relevance of my question, and I don't believe he wanted to face that issue in court.
I'm sure he used the laws of the land which are still on the books to defeat the un-constitutional Communitarian laws being used against us.
ReplyDeleteSo let me be sure I'm understanding you. Your vehicles were parked on city property i.e. the street... and the city had served notice as if it were your own property?
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see why the mayor didn't want to talk about that in a public meeting. So was it a problem to relocate the trucks?
It is these kind of little incidents that will prevent me from ever 'owning' property within the city limits.... even when and if I buy some land in the county, I'll be away up some hill, with at least an acre, and a fence. I've joked that I'd dig a moat and have a drawbridge... but then of course I'd go the full monty with gun turrets and critters in the cess pool! ;)