Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Taking constitutional rights seriously during COVID-19 pandemic
    Government is only valid when it respects individual rights that the U.S. Constitution protects

    By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, April 1, 2020

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    “If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.” — Justice George Sutherland (1862-1942)

    In his 2008 book “Taking Rights Seriously,” the late professor Ronald Dworkin explored the origins and governmental treatment of human liberty. He argued that Thomas Jefferson — who wrote the Declaration of Independence — and James Madison — the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention and the author of the Bill of Rights — were clear in their articulations that the premise of America at its birth is that our rights are personal and natural because they come from our humanity, not from the government.

    Dworkin also recognized that government, which is essentially the negation of liberty, is only moral and valid when it enjoys the consent of the governed, respects individual rights as inalienable and interferes with them only after it proves fault to a jury at a fair trial.

    The Dworkin thesis is obviously not novel, but he wrote it toward the end of his illustrious career as a bulwark against those in government and academia who argued to the contrary. These folks claimed — and do so today — that the law is whatever those in power say it is, and the dead hands of the framers cannot control the living hands of those whom the people have elected. To these folks, the majority rules, even when it is tyrannical toward a minority.

    This argument — that a popularly elected government can trump individual liberties — is utterly repugnant to the concept of natural rights and accepts as somehow lawful the horrific acts of popularly elected governments for which the 19th and 20th centuries are well known. This view also rejects the plain language and — since 1803 — consistent judicial recognition of the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

    The Constitution was written to keep the government off the people’s backs and to assure their natural rights are free from government restraint.

    The concept against which the natural law is arrayed and against which Dworkin argued is regrettably on display in America today. People are getting sick and dying. The same government that can’t stop robocalls micromanages the delivery of health care in the United States and monopolizes medical procedures — like testing for a virus — that the free market can do better and faster. Because the government tolerates no competition, it was uninformed and ill-prepared.

    So, the essence of its response has been to treat our freedoms as if they were licenses to be rescinded on governmental whims, not guarantees as declared by the Declaration and Constitution.

    No matter how well-intended is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, he is the chief executive of the government of the state of New York. He is not the legislature. He cannot write laws and cannot enforce whatever he has written. That is the least of his transgressions. The greatest of them is his interference with rights expressly guaranteed in the Constitution that he and all others in government have taken an oath to uphold.

    I admire deeply Mr. Cuomo’s brilliant use of his bully pulpit to educate and intimidate the populace into commonsense behavior intended to limit the spread of coronavirus. But he cannot lawfully — nor could the legislature — interfere with the right to travel and to assemble peacefully because those liberties are guaranteed by the Constitution. They cannot be interfered with by decree or even by legislation, no matter the beneficial goal of the interference.

    It gets worse.

    Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo is stopping automobiles with out-of-state license plates as they attempt to enter Rhode Island and denying them entry. She has also threatened to send police door to door looking for persons from the New York City region who somehow eluded her border dragnet. And she is doing this with no warrants, no probable cause of crime and no individualized suspicion.

    In New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared music stores essential to society but churches, synagogues and mosques to be nonessential, we have seen the boldest threat yet. He offered to close permanently — permanently! — any house of worship that presently holds religious services. This barbarity directly violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that keeps government out of religion.

    And in New Jersey, Gov. Phil Murphy is arresting folks for holding coronavirus parties. The parties are insane, the attendees are reckless and their behavior is selfish. But it is not criminal. In fact, it is protected by the right to assemble, which is also expressly guaranteed in the Constitution. What if these assemblages are not for frivolity, but to protest the unconstitutional behavior of the government? Then they’d achieve even added protection — the freedom of speech.

    What’s going on in America?

    Justice George Sutherland was prescient in 1934. When the Constitution pinches the government, he warned, the government abandons it.

    If constitutional abandonment is not challenged by those most affected by it, a future generation of public officials will argue that the current generation acquiesced. That might happen as soon as the present crisis has passed. The government loves power and power once possessed is rarely voluntarily relinquished.

    When President George W. Bush argued after 9/11 that he needed temporary mass suspicionless surveillance powers to find the terrorists hiding among us, and Congress gave it to him, that power remained in the government. What started as listening to phone calls and monitoring bank accounts has now become following the movements, in real time, of all persons with mobile devices and capturing every keystroke on every computer.

    Unless we follow the Constitution, crisis produces fear, and fear produces madness, and madness produces those who become a law unto themselves.

    • Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a regular contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...y-during-covi/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    While members of this discussion board may be particularly interested in protecting our 2nd Amendments Rights, the battle is broader than that.

    The Post-Pandemic 'New Normal' Looks Awfully Authoritarian
    by J.D. Tuccille (a contributing editor at Reason.) 10.5.2020 10:00 AM


    https://reason.com/2020/10/05/the-po...-authoritarian

    "As 2020 slides into and probably infects 2021, try to take heart in one discomfiting fact: Things are most likely never going 'back to normal,'" wrote CNN International Security Editor Nick Paton Walsh last week. In his piece he discusses the likely permanency of mask mandates, telecommuting, reduced physical contact, and similar changes to life.

    Some of the alterations Walsh mentions may be matters of personal choice, but a good many of them are imposed by "politicians who pretend that 'normal' is just around the corner," as Babson College's Thomas Davenport says in the article.

    We're supposed to accept our newly constrained lives as "the new normal"—in a phrasing that's already very tired, indeed.

    Actually, repeated references to a "new normal" aren't just tired; they're ominous.

    "As the need for an extension of quarantine into the summer or beyond seems likelier, the new normal will certainly include unanticipated trade-offs," Andy Wang warned in May in the Harvard International Review. "The central irony of the crisis may be that the very methods that liberal democracies are currently using to effectively fight the virus are the same tactics that authoritarian leaders use to dominate their people. While the world is not sinking into authoritarianism, a post-quarantine world could be less democratic than its previous iteration; the tools that have been temporarily deployed in the fight against a once-in-a-lifetime disease may become permanent."

    These authoritarian tools may become permanent because government officials are rarely punished for doing something, even if the something is awful and counterproductive. It's leaving things alone to be worked out by individuals according to their own priorities and preferences for which politicians get called out.

    In addition, people who go into government tend to be the sort who naturally gravitate toward using power. And crises are excellent excuses for accumulating unprecedented authority and using it in novel ways.

    "For authoritarian-minded leaders, the coronavirus crisis is offering a convenient pretext to silence critics and consolidate power," Human Rights Watch cautioned in April.
    "In halls of power across the country, the growing novel coronavirus pandemic has sometimes been used to stretch, bend or ignore established law and policy," Jenny B. Davis wrote for the ABA Journal in April. "Fundamental freedoms, privacy protections and access to justice have been curtailed in the name of public safety, with legal justifications ranging from appropriate to patently inaccurate."

    Since then, judges have overruled some officials, including the governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania, who overstepped their authority and violated fundamental rights.

    "The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency-mitigation measures," wrote U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV in his September 14 decision regarding Pennsylvania's public health rules. "Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency."
    (Bolding mine)

    ...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania
    (Dauphin County)
    Posts
    2,451
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    I'm glad you posted this tonight.

    An analogy of this coronavirus madness suddenly hit me tonight. Bear with me, this is still not quite formed in my head yet, but what the coronavirus mask-wearing, brow-beating, authoritarian freaks are trying to do to American citizens is akin to what radical Islam does to Christians in the Middle East. They are trying to get us to renounce our citizenship, our American heritage, our birthright of Freedom, our individualist self-reliance, our control of government of, for, and by, the people, in the same way terrorist Islam tries to get Christians to renounce their faith in Jesus. We are threatened with all sorts of earthly consequences designed to intimidate us into kowtowing to the demands of those who would govern by force. As the men clad in orange jumpsuits kneeling on an unknown beach with a knife at their throat, we are being told comply or die. Renounce Jesus, or meet Him today. They are fully willing and capable of treating us in the same manner as those Islamists treated the men who would not comply, who would not renounce Christ. Renounce and pay the jizya! Put on your mask, stay home, forego your paycheck and livelihood, for the good of society. Those men on the beach showed us a true example of non-compliance. they did not comply, to their own death, as our forefathers would not comply to the King, many to their own deaths. How can we, seeing the example of both, and knowing the end result of compliance- utter servitude to a callous, hateful, remorseless tyrant, continue down this path. As free men, we must resist, and keep our Faith.
    Power always thinks...that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Here is a GREAT article by William Barr about our Freedoms recognized in the U.S. Constitution. This essay is adapted from a speech he delivered on religious liberty to the University of Notre Dame.

    It perfectly aligns with my signature sentiments. For too many people today, these values are not self-evident, but they were for most of the freedom-loving people who fought for the new republic of the United States of America - and for our brilliant Founders!


    Found at washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/13/william-barr-founders-gambled-virtue-prevailing-ov/

    William Barr: Founders gambled on virtue prevailing over passions
    U.S. Constitution relies on individuals' ability to restrain and govern themselves
    By William P. Barr - Updated: 9:32 a.m. on Wednesday, October 14, 2020

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    In his renowned 1785 pamphlet "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," James Madison described religious liberty as not only "a right towards men" but also "a duty towards the Creator," and a "duty * precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society."

    In other words, our Founders and the extraordinary documents they created did not just guarantee freedom of religion for citizens of this new nation. They also assumed a certain, basic obligation on the part of those free citizens to the higher power from which their rights and freedoms derived.

    The common phrase on our currency "In God We Trust" is not a call to worship. It is a constant, quiet nudge toward that power from which all our freedoms come. Hint: not government nor earthly king.

    From that Founding era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

    The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers' belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

    It has been over 230 years since that small group of Colonial lawyers led a revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment: establishing a society fundamentally different from those that had gone before.

    They had crafted a magnificent charter of freedom, the United States Constitution, which provides for limited government while leaving "the People" broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.

    The Founders never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

    Looking around today, one would be forgiven for having doubts about those prospects. But the Founders' faith in free people lay in more than just unfounded, rose-colored visions. The Founding generation's view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition.

    These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.

    Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

    No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

    But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

    On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous * licentiousness * the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny, where the individual is enslaved by his appetites and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.

    So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They would leave "the People" broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

    In the words of Madison, "We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves."

    This is really what was meant by "self-government." It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

    But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

    Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves, freely obeying the dictates of inwardly possessed and commonly shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men's will. They must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

    In short, in the Framers' view, free government was suitable and sustainable for only a religious people * a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

    How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

    First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments: to love God with your whole heart, soul and mind; and to love thy neighbor as thyself.

    But they also include the guidance of natural law * a real, transcendent moral order that flows from God's eternal law * the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon and reflected in all created things.

    From the nature of things, we can, through reason and experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independently of human will.

    Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a killjoy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

    These rules are best for man not in the by-and-by, but in the here and now. They are like God's instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

    By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but the harm over time is real.

    Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don't automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

    But religion helps teach, train and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws * that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society's informal rules * its customs and traditions that reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

    In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline. In fact, no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion in ensuring the successful prospects of self-governance.

    * William P. Barr is the 85th attorney general of the United States. Previously, he served as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. This essay is adapted from a speech he delivered on religious liberty to the University of Notre Dame.

    ...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Biden White House Plans 'Vaccine Passports'
    https://www.newsmax.com/us/vaccine-c...28/id/1015502/

    My Summary: --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Zients and the Department of Health and Human Services are leading the effort for a vaccine passport, a standardized, government-backed credential to accelerate safe economic activity and recovery. It is intended to be required for travel, sporting events and even eating out.

    The busboy, the janitor, the waiter that works at a restaurant, wants to be surrounded by employees that are going back to work safely - and wants to have the patrons ideally be safe as well.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recent election that promised changes to Fundamentally Alter America is bearing fruit. These changes are being crammed thru Congress and implemented in unprecedented Executive Orders. There is no founding principle that is not being assaulted.

    Various schemes of propaganda are being implemented on a variety of issues, intended to convince people that totalitarianism is good for America. All these are intended to assault and destroy the founding principles upon which our society and nation have been built. The above example is related to taking control of people's lives based on their compliance with a governmental demand for vaccination. Whether you comply or not, the idea of a government-issued passport within America to access publicly-offered services is ANATHEMA TO THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.

    This type of government control is being expanded on a regular basis. It will not be long before these same varied propaganda efforts will be directed toward self-protection that the 2A guarantees. The disregard for individual freedom, the leftist effort at redefinition of words and the embrace of socialist group-responsibilty (over self-reliance) is driving the fundamental takeover of life by the federal government (currently controlled by the Left). In places like Oregon, with the tolerance of regular violation of the citizens rights to law & order, by the Antifa Anarchists, we have a clear example of dangers that requires respect for the second amendment if there is to be any personal safety.

    There is already talk of new Gun Control restrictions (based on feel-good efforts by the left) on law-abiding citizens thru a redefinition of the word 'Firearms'. As other misdirected solutions, these efforts will not reduce violence in our society, but will add burdens (of unconstitutional restrictions) on those who want to be law-abiding. The EO Edicts & other restrictive laws being implemented are unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has abdicated its responsibility to protect the citizens from the government, just as happened with the past election.

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; March 29th, 2021 at 03:09 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    7,194
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Mark o the beast
    The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Hillary Clinton slams 'shameless' Republican 'gun worshipers'
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lican-gun-wor/

    Hillary Clinton slammed Republican *gun worshipers* for exploiting people*s *unwarranted* fears regarding *sensible* gun-control legislation in a forthcoming interview.

    During an interview with her former campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, a preview of which was released Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton said Republican lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz are *opportunists* trying to stoke fears in Americans that Democrats are trying to take their guns.

    *The opportunists on the other side, like Cruz and his ilk, they know better and they are in the position of trying to keep people really riled up and scared that sensible gun legislation like we had in the *90s for 10 years will somehow undermine their rights,* Mrs. Clinton said.

    *Well, what about the rights of all the rest of us?* she asked. *The rights of us to go to work, go shopping, go on dates to the movie theater, go to school, for heaven*s sake * what about the rest of us?*

    The former secretary of state and twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate said Republicans have the upper hand in the gun-control debate because of the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote threshold to pass controversial legislation in a Senate that*s currently split 50-50.

    *You know, democracy is the balancing of interests and rights, and unfortunately at this time, the gun worshipers have a huge advantage because of the filibuster and because of their shameless exploitation of people*s unwarranted fears,* Mrs. Clinton said.

    House Democrats voted earlier this month to expand criminal background checks to all gun sales and transfers, but Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate have voiced opposition. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Thursday he would bring background check legislation to the floor after the Senate returns April 12.

    The myth of Peace & Safety continues to be promoted. The inanimate object is blamed for the actions of Criminal Persons.

    The Right To Keep & Bear Arms is enshrined in the Constitution. It sticks in the craw of the Leftist Totalitarians that there is always a fight to preserve the respect the Constitution deserves.

    And in this case, the propaganda campaign is designed to eliminate the filibuster in order to move forward with the totalitarian agenda.

    Her characterization of Democracy is based on the misperception that America is a Democracy - ruled by a 51% MOB - but it is actually a Republic and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is to protect the Rights of THE PEOPLE, even when 90% prefer the MOB action.

    Let's hope the USSC can find the fortitude to actually protect THE PEOPLE from the MOB (government).

    ...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Rahm Emanuel: Democrats must focus 'on the criminal, not the gun'
    By Jessica Chasmar - March 30, 2021
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...the-criminal-/

    Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Monday that Democrats pushing gun control must focus *on the criminal, not the gun* if they want Republican support.

    Appearing on ABC*s *This Week* panel, Mr. Emanuel said Democrats would need to find a compromise with Republicans in order to get gun control legislation passed in the Senate.

    *Back when we passed the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, we focused on the criminal, not the gun. Now we*re focusing on the gun,* the Democrat said.

    *I would go back to terrorists * *No fly, no buy* * cannot happen,* he continued. *Two, you have a domestic violence record, which is 10% of all homicides in America, you*re banned from buying a gun. You have a violent criminal record as a juvenile, you can*t buy a gun. You have a mental health issue, and anything on violence on mental health, you can*t buy a gun.

    *If you focus on the criminal piece, not access to the gun, Republicans then realize it*s not about gun access, which would have, obviously, a Second Amendment issue, but the criminal element, which is how Clinton focused on both Brady, which is a five-day waiting period for a criminal background check, and the assault weapon ban, which was also a gun of choice by gangs,* he added.

    Political commentator Margaret Hoover said Mr. Emanuel*s argument fell in line with a popular motto by gun rights advocates.

    *It sounds like you*re saying, guns don*t kill people, people kill people,* Ms. Hoover remarked. *That was the NRA tagline for so long.*

    Mr. Emanuel pushed back, saying he is *no friend* of the National Rifle Association.

    *Given that Republicans are not going to vote for this, you have to get the access,* he reiterated. *The debate back in the *90s, the last time we passed it, was on the criminal element. That*s where the debate should be. And I want to be clear, the Proud Boys are on a domestic terrorist list.*

    House Democrats voted earlier this month to expand criminal background checks to all gun sales and transfers, but Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate have voiced opposition. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Thursday he would bring background check legislation to the floor shortly after the Senate returns on April 12.
    Different approach - Same Agenda!

    The idea that you can punish law-abiding citizens, by taking away their Right to Self-defense, to prevent them from becoming criminals is anathema to our 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' constitutional justice principles.

    If you locked every person in America in hands-and-legs stocks, you could prevent many, many crimes. But perpetrating criminal actions against the citizens (taking away their Rights) is not the way to address crime.

    In the same way that the Coronavirus PANIC was created by describing every one as 'THE MOST VULNERABLE' in order to impose unnecessary controls on ALL THE PEOPLE, just so, this gun argument is intended to define every one as a potential criminal in order to treat them like Actual Criminals. Our national principles of justice were intended to punish those who ACTUALLY COMMIT criminal acts but treat everyone who has NOT Actually Committed a Crime as though they are innocent - as they actually are!

    Removing freedom from those who want to be law-abiding as a solution against those WHO ARE NOT law-abiding is just another stupid idea!

    ...

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Corporate Authoritarianism - For Money & Power

    Chinese smart TVs are snooping on their owners
    By Zeyi Yang - May 3, 2021
    https://www.protocol.com/china/chine...elling-anybody

    Hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers had a surprise discovery last week: Their TV sets know a lot more about them than they'd ever thought, or ever agreed to.

    It turns out Beijing-based Gozen Data, a leading Chinese TV viewership analytics firm, has been collecting personal data in real time using smart TVs * without users' consent.

    The practice was first exposed when a user on V2EX, an online forum for tech enthusiasts, noticed their Skyworth-brand smart TV had become slow and analyzed the code of back-end programs to figure out why. What they found was a program that scans the user's Wi-Fi every 10 minutes and uploads a wide range of information to Gozen Data's website.

    "What smart devices are used at home; whether your phone is at home; who is visiting and using your Wi-Fi; what's the name of your neighbor's Wi-Fi; all of these are constantly being collected and uploaded," the user wrote on April 22. The finding was later reposted on Weibo, attracting widespread concern.

    Discussions about illegal data-collecting practices are common in China, but mostly center on smartphone apps, which Chinese regulators have been scrutinizing over the past year. This appears to be the first high-profile, publicly-disclosed instance of data security concerns centering on smart TVs.

    As in the United States, smart TVs have become ubiquitous in Chinese homes. A 2019 industry report estimates that 270 million smart TVs are in use in China. Gozen Data says it has been working with smart TV makers since 2014 to embed its data collection program. Its reach appears vast: Up until April 27, Gozen Data's website said its data collection service covered 149 million households, 140 million smart TVs and 457 million people in China.

    The problem is, almost no TV watchers have known about the practice. Despite its reach, Gozen Data is not a widely-known name within China. After the news broke, Gozen removed the coverage numbers from its website.

    The data Gozen previously said it collects is likely used to analyze a user's likes and enable personalized advertising. In a 2019 public speech, Chen Zhengxuan, Gozen Data's vice president, said the company collects information on what's streamed on TVs and, remarkably, what devices are being used in front of TV screens, "like smartphones, iPads, Xiaomi and Alibaba smart speakers." Pierced together, these data enable Gozen to guess who's watching the TV and to help advertisers target very specific groups, "like mothers of babies 0 to 3 years old," Chen said.

    Gozen Data's website has taken down mentions of which TV makers partner with the company. It previously listed a handful of domestic brands that collectively cover the majority of China's smart TV market. It's unclear whether all or any of these companies agreed to the stealth collection of user data.

    Skyworth, the Chinese company that manufactured the particular smart TV set found to be uploading personal data, released an announcement on April 27 that it had immediately disabled all Gozen Data services. A data partnership between Skyworth and Gozen that has been in place since 2014 has also been terminated.

    Gozen Data released a statement apologizing and promising to "improve our user privacy policy and ensure we are collecting information with users' consent and within the scope of legal compliance." Now its website has a separate page detailing the 21 types of data it collects from users, a list not available on the website before this week. (Gozen did not respond to a Protocol request for comment.)

    The social media outrage against Gozen takes place amid a nationwide transition into smart-home living that leads the world. As Chinese companies continue to introduce home appliances that connect to the internet, concerns about data security are sure to spill over from discussions about mobile apps. On Weibo, many users shared complaints on the security risks that exist when everything * including kitchen hoods, water heaters and stoves * all go "smart." "It's really unnecessary for many traditional appliances to connect to the Wi-Fi," says one comment. Chinese companies eyeing a lucrative market are forging ahead anyway.

    Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China.

    No matter how much assurance is given, by governments and companies, to their virtue and constraint, if it is possible to violate our Rights, they will do so for money & power. This is the reason to resist all things that make us vulnerable to such violations. It is the reason that the potential for small violations be taken seriously, because those things that are small now, will inevitably lead to larger & larger intrusions & violations.

    The Moral concept (or the general rule of social health) of the Golden Rule, treat others in the way you would want to be treated, is totally ignored. The Founding Fathers understood the proclivities of humankind to lean toward evil and created checks and balances in the government structures to counteract those tendencies. But those checks and balances have all been perverted and our general social attitudes have become If It Feels Good (or benefits you), Do It -- Regardless of the negative impact on other people or even your family.

    We are all responsible to do what we can to live our lives in a way that benefits society, not simply ourselves. But that becomes more and more difficult when society attacks you at every turn for being Self-Sufficient (not relying on governmental handouts), Self-Determinitive (not letting others decide your life choices) and Personally Responsible (not blaming others, or relying on their 'forgiveness', for correcting your mistakes.)

    The government, and now most large corporations, want you to be Dependent on them! They want you to NEED their assistance, NEED their Approval, NEED their forgiveness, in order to be happy. They want to be in every crevice of your life, telling you what to think, what to want, what to avoid, what to crave, how to be guilty, when you can be forgiven, how to make your money, how to spend your money (what's left after their confiscatory taxing), what to read, see, hear in the media, what to eat, who to associate with and when it's appropriate to die.

    All of this in order to benefit themselves with money and power. They see others as the sheep to be shorn and eventually consumed as mutton when it benefits them.

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; June 10th, 2021 at 05:00 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,889
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: The Fantasy of Peace & Safety!

    Gov't Can't Morally, Constitutionally Suspend Our Rights
    By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - 21 May 2021
    https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewp.../21/id/1022256

    "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government." * Ex Parte Milligan, Supreme Court of the United States, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).

    Last week, the media in New Jersey began to ask Gov. Phil Murphy when he would surrender his emergency powers. He claimed emergency powers in March 2020, and he also claimed that those powers are not limited by the Constitution when he said on Fox that the Bill of Rights is above his pay grade. His reply to the media inquiries was that he will surrender them when he surrenders them!

    I am using the example of Murphy in order to address the concept of emergency powers, but there is no hyperbole here. Murphy quite literally issued executive orders barring folks from doing what the Constitution guarantees them the right to do, and he imposed criminal penalties for violating his orders, and he had folks who defied him arrested and prosecuted.

    Stated differently, he assumed the powers of the state legislature * which is to write the laws * and he violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.

    He claimed that somehow he can interfere with the exercise of basic human freedoms * like going to church, going to work, shopping for food, operating a business, assembling and traveling * because he declared a state of emergency.

    If the government declares an emergency, can it thereby acquire the lawful power to interfere with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms? In a word: No.

    Here is the backstory.

    When the states formed the federal government in 1789, they did so pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution was written to establish and to limit the federal government.

    In 1791, just two years later, the Constitution was amended to add the Bill of Rights. The original understanding of the Bill of Rights was that it restrained only the federal government by articulating negative rights.

    A negative right restrains the government from interfering with the exercise of a preexisting right. Thus, the First Amendment does not grant the freedom of speech * because it comes from our humanity * but it does prohibit Congress from infringing upon it.

    After the War Between the States, Congress sent the 14th Amendment to the states for ratification. Its history is tortuous, and in part repellant, but it was ratified, and it is the law of the land. It has been interpreted and applied by the courts as imposing the Bill of Rights upon the states. Thus, any right expressly or arguably protected from federal interference by the Bill of Rights is protected from state interference as well.

    The Ninth Amendment * which today restrains the feds and the states * is the work of James Madison's genius. Madison, who chaired the House of Representatives committee that wrote the Bill of Rights, wrestled along with his colleagues about the best way to protect unenumerated rights.

    The big-government crowd in Congress did not want any enumerated rights to be expressed. They argued that by listing a few, the unlisted rights would be subject to government assault.

    The small-government crowd argued that by listing no rights as immune from government interference, the Constitution would invite the government to assault whatever rights it wished.

    Madison's solution to all this was to add a Bill of Rights and include the Ninth Amendment. That amendment recognizes that we all have pre-political, fundamental, natural rights * too numerous to enumerate * and prohibits all government from disparaging them.

    During the War Between the States, Abraham Lincoln did more than disparage them. He ordered the military to arrest newspaper editors and even public officials in the North and confine them without trial because he disapproved of their criticism of him. One of them, Lambdin P. Milligan, sued for his freedom, and he won.

    In a unanimous decision, cited hundreds of times, the Supreme Court rejected the concept that "emergency" somehow creates or increases government power. The court condemned "emergency" as a doctrine the fruits of which none is "more pernicious." This condemnation is still the law of the land today, and it applies to the states as well as to the feds.

    Thus, no matter the exigency * war, floods, pandemic, fear, myth * individual natural rights, protected from government interference by the Ninth Amendment, trump the unconstitutional words of government officials and invalidate their efforts to enforce compliance.

    Murphy's orders contain empty words because they do not have the force of law since they were not legislatively created and they directly contradict the Constitution and the Supreme Court's most definitive interpretations of it.

    When Murphy became the governor of New Jersey, he took an oath to enforce the Constitution. Whatever personal ignorance or mental reservations he may have had, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and every public official, federal and state, is bound by it.

    If government officials could declare an emergency whenever they wished and thereby be relieved of the obligation to defend the Constitution * and the rights it guarantees * then no liberty is safe.

    Because our rights are natural and individual and because we did not all consent to their suspension, no government may morally or constitutionally suspend them, and we must resist all efforts to do so. Of course, there is a dark side to this. The government that has destroyed liberty and property has also immunized itself from financial liability for the consequences of those destructions.

    Yet, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, whenever any government destroys liberty and property, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

    What most radicals don't understand is that the Constitution is not only a document acknowledging the Rights of THE PEOPLE, which the Federal (and now State) government should not violate. It, along with the Declaration of Independence, defines a dividing line. The Declaration was issued as the justification for action (defining a dividing line) against a government that REFUSED to respect the Rights of THE PEOPLE.

    As more radicals insist that the government expand more and more, into every crevice of the lives of THE PEOPLE, they get closer and closer to waking a national response. Ever more people are having their Rights violated in one form or another. Many are wondering if the Justificaiton For Action has been satisfied.

    My fear is that we do not have men of clear vision to right the wrongs being wrought by the current radicals and that the 'corrective' action that will ensue is not really corrective, but rather simply diametrically opposed to the current actions - and not to the current attitudes. It may well be that there is a national uprising against the current radical actions, but if the resulting actions simply push the pendulum of oppression to the opposite side of the spectrum, imposing upon the liberals the idealogy and preferences of the conservatives, then we are still living in an oppressive society.

    The Founding Fathers researched, discussed, argued, over a configuration of government that provided the MOST FREEDOM - not just for one idealogy, but for all personal idealogies that were not physically dangerous to others. It was a configuration based on TOLERANCE. This is why SMALL GOVERNMENT is the best government - so THE PEOPLE can choose their own way of life, so long as it is not oppressing others from doing the same.

    Intolerance and oppression from any idealogy is antithetical to the idea of FREEDOM.

    ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Fantasy of Peace & Safety
    By ImminentDanger in forum General
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 24th, 2021, 11:46 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 4th, 2014, 03:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •