Fourth Amendment
No, I don’t miss George W. Bush
You’ve probably heard about the “Miss Me Yet?” billboard in Minnesota, featuring a picture of George W. Bush. According to Fox News, a “group of small business owners and individuals,” obviously not fans of Barack Obama, paid for it.
That’s all well and good, and while I’m no fan of Barack Obama, I don’t long for the presidency of George W. Bush.
From a fiscal perspective, the Bush Administration was a disaster. Before you repeat the Dick Cheney talking point that most of the spending was for defense and two wars. Let me go ahead and tell you, that’s not true. Bush was the biggest spender since Lyndon B. Johnson, dramatically increasing non-defense discretionary spending. Remember, he is a “compassionate conservative,” which is apparently a nice term for “statist.”
Bush signed a new entitlement into law, his administration enacted the most regulations since Nixon (“we’re all Keynesians now”) and he backed the Wall Street bailout while telling us that he “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” This is only the tip of the iceberg on his fiscal policies.
Legislator Wishes To Suspend Civil Liberties To Show He’s “Tough On Crime”
This week, I caught a story on the Atlanta news that immediately drew my attention. A state Representative, MY state Representative, will introduce a bill during the next legislative session that requires every suspect arrested of a felony to submit to a DNA sample. Without careful examination, along with a very friendly news report about the bill, this does not strike many everyday citizens as a “bad thing,” as seen in the first comment made about the story.
UK Hacking Home Computers Sans Warrants Likely to Increase
Though news of this sort cannot be considered unusual any longer, I still find it insufferable and mildly shocking. The likelihood of a British citizen having their personal home computer hacked by government authorities, secretly and without a warrant, has increased. Even more infuriating, this intrusion may be at the behest of a foreign nation, thanks to a recent plan adopted by the EU.
Since the hacking may proceed if an officer believes there is sufficient reason to believe it would help prevent or detect a serious crime, the obvious question is, who decides what is considered “sufficient reason” and what is to prevent abuse of these over-reaching powers? If there is truly sufficient evidence, why wouldn’t a judge simply grant a warrant? This would at least grant some oversight.
Gitmo Prosecutor Quits Due to Lack of Fairness in System
The Los Angeles Times ran a stunning piece in this Sunday’s paper detailing the resignation of Lt. Col. Darrel J. Vandeveld, the man who was prosecuting nearly 1/3rd of the pending trials for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. Vandeveld, a self described conformist, became disenchanted with “the system” set up in Cuba over issues relating to fairness and lack of due process for the very prisoners he was suppose to prosecute. He lays out accusations of intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys by military officials, and even goes so far as to say he reached out to a defense attorney to ask “how do I get myself out of this office?”.
Obama backs DNA database
A few months ago, Brett Bittner wrote about a proposal in the Georgia General Assembly that would allow law enforcement to collect the DNA of an individual arrested of a felony. This is obviously troubling as essentially suspends civil liberties for someone that has not yet had their day in court, nor been convicted by a jury of his peers.
It seems that President Barack Obama supports a federal DNA sampling database for individuals suspected of certain crimes, similar to laws already on the books in several states:
[Politico’s Josh] Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.
When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.
Two polls show Americans don’t trust government with liberties or money
CNN is out with a new poll that shows Americans don’t trust the government when it comes to safeguarding their rights, and rightfully so:
A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
Some would say that this is paranoia, but it’s not. Over the last several years, we’ve seen a dismantling of the Bill of Rights through restrictions on speech, attempted restrictions on the Second Amendment (Heller was a rare victory), a running over of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which guarantees the right to privacy, due process and private property. There is also no protection of economic liberty by government anymore.
Small victories for libertarians
Over at Real Clear Politics (a daily read for me), Jeremy Lott notes some of the victories libertarians have achieved over the last couple years:
The last several years have not been easy for libertarians to stomach. The U.S. government, which had bloated under President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress - the annual budget had climbed from $2 to $3 trillion under Bush and that didn’t count much off-budget military spending - has grown even more under President Barack Obama and his Democrats.
Hope and Change!!!: House passes PATRIOT Act renewal
A day after the the Senate passed (by a voice vote, no recorded vote was taken) renewal of provisions of the PATRIOT Act that were set to expire on Sunday, the House followed suite by passing the Bill of Rights gutting legislation by a vote of 315 to 97:
Many liberals in the House opposed the controversial act, saying it tramps Constitutional protections and civil liberties.
Congress adopted the Patriot Act shortly after September 11th.
Many lawmakers wanted to rewrite or even kill some of the most controversial provisions in the act. But Congressional leaders didn’t have the appetite for a major battle with the economy and health care reform swinging in the balance.
Many of the renewed provisions involve wiretaps and eavesdropping measures.
The Senate ok’d the package earlier this week. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law.
Just to make sure I’m reading this right, Democrats are too busy other assaults on individual liberty, free markets, the Constitution and loading up debt on the next generation by trying to pass ObamaCare and endless “stimulus” bills to put up a fight on civil liberties that they claim to be defenders of. Right? Got it.
Please, don’t let our liberties stand in the way of your agenda.
Individual Liberty or National Security: Bob Barr v. John Yoo
During a recent event sponsored by the University of Chicago Law School’s Federalist Society, former US Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) and John Yoo, whose legal opinions paved the way for the Bush Administration to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights, squared off for a debate on national security and individual liberty during wartime.
Here is the debate in its entirety:
Colbert takes on Obama on PATRIOT Act
Stephen Colbert takes on the fearmongering on the USA PATRIOT Act and President Barack Obama’s flip-flopping on the continuing deconstruction of the Fourth Amendment:

United Liberty








