OK, I'm convinced. Americans are under surveillance. I'm not sure by whom, exactly--and it probably depends on where you are anyway--but whatever the case, there's always someone who wants to know who you are, where you are, and what you're doing. It is time for "we the people" to stop playing into their hand.
Maybe it's the federal government, maybe it's a private corporation trying to maintain a "target market" database. You can be fairly certain that the person asking for your information doesn't know, and doesn't care. Case in point: while travelling with my family, we stopped at a Comfort Inn late one night. On a whim, I gave the clerk a false last name and paid for our room in advance, in cash. She asked to see my driver's license!
"You mean you're supposed to check my driver's license even if I'm paying cash? Somebody sure wants to know who's staying here," I said. "Yeah," she replied, "I don't know where these new rules came from...I wish they'd just toss 'em out the window. Can I see your license?"
"What if I don't want to show it to you?"
"I can just say you didn't want to show it to me."
"OK, then, I don't want to show it to you."
I also had to refuse to give her my address, though I condescended to give her my ZIP code. The worst thing, in my opinion, is that 99% of Americans would have given her whatever she asked for: driver's license, social security number, mother's maiden name, or whatever, without asking any questions or even considering why that information could possibly be needed by a motel, or what they might do with the information once they had it. The same 99% of Americans would be shocked to discover that the manager of the Comfort Inn might have all the information he needs to assume their identity whenever he so chooses.
The same 99% would also wonder why we get all these telemarketing calls and junk mail. Gee, where could they have come up with my address and phone number? And then we expect the government--which is one of the entities seeking our private information in the first place--to set up "no call" lists (which, you will notice, don't apply to most of the telemarketing calls you receive) and other "services" to rescue us from our own stupidity.
Most of us think, for some reason, that if we deny a stranger any information, then they'll be hurt and offended, which will give us a cold prickly feeling inside. All I can say is, GET OVER IT. Guard your privacy like a treasure. Keep your private information private, and don't give it out to anyone unless you know for a fact that it is necessary for the circumstances at hand. Believe me, the clerks will get over it, and many of them will silently thank you for taking a stand against the unnecessary collection of information. Do you think they like grilling people for personal information? They'll almost certainly be relieved if you say, "If you don't mind, I'd rather not give out that information," and if they're part of the nosy minority, you can generally put the matter to rest by saying, "I'm sorry, but I do not give out that information." If they get obtuse about it, then take your business elsewhere--and be sure to tell them why you are doing so.
Doug Williams had been through "anger management" counseling, politically correct "tolerance" seminars, and who knows how many other examples of the current batch of Orwellian educational "opportunities" being foisted on employees of public and private institutions across the country. When he snapped, though, he didn't attack verbally, he didn't use "hate speech," he didn't harass; he attacked with deadly force...and innocent people died. Mr. Williams, now deceased, is guilty of murder and suicide, but are there other culpable parties?
According to the Fox News story, supervisors and coworkers knew that Williams was a "hothead" and had engaged in verbally and physically threatening behavior many times. When Williams entered the plant armed with a shotgun and rifle, Hubert Threatt had a face-to-face encounter with him and recognized immediately that Mr. Williams had "snapped" and presented a clear and present danger to his co-workers. In fact, Mr. Threatt, after begging Mr. Williams not to shoot anyone, watched him kill three coworkers. It seems reasonable to assume that, had Mr. Threatt or any of his co-workers been armed, they could have stopped Mr. Williams before he started shooting, by either detaining or shooting him. Any able-bodied person in that plant, therefore, holds some culpability for failing to be armed and ready to defend themselves and their co-workers.
But does Lockheed-Martin encourage this sort of preparedness in its employees? Searching the Lockheed-Martin website for any mention of a company policy on firearms turned up one document that seems to be a standard subcontractor agreement of some sort, and it states, "Unauthorized Personal Property - WITHOUT PRIOR LOCKHEED MARTIN AUTHORIZATION CAMERAS, TELEVISIONS, RADIO, TAPE RECORDERS, COMPUTERS, ELECTRONIC DEVICES, FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, KNIVES, OR ANY OTHER WEAPONS ARE PROHIBITED ON THE FACILITY." In other words, Lockheed-Martin actually discourages its employees to be prepared for self-defense.
So, what does Lockheed-Martin do to protect the employees who abide by company policy and go unarmed? Exactly nothing. There are no armed guards and metal detectors at plant entrances. The fact that Mr. Williams entered the plant openly well-armed indicates the absence of any physical safeguards preventing anyone--employee or otherwise--entering the facility with "unauthorized personal property" of any sort.
This is a classic example of what happens when an armed criminal enters a "gun-free" zone with a gun. Innocent people, who have unquestioningly obeyed the "gun-free" policy, either die or watch helplessly as others die at the hands of a criminal. Common sense tells us that it is not the gun, but the criminal, who should be stopped, and an armed criminal can often only be stopped by an armed citizen.
Mr. Threatt and his co-workers should be chastised for failing to provide for their own defense. Part of their required training should include a course on self-defense, including the use of deadly force and the use, care, and carriage of personal firearms. Lockheed-Martin should be hit with a class action lawsuit for establishing a "gun-free" zone without providing physical security to ensure that the zone was truly "gun-free." And our culture should learn, yet again, the lesson that fancy words and politically-correct seminars cannot change people's hearts. People are inherently evil, and the only way to change a person's heart is for them to experience a redeeming relationship with Jesus Christ.
David Limbaugh has a couple of good articles on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Texas sodomy law. Among other things, he says:
Limbaugh is correct that President Bush needs to challenge the court publicly. But a "filibuster-proof majority" is needed for more than simply confirming constructionist judges. As most of us learned in high school history, the three-branched government framed by our Constitution includes "checks and balances" so no branch is able to usurp more than its share of granted powers. According to Article III, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour...." If and when a Judge fails to exercise good Behaviour, that Judge is to be removed from office. But how to do it? As noted in the anti-federalist paper Brutus, number 15:
The Constitution is clear that a bad judge must be removed from office, and the method of removal is specified in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which delineate the impeachment authority of the Congress. Impeaching a badly-behaved Judge is really not an option; it is the sworn duty of the Legislature to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. "Bad behaviour" is defined by the Constitution as "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Because the United States is a Constitutional Republic--that is, founded upon the rule of law--any effort to undermine the authority of the Constitution may well be considered Treason. If a Judge, therefore, behaves or adjudicates in such a fashion that he challenges the clear meaning of, or usurps authority beyond the scope of, the Constitution, then he is guilty of Treason and may be considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
With that in mind, at least a few justices on the Supreme Court have demonstrated clearly that they are domestic enemies of the Constitution. We, the people, must demand that our Congress fulfill its duty to impeach these Judges. If they will not, then it shall be our duty to replace them with those who will.
I had lunch the other day with several co-workers at a state university. During our conversation, one of the ladies shared with us the reason that she had quit her job at the university several years ago, and had just recently returned. Several years ago, she was physically assaulted by a male co-worker, who forced her into a remote office, locked her inside, and made it clear that his intention was to commit a sexual crime against her. But for the timely intervention of another employee who just happened to hear her screams, she would most likely have been raped and seriously injured, if not murdered, by the criminal co-worker. She resigned from the university immediately following the incident.
I have worked with this woman for several years, and this was new information to me. I thought about what it must have been like for her, caught in that helpless situation. I realized that the reason she resigned was because she knew that the same thing could happen again. What if that other employee had not happened by? Even had she been able to dial 911, the campus police would not have been able to respond in time. She had only her own strength and wit to save her, but she was no match for the criminal’s strength, and he was not interested in her wit.
I thought about what she could have done to decrease her helplessness. She needed something that could even the odds, something that would strike fear into the heart of a determined criminal. Truth be told, she needed a gun—but, as a "law-abiding" citizen, she couldn’t have one. Texas state law would have prosecuted her for using the only means of defense that would have tipped the scales in her favor, and she knew it. That same Texas state law, unfortunately, affects every employee of every educational institution in the state.
Because I work at this university, my personal safety is jeapordized every day—and the State of Texas does nothing to help me. Because the Legislature prohibits firearms in educational institutions but does not physically control the entrances to those institutions, any armed criminal can walk into any building at any time and have free reign over the occupants of the building. When that happens, the myth of the “gun-free school” is exposed, and the only rational action—for the survivors—is to resign and seek employment in the private sector, where they can protect themselves against violent criminals without fear of prosecution under unconstitutional state laws.
I understand the irreplacable utility of a firearm for self-defense, and I recognize that the U.S. Constitution reserves my right to keep and bear arms. In an effort to assist the Texas Legislature in properly exercising the power granted them by the Texas Constitution "to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime," I have demonstrated to the State of Texas that I am in fact "well regulated" in my ability to use a firearm, by fulfilling the state’s requirements to obtain a Concealed Handgun License. Ignoring, for the moment, the Constitutional irrelevance of their opinion on the matter, the Texas Legislature says that I may legally carry a concealed handgun virtually anywhere in the state of Texas—even in the State Capitol building—but for some reason they have drawn the line at the doorway of any educational institution. Am I suddenly a threat when I enter my workplace, because it happens to be a school? Surely not!
Consider the following accounts from recent years:
Also consider these nationwide statistics:
According to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, "...school violence can happen anywhere and students, parents, and teachers alike are expressing heightened fear of becoming victims of violence at school...Texas teachers report that they fear for their safety...students, teachers, and parents alike have more fear and concern about safety in schools." The intent of the "Gun-Free School Zones" law, and any law that prohibits firearms on a school campus, is to reduce gun-related crimes in schools. Statistics, though, show that the impact of such laws is exactly the reverse; that, in fact, prohibiting lawful concealed carry on school campuses contributes to a net increase in violent crime there.
Obviously, the current state of affairs is not effectively supporting the federal "Safe and Drug Free Schools" effort, nor does it fulfill the Texas Constitution’s requirement on the Legislature to have a "view to prevent crime," nor especially does it conform to the U.S. Constitution’s directive that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It behooves the Legislature of the State of Texas, in the interests of public safety and adherence to fundamental human rights, to remove the ban on lawful carry of firearms on the premises of educational institutions. That would be the single most effective way to protect our children and educators.
The Supreme Court has done it again, striking down yet another state law over which it had no jurisdiction, claiming that, when the Constitution says "privileges or immunities" in Amendment XIV, it's really talking about sodomy.
The same Amendment, by the way, states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Not the Court, but the Congress...so even if "privileges or immunities" did mean "sodomy," the Supremes would still be out of line. I find it rather disturbing that the same Court that can find "sodomy" and "abortion" in the words "privileges or immunities" in Amendment XIV cannot see the words "shall not be infringed" in Amendment II.
At any rate, an aspiring college genetics major wrote a miserable excuse for an argument supporting the Court's decision. What follows is my response to the editor.
Perhaps Midhat Farooqi's opinion on the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling should have been kept private. His claim that heterosexuals may legally engage in sodomy is specious, because sodomy is by definition a homosexual act. Homosexuality is defined by actions; it is entirely different from the issue of race. The State of Texas does indeed have a legitimate purpose in prohibiting homosexual behavior, which is associated with a six thousand percent higher incidence of HIV and other STDs, as well as a significantly higher incidence of child molestation, than heterosexual behavior.
Mr. Farooqi also makes the claim that "States...cannot write laws based on morality." Every law is based on the premise that one thing is right, while another is wrong. That is morality; without it, we could have no laws. Mr. Farooqi does, in fact, ask the appropriate question: "Which morality code should the state follow?" The answer is, the "Christian" one--or, more accurately, the "Judeo-Christian" one--because that is the moral code upon which our foundational law is based.
Noah Webster, founder of the U.S. public education system, said, "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government."
I can say it no better than Mr. Webster. It is a pity that our Supreme Court has seen fit to despise, yet again, both the moral foundation of law and the right of states to govern themselves as they see fit. It may be a happy day for the sexually deviant, but it is a sad day indeed for America.