Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Boston Fallout

 Well now it  begins. Rep Peter King of NY was interviewed and he said the following, none of which should come as any surprise to anybody that has been paying attention for any length of time. In fact, some of us could have  written these lines for him. He was asked if we needed more cameras.

 I think we do because I think privacy involves being in a private location. Being out in the street is not an expectation of privacy. Anyone can look at you, can see you, can watch what you're doing. A camera just makes it more sophisticated, but it's no different from your neighbor looking out the window at you or a police officer looking at you walking down the street.

So, I do think we need more cameras. We have to stay ahead of the terrorists and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that. So yes, I do favor more cameras. They're a great law enforcement method and device. And again, it keeps us ahead of the terrorists, who are constantly trying to kill us.

I hope also that members of Congress, both parties, including my own, will realize that the war against terror is not over. And it's foolhardy to be making cuts in Homeland Security, especially to cities, whose police departments need this to train and to be ready to take on terrorism

  Now the most powerful lies are half-truths.  Yes, in public you  have  no expectation of privacy. It is  quite common while performing public ministry for me to be photographed or videotaped by private individuals. I have no legal recourse against that since I don't own the  photons bouncing off my  body.  But there is a difference between  'no expectation of privacy' and  the constant  surveillance,  and archiving of all information , pertinent or not, on  citizens by a police state.  Just because you're in public doesn't mean that the  4th Amendment is suspended.  Privacy does not  only apply to being in a private location. The police cannot (although they will if you let them) just randomly stop people in public and  rifle through their effects.  What Mr. King is  suggesting is not the same as your  neighbor looking out their window. It's more  equivalent to your neighbor following you around with an infrared sensor and a   boom microphone.   If your neighbor was to do this, and then begin compiling a list of  your friends, associates,   places you  frequent, etc, we would call that 'stalking'.   It's no less creepy when Mr. King (ironic name, no?) wants to  do it.
  Then he says  that he thinks  'we' need more cameras. Who is this  'we ' he's talking about?  I  don't need any more. I don't need a dossier on my fellow Americans.  I don't need a huge megacenter to store all of my neighbor's emails and cell phone conversations. So who is this  'we'?  I think Mr. King  means himself, and his fellow power-hungry elitists when he says 'we'. 
  'We' (there he goes again)  have to stay ahead of the terrorists.  What in the world does that mean? It's one of those statements that are a waste of syllables, as it   takes up space but  is  empty of substance, sort of like  'they hate us  because we're free' or ' if we don't do this, the terrorists win'.  If you cannot  stay ahead of a  ragtag group of misanthropes living in  a cave with the billions of dollars we spend fighting the 'war on terror' then a handful of cameras aren't going to help.
  Think about the logistics for  second though. Here we have one of the most  televised  events in America, and nobody saw anything.   Plus we live in an age in which everybody has a cell phone with a camera. Well I don't, but I'm a ragtag misanthrope living in a cave.  Everybody else has a camera though. Nobody saw anything!! There are  probably  several  very plausible reasons for this. I'm going to go with the  simple one. Nobody was looking.  So to effectively stay  ahead of the terrorists, you would have to monitor  everybody all the time, right?  At the end of the day isn't that  what Mr. King is  suggesting?  If you really wanted to stay head, you need video of   the terrorists assembling this  stuff in their homes.  I mean, if you're committing a crime, you have no expectation of privacy, right?
  "The war on terror isn't over."  Of course not. It, by its very nature  and design is open-ended and unwinnable. There will always be another shadowy  bearded guy in a cave somewhere, always a new villain waiting to be stopped by  our  'best and brightest' in law enforcement. There will always be another  country that needs to be invaded..  All of this is done on purpose, and Mr. King  may not know much about the Constitution, but I'm certain he knows that. To those  looking to expand the police state, this event in Boston was  a godsend.  Just as the America people were  getting fed up with being  patted  down by perverts and spied on, here comes another   bombing!
  The terrorists are 'constantly trying to kill us'. Really, Mr. King? Even if everything the government has told us about 9/11 is true, which is  impossible, and would be the first time they ever told us the truth about anything)  2 or 3 attacks spread out over 12 years  is the most ludicrious definition of  'constantly' I think I've ever seen. 
  Although, since my elected representatives have gone to all the trouble to redefine the word for me, maybe I should  start using it that way.  Maybe we all should. For example, I am 'constantly' mobbed by adoring fans.  I am 'constantly' awash in money.  This could work for me. Maybe I owe Mr. King a  'thank you'. But I'm getting  off topic.
  Here's my prediction, and I certainly hope I'm wrong.  It happened on Tax Day in Boston, and so  even if this is a false-flag, and I'm perfectly OK with thinking that,   the liberty movement will be blamed.  They will get their cameras, and their checkpoints, and most people will not care a whit, and not make a peep. Will you?
Post a Comment