Marriage is NOT Controversial

Contrary to what has been implied in the news lately, it is not politically dangerous to come out for or against the legalization of any form of marriage.  Either opinion you take on the subject is a pro-state, big government opinion.  Whether you believe government should make a law allowing same-sex unions or whether you believe government should make a law banning them, you still believe government knows best.  This is the safest political move a bureaucrat can make. 

The politicians who take a left vs. right opinion on this subject are just following political trends and reinforcing the belief that government knows what's best for you.  Basically, they let the political wind form their opinions and set precedent after dangerous precedent based on this flighty and flakey foundation.  That's very safe for them, but potentially catastrophic for the country.

My religion dictates that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and this is what I believe.  It is the height of government arrogance and a violation of my right to freedom of religion, protected by the 1st Amendment, to proclaim that government can dictate anything about marriage.  Marriage is not a crime to be controlled or regulated.  It does not directly threaten your life, liberty or property.  It is a contract based almost completely in religious belief. 

To come out against government control of marriage is the truly American position.  The American people don't need a nanny.  We don't need some bureaucrat making laws that affect our religious beliefs.  We need government to stay out of our personal lives.  The sole and only legitimate purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property.

The problem we face today is that our government has built too many unconstitutional institutions that rely on government's definition of marriage.  This affects the structure of almost every agency.  Those that deal with revenue collection or distribution, from the IRS to entitlements, depend heavily on government interference in marriage. 

Government should not define marriage; your church should.  Marriage is a religious institution.  It is not a crime.  Government has no more right to regulate who you marry than it does in who you choose to have as a friend.

The 98th Anniversary of the Government Dust Bowl

98 years ago, tomorrow, one of the largest dust storms in recorded history hit North America.  The cause of it was largely man-made.  More importantly, it was GOVERNMENT made.
In 1914, the government began pursuing a policy of agricultural growth.  Funding was given to educate more farmers and to cultivate millions of acres of previously fallow soil.  By 1930, 300% more farmland was being cultivated. 

By 1932, the topsoil in these areas, once covered and held in place by miles and miles of prairie grass, had been forever changed by constant exposure to the elements.  In one month, between mid-April and mid-May, two large dust storms destroyed crops and farmland in the midwest, much of it the newly cultivated fields.

For days, many cities and small towns sat in dark clouds blown in from the fields.  Chicago and Cleveland were coated with the dust.  The soil filtered into auto engines, rendering them useless.  Houses were covered by dark drifts of soil.  Livestock died from ingesting the dust.  Worst of all were the deaths of those farmers and others who were caught out in the sudden dust storms, unable to find shelter quickly enough to survive.

Finally, the government reacted with more directives... But not before 650 million tons of topsoil were blown away.  The policies did little, if anything, to improve the situation.  When the rains finally began again in 1938, nearly 9 million acres of dust covered an area where once had been rolling plains.  Within a year of regular rain, that number fell to a little over 1 million acres.
What the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did to the financial sector, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 had done to the agricultural sector.

It was now time for the government to come in and play savior to a crisis it had, itself, created.

They're banning septic tanks in Maryland!

http://www.wbaltv.com/politics/26865358/detail.html

Now you can't even opt out of paying for sewage in MD. Coming soon to a state near you, no doubt.

Maryland government seeks to ban septic tanks: via Liberty Forest

Troopers May Blitz?

Better not let your granny go down Alabama highways, she might get 'blitzed' by 'Troopers'. The Alabama Highway Patrol has posted huge orange signs, the kind that warn of road work, on the side of the highway near my house warning, "Troopers May Blitz". The last troopers I heard of blitzing were Nazi StormTroopers. What does that even mean? The alternate flashing sign reads, "Seatbelts Enforced", so the sign really reads, "Seatbelts Enforced, Troopers May Blitz."

Here's some pictures I just took, my apologies for the bad quality, but it was the only camera I had on me:

Cellphone Tracking Database

Do you carry your cellphone everywhere you go? Stores are implementing a tracking system that uses your cellphone's unique Radio Frequency ID number to track which stores you visit, what items you purchase, how long you stay, in which parts of the store you spent the most time, and even what items you looked at. Certain department stores have refloored their stores with built-in scales for weighing customers. Your cellphone's unique RFID can then be linked to all of this data.

The advocates for this technology claim it does not contain personal data, and that it is not directly linked to a person's identity. This is simply not true. There are numerous ways your can quickly and easily be identified with this information. As the NBC News documentary, 'Big Brother, Big Business', shows, retailers routinely capture the faces of their customers. If you use a debit card, your name is recorded with every purchase. Companies can easily create a full profile of every customer with this information.

Using a pre-paid cellphone and paying with cash might make it harder to be tracked, but not much harder. Your face, habits, what vehicle you drive, along with your license plate, can be recorded, as well. This info is then fed into a database, kept by a private corporation, Acxiom, where it is then sold to anyone willing to pay for the information. Who would buy this info? You would think other retailers, right? Wrong. The US Government is their biggest customer.

Why should this bother you? Because your privacy rights are being violated! The potential for abuse of this information is overwhelming. With all of the government and bank data leaking out making the news lately, I wouldn't trust the government with my phone number, much less all the information about where I go, what I buy, where I bank, etc... The only people NOT being tracked are CRIMINALS! Doesn't that seem a little backwards?

Is this what we want in America?

I have often warned people that allowing police to stop people for violating the seatbelt law was a blatant privacy violation, among other rights violations, and that it would lead to further violations. I've often warned that if we allow this continue it won't stop there. If they MUST be able to see into your vehicle in order to make sure you're not breaking the law, won't they go next for your home? After all, you are far more likely to have a weapon, drugs or be engaged in illegal activities in your home. Logic dictatest that getting a clear view into your home WILL BE NEXT.

In the UK, the proving grounds for cancerous nanny-state legislation, there are helicopters flying overhead to see if your house puts out too much heat, a sure sign you're cooking up drugs... right? Here's the story. If the homeowner hadn't been a police officer, herself, and at home at the time of the raid, police would have forced entry into her home and ransacked the place. They ransacked the place, anyway, but found nothing. The police blamed 'poor insulation' for the false positive, although a home inspector, required in the UK for energy efficiency, found nothing wrong with the insulation. Apparently, if you have too much fluorescent lighting in your home, you might just get your door kicked in.

Now, it's long been known that TV detection vehicles prowl the streets of the UK, searching for 'unauthorized TV viewing', and now they even have hand held devices for doing so. But less publicized is the fact that they have used LEXID and similar wall-penetrating imaging devices in law enforcement. A report several years back implicated several officers who abused the technology by spying on the female neighbor of a suspected criminal. Their spying would have gone unnoticed, had not the officers called the woman and told her the color of her undergarments.

Countless nanny-state laws are trickling into our nation. The state-controlled media of the UK constantly tell viewers that the people WANT nanny-state laws. The propaganda is spreading to the US via outlets like FOX news, owned by the same man, Rupert Murdoch, who owns the British SKY news. It doesn't come all in one dose, though, it comes in small increments.

For example, in 2002 and the aftermath of 9/11, FOX News and the other corporate news outlets were pushing for RFID (Radio Frequency ID) chipping, running propaganda stories in favor of doing so. I remember vividly the practiced actor-like parents from Florida that had chosen to chip their whole family. On the surface, they made the RFID chips seem like a good idea to help keep up with family members, to identify you in case of an accident, etc. RFID chips, however, are the penultimate goal of nanny-staters before their goal of achieving the control and monitoring of everything and are also known to cause cancer!

What kinds of things are already being done that we don't even know about? Are these the kinds of things we will eventually accept in our country? Can you imagine mounted police in the 19th century chasing people down to tell them their saddle or the seat on their wagon wasn't safe or legal and then trying to impose a fine? What an outrage that would have been! What nanny-state policies will we someday accept that today we find abhorrent?