Jump forward to today and the “Justices Allow Search if Police Hear Evidence Being Destroyed” story by Adam Liptak in the New York Times. Seems it’s ok (by an 8-1 SCOTUS decision) that police now can enter without a warrant if they hear you trying to flush your evidence of criminal activity. Wow.

In lone dissenter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgh stood for the Fourth. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.” She asked further, “How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”

But the majority would have nothing of it.

If police hear toilet noises, they’re in.

If you sniff loudly, police are now certain you don’t suffer from allergies but from cocaine addiction, and they’re in.

If you run your garbage disposal, you must be grinding heroin, not dinner scraps, and they’re in.

If you whisper, “get rid of the mushrooms” you’re not complaining about a your pizza order, but destroying evidence, and they’re in.

Now cops can employ their super sense of auditory skills and they’re in.

One of the most important provisions of the Bill of Rights can now be tossed if you “sound suspicious” through a locked door, in your home, without the police having to bother with those pesky little search warrants. “We don’t need no stinking warrants.”

Feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to trash me on Twitter

I suggest you malign me on MySpace

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

MORE TO EXPLORE

NY TIMES article.

WBEZ91.5

NPR

“Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Now, the Total Spin Agency (TSA) is using its blog to spread further mis-information….shocker, I know. Here it is. “What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.”

Only problem with their spin is the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and the trick little phrase “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;” Great article by Michael Boldin at The Amendment Center goes into much greater detail. The purpose of this post is to remind us that the government, any government, always claims their power grab to be protected by Our Constitution. TSA and the Department of Homeland Security are slowly becoming pros at it. This egregious normalcy, met with our apathy and complacency, guarantees our further imprisonment. In a Facebook comment a few days back, the poster railed against me stating “The people in the know, know better than you, Brian.” It is exactly this delusional ignorance that we must guard against. Simply because a government says it is so, seldom makes it such!

DON’T let the TSA fondle AND fool you!

Feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to trash me on Twitter

I suggest you malign me on MySpace

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson dissented on the grounds of violating the Fourth Amendment of Our Constitution. “In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” according to Rucker. Justice Dickson added, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

Chip, Chip, Chipping away at your Unalienable Rights.

So if you live in Indiana, you can be subject to an illegal search of your home, you cannot defend it the armed invaders and you can then leave for the airport to have your Fourth Amendment rights violated by a groping TSA Agent. Ahh, it’s great to be a Hoosier, I suspect. I live in the equally free state of Illinois…two peas in a pod when it comes to protecting Unalienable Rights.

As a former cop, I don’t trust anyone illegally entering my home, cop or criminal. If you don’t like my comparison, tough crap. Before the emails, the posts on Facebook and Twitter and the angry responses to this post in the comment section, let me say that most police officers today are honest and smart enough to do it the right way; they believe the oath they took. (Strange as it may be today for public officials, I know) Additionally, they don’t want to be sued after the fact either. Most will get a warrant and work to make “the case stick” and win a conviction. Sad to say, not all cops are that way. Some of the “ate up” ones are not interested in your rights or your ability to defend them. The Indiana Supreme Court sent the wrong signal with this split decision and it only serves to further destroy any attachment to our protections from the Bill of Rights.

Feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to trash me on Twitter

I suggest you malign me on MySpace

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

Ever feel as if we are in a Constitutional/congressional cage match, and our Unalienable Rights are at stake?

I think a law ceiling, is in order. Maybe we can trade them, law for law. Every time a legislator tries to shoulder us with a new law, we should make him/her remove a law from the books first.

In this video, Brian discusses a new law in New York State that causes him to snap….BTW….He is wrapped in bubble wrap for a reason.

Feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to trash me on Twitter

I suggest you malign me on MySpace

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

After being dispatched, I’d arrive to interview the victim(s), speak with any witnesses if available, collect any evidence and then hang at the scene for awhile. My goal, as strange as it must sound, was to imagine what the suspect(s) did 10 seconds before the crime, 10 minutes, an hour, the night before and so on. What were they thinking? What were they looking for? Why did they pick the place they did? Only then could I start to move forward. Though I left the department shortly after my father’s suicide, those same skills of investigation are still with me.

Politics has always been a passion of mine. When I was very young my Mom would make me recite “Republican born, Republican bread, I’ll be a Republican until I’m dead.” By my 12th birthday I was already disappointing her, volunteering stuffing envelopes for a democrat running for County Legislator. Later on, as a member of the national advance team for a presidential candidate, I’m sure she wondered where she had gone wrong?

Over the last few years, reaching back to the Bush presidency, I’ve wondered how our government, at all levels, seems to have grown unchecked. How has our Constitution deteriorated into a political speed-bump for those trying to hijack our freedoms? How can numerous crimes against the citizenry continue to steal greater amounts of liberty at every turn? How have we gone from a government who worked for us, to a political class that works to control our lives at every turn?

So, I started my investigation by going backwards. I reversed the days in the Obama administration, months into the Bush and Clinton presidencies, years back through Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln and Washington, centuries in reverse through monarchs and rulers as far back as I could go. England, Greece, Egypt all the way back to the Babylonian king Hammurabi.

For me, Jefferson’s belief “That government is best which governs least” is the clearest and most succinct way to distill the contents of my personal investigation.

Governments–and the laws they propagate–spread like weeds. Like vines that parasitically encircle small trees competing for water, nutrients from the soil and even sunlight, governments at all levels of society do what they can to suffocate creativity, liberty and freedom. Laws and the people who beget them spread like spores on the wind. Only problem, it’s unnatural for human beings to be continually and systematically controlled and manipulated.

Humans are natural born Libertarians. Not unlike an operating system for your computer, the underlying software is libertarianism. Now early in life, a few laws, rules and codes similar to computer programs are added to the young mind for its own good and protection. These societal norms and directives are those boundaries that establish an idea of right and wrong, compassion and evil, fair and unjust. As adolescence wanes, many extra rules and regulations are discarded.  Like a childish need for the curfews or bedtimes of our youth, or the need for training wheels or water wings to aid our balance and flotation, there comes a time when we toss aside certain dependencies of our youth. Do you know many 50 year olds still riding their bicycles with training wheels attached? Adulthood is about taking responsibility for yourself and your actions. Growth only works outside the box.

Political parties work painstakingly hard to convince us that we still need our childish safety nets, our crutches, our need for protection and direction.  Going it alone is the mark of a radical, they campaign to assure us. Continuing to load ever increasing programs, software and malware on to our natural operating system, they reassure us that “Society needs software.”  Now, they promise us that we are still all libertarians at heart. Though it doesn’t feel natural to us, it soon feels normal and therefore tolerable. Eventually our operating systems grind to a halt as we grow too tired to resist.

I don’t want my children stifled, enslaved and overrun with oppressive, malicious software, viruses and worms. I’ve given them an operating system, educated them on how to employ it and trust in them to run their own programs as they see fit.

Libertarians have faith in themselves and the ideals of personal freedom. They believe in the lessons they teach their children and the ultimate ability of a human mind and passion to run its computer courageously, compassionately and creatively as long as their original firmware remains unencumbered by overwhelming political-class-programming. I’m raising my children as Libertarians because it’s how they were born, it’s naturally who they are.

Please feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to ridicule me on Twitter

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

There are two important stories ricocheting around in my mind this morning. Over at The Raw Story, Eric W. Dolan has the post “Former Surgeon General calls for legalization of marijuana” and the piece by Steve Elliot over at News Junkie Post titled “L.A. Sheriff: Pot Legalization ‘Not Going To Pass, Even If It Passes.’” Both of these stories are well worth the read.

Here’s the scoop. You have a former Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders saying she thinks marijuana should be legalized and a guy, dressing like a general in his 5 Star collars and cuffs (19 total), LA Sheriff Lee Baca saying he will ignore the Prop 19 outcome and continue to arrest citizen regardless of the vote. No doubt buoyed by Attorney General Eric Holder and his threat to “vigorously enforce” federal violations of the Controlled Substance Act, this selective “law enforcement official” will do it “his way.”

So much for the 10th Amendment?

I got to thinking, a Surgeon General wants “to lift the prohibition on marijuana” yet law enforcement officials at both the federal and local levels want to not only continue it but to ramp up their efforts, setting aside voters wishes at the state level? Something is not right.

In his book, Libertarianism Today, Jacob H. Huebert sets out to detail the best short history of the war on drugs I have ever read. It is a brilliant account of fear-mongering politicians, budget battles, double-dealing power struggles, disinformation campaigns, pharmaceutical corporate greed and xenophobia, both closeted and blatant. Mr. Huebert skillfully and chronologically details the overly zealous lawmakers and law enforcement officials that selfishly collaborated to enact laws under the guise of fear and deception. Chapter 4, The Fight for Marijuana (and Other Drugs) takes us step by step through “a war” barely 100 years old. Later in the chapter, he highlights the far-reaching cost of drug enforcement at the federal, state and local levels and the ever increasing cost to our society of criminalizing, capturing and incarcerating “offenders” that run contrary to a law whose history is as scary and precarious as it is fraudulent and corrupt.

Wherever you stand in the Prop 19 debate or the national legalization of marijuana discussion, you owe it to yourself to be informed about the historical events that have lead us to this hysterical debate. Learning of its sketchy past has certainly opened my eyes.

Please feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to ridicule me on Twitter

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

According to a report filed by the Associated Press, AG Holder and the Federal government will “vigorously enforce” marijuana laws in the State of California even if Proposition 19 passes at the ballot box in November. In a letter to ex-federal drug agents Mr. Holder promised to “vigorously enforce the CSA (Controlled Substance Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law…” according to the AP article. (Italics are mine).

Could this be a tipping point for a 10th Amendment showdown?

Leaving aside, for just for this debate the “gateway” claims, the “forbidden fruit” theories or the moral issues behind marijuana use, if you believe there to be any, what has happened to the sovereignty of individual states in our Union of States? Does it feel right, does it feel like a democracy, does it feel anything like liberty when an Attorney General threatens to ignore the will of a local people? Or does it sound like tyranny cloaked under the guise of terrorizing tokers? Is it about the need to handcuff hemp fans or hijacking local laws with which the feds disapprove? Is it curbing cannabis or killing our Constitution?

In his book The Left, The Right and The State, Lew Rockwell asks the following. “But can we make drugs legal at the federal level? There is no constitutional basis for doing otherwise. Nothing in the founding document permits government bureaucrats to control what we smoke, inhale or inject.By letting them attempt to do so, we invite every form of tyranny.” Mr. Rockwell continues, “And no amount of increased power by the feds will do the job. Consider that one of the worst drug problems exists in federal prisons. Prisons can’t keep them out! A free society shouldn’t even try.”

With all the statutes our Attorney General could be enforcing, this is where he wants to draw his line in the sand? This is it? Prosecuting pot smokers, picking a fight with Prop 19  is a priority  for the Justice Department? Is he making a difference or simply marking his territory?

I asked earlier if this “could this be a tipping point for a 10th Amendment showdown?” Is this a situation where those of us that support the concept of Nullification can finally make a stand? Maybe this battle of bongs vs. bureaucrats and the healthcare law currently moving through the courts?

Regaining our lost liberties won’t happen overnight. Those concerned with passing freedom, liberty and a strong Constitution on to their children and grandchildren need to look for cracks in the feds fortress and widen them at every turn.

Please feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to ridicule me on Twitter

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

Now, from the Campaign For Liberty website and blog comes a bit of good news. Although, according to Tim Shoemaker from CFL, Anthony Graber will still face charges for reckless driving and negligent driving the “wiretapping” charges have been dropped. Mr. Shoemaker continues, “Harford County Circuit Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr. threw out the charge for wiretapping, saying there was no expectation of privacy in this case.”

“In this rapid information technology era in which we live, it is hard to imagine that either an offender or an officer would have any reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to what is said between them in a traffic stop on a public highway,” Plitt writes.

Thanks to Campaign For Liberty and Tim Shoemaker for keeping with this story!

Though there are still no charges against the Trooper for ridiculous display of his firearm, this is a victory for those attempting to thwart the legal origami by law enforcement officials in cases of this ilk. As a former New York cop, I know the majority of Police Officers to be brave and honorable. This trooper is neither!

Please feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to ridicule me on Twitter

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

For me, the only Ivy education I’ve ever experienced gave me an itchy-rash that lasted for weeks and “august” was a month in late summer, I thought.  “Oh Brian, you doltish human-being haven’t you heard about the dignified and venerable character of the Senate?”

Now, I’m not an expert on those individuals that signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I don’t have a degree in “The Founders” nor am I a historian of the times. That said, the three groups of signatories on some of the most revered and important documents in the history of our Country had some of their own issues. Boozers, womanizers, slave owners, rebels, brawlers and malcontents made up the list. If Franklin, Washington, Hancock, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton were around today, we’d probably think they were bonkers!

Some good guys, some with questionable pasts, all crazy and courageous at the same time. Today we revere them for their bravery, grit and stubbornness in confronting a government disconnected from its people. We are thankful for their demented determination in facing the crazy odds stacked against them. We don’t give a crap about their decorum.

The next time you hear that candidate may not be fit to serve, ask yourself, by what definition?

Please feel free to slam me on Facebook

You are welcome to ridicule me on Twitter

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show, Liberty’s Line in the Sand

I have said, on many occasions, that the ever increasing number of laws and official, enforceable policies are designed not only to legislate us into submission, but to keep those in power employed. If your list of laws grows that quickly, you gotta ask yourself “what comes first, the law or a politician? If we had fewer laws, would we need an ever increasing bureaucracy to enact, impose and enforce them?

Do you ever get the feeling the political class and the war-chests that support and fund them, are simply waiting for us to tap out? Just like a fighter in a mixed martial arts match that can’t take it anymore when he slaps his hand to the mat? Really, it’s beginning to look like a MMA version of a Constitutional cage fight. Through exhaustion, apathy or downright submission maybe, they hope, we will figure it’s just too much to fight city hall and surrender, waving the white flag and packing it in.

When it comes to regulators and politicians, you give them an inch and they take a 2X4 to you!

Tapping out?

It’s up to you.

Continue the discussion with Brian on Facebook

Continue the discussion with Brian on Twitter

Join me at The Brian Brawdy Show. Liberty’s Line in the Sand