Umm...what?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Amendment V, U.S. Constitution

Simple.  Clear.  Concise.  You don't kill U.S. citizens without the due process of law, including a trial in front of a grand jury. 

In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”--EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Something seems to be...wrong, here.  And, yet again, King Putt's administration proves that it cannot comprehend the written English language. 

Or, maybe, Mr. Holder just subscribes to Orwell's doublethink and Derrida's ideas that words mean the opposite of what they say.

And they wonder why we don't trust them.

And here's to the new normal...

Did you know that your annual physical is now "free"*?  Yep, glory be to the 0ne who passed the bill that will eventually drive all health insurers out of business, and will force each and every one of us to submit to government control.

Speaking of such, did you know your doctor is now required to ask about your lifestyle during this visit?  Things like "your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts"--and they're required to make sure your answers are in your still-private (for now) medical record (my answers to these questions will all be the same: "It's none of the government's business.") 

But they're not going to be allowed to listen to new concerns you may have about current issues that may be moving out of control, or any new issues.  Basically, they're being told to ignore your health, and focus on whether you're doing what the government mandates you should be doing.


*Disclaimers: your free annual physical only involves conversation with your doctor concerning current, managed conditions.  No other concerns may be discussed, and new conditions are not covered.  You will be required to reschedule your appointment to discuss any new concerns, and pay out the ass to cover your doctor's uncompensated expenses for your "free" annual physical.

Patterns

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.—Karl Marx

Most people have heard at least part of this quote—“the opium of the people,” or, alternatively, “opiate of the masses.”  Out of context, it’s enough of a signifier of the thought processes of the socialist transnational progressivist. 

 In context, it’s downright alarming, especially when we take a look at what the government is doing as we sit back and say “I’m not Jewish, so the ghetto means nothing to me.” 

The story that’s the most likely to pass under the average person’s radar is this: the government is denying student loan forgiveness to any who are called to the ministry, or any who choose to work for an evangelical church.  We go on through the current brouhaha over Mandatory Medicaid (also known as Obamacare) forcing Catholic institutions to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortion* to employees, and Catholic hospitals and health providers to provide the same, despite both being horribly contrary to what the Catholic church teaches.   

(I’m sorry, Ms. Dahlkemper, you should have insisted on knowing what was in the bill before voting to pass it.  By your own beliefs, your soul will be judged according to your dereliction of duty to yourself, your constituents, and your God.)

The whole forcing religious employers and health care providers to sin against their own understanding of God’s word isn’t all we’re facing, though.  We’re also facing further infringement upon our Constitutionally-protected right of worship in other ways, such as this.  I will be the first in line to dispense justice to pedophiles, no matter their station in society—in fact, the higher they are on the social ladder (*cough* Sandusky *cough*), the less inclined I am to allow any leniency, because you know they used their position to find more and better victims, as well as hush it up afterwards.  However, that said, I do not think that the government has any right to force the Church to violate the sanctity and confidentiality of the confessional, any more than they have the right to force a psychological-care professional to turn over notes on a patient.   That’s somewhat like forcing someone to testify against themselves (not that our current black-robed tyrants have any problem with that, either).

I think that the ones that think they’re in charge are assuming that most Americans buy into their whole “living document” argument with regards to whether the Constitution is still relevant, or whether it says what it says, or what they think it should mean.  Most of us don’t agree.  I’ll grant it’s not as large of a majority as I’d feel comfortable with, but still.  Our founders meant the Constitution to be written in stone, to be a fetter on government’s desire to control those it should serve. 

What the current totalitarian-leaning regime forgets is that we are not subjects.  We are full citizens, descended from those who left England for unimagined hardships, because they would not go against their religious conscience.  We, the people, will fight not only this mandate, but any trampling of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights.

*For some odd reason, abortions and abortion-inducing drugs are considered “contraceptives.”  They’re not.  A contraceptive prevents conception.  An abortion terminates the product of conception.  Two different things, even if the Catholic church holds both a sin.  Personally, I think abortion is murder, but it’s not my job to force my view on others.  That is fully between the individual and God, but don’t expect me to have any sympathy when they realize that they stopped a beating heart, and feel remorse and depression.  Also, don’t expect me to do any less than call a pro-abortion but anti-capital punishment stance hypocritical. 

Good thing that the Constitution and its amendments overrides all other laws...

Otherwise, we might be forced to give evidence against ourselves by judges who interpret the fifth amendment to not include our personal computers.

Oh, wait...never mind.

Seriously, were I in Friscou's position, I'd refuse.  I'd refuse the judge that issued the illegal order, and I'd refuse if an appellate judge supported it, and I'd insist on the Supreme Court telling me that I had to decrypt my laptop.  Then, I'd refuse again, because it is a violation of the fifth amendment, whether the "justice" system recognizes it or not.  The prosecutors that want her to decrypt her laptop have said they won't hold the action of decrypting her laptop against her.  What about the evidence that may or may not be on the laptop?  If that's what might convict her, the lawyers aren't what will hold the act against her.

In short, they're trying to force her to testify against herself with this absurd order to decrypt her own laptop. 

Saw this a couple days ago, didn’t have time to comment.

I love my kids, and I love my job, but I seriously wish I had more time to write. I would have beaten Vilmar to the punch.

This is a vicious violation of our fourth and fifth amendment rights. There's no way I'd a) own a smartphone to begin with, or b) hand it over to be searched without a warrant and probable cause, whether I'd been doing something wrong or not. No, I wouldn't cooperate any more than I'd cooperate if the government decided to place a GPS tracker in my car without a court order.

(And yes, I regularly look under the car for things like this. I may be paranoid, but I absolutely do not trust the government or law enforcement not to violate my rights. If I find one, it's getting tucked down in the seat of a taxi in one of the two major cities in Missouri.)

I think this is way beyond "self-incrimination."

There is no way I think this should be permitted. Yes, it's interesting; however, it's so far beyond a violation of individual freedoms--specifically those guaranteed by the fourth and fifth amendments--that it sounds a lot more like Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report" than anything rational.