Is hate-speech considered Free-Speech?

 

On October 28th, 2017, a rally will be held in Shelbyville,Tn. The rally is called, “White Lives Matter” lead by a group of White Nationalists. An event that I want no part of. Being a Tennessean myself, I know the history of my state very well. Tennessee,Georgia, and Alabama are cradles for The Ku Klux Klan, a group that has very much weakened in the last 50 years, yet, some racial sentiments from their heyday still live on in rural areas.

While the south has progressed quite a bit over the last few decades, there are still remnant of racial tensions.  After several incidents involving white police officers killing unarmed black citizens, a group known as “Black Lives Matter”, has began to emerge. The decentralized group plans to counter protest the rally in Shelbyville. The rise of white nationalism has grown since the election of Donald Trump who espouses populist ideals.  Black Lives Matter groups want to bring awareness around minorities who are targeted by police, treated unfairly in the justice system, and other problems that go ignored in their communities.

The “White Lives Matter” activists claim that police officers killing white citizens are being ignored in the media, and the constant accusations of racism against them (i.e. playing the race card), and their disdain for “Political Correctness”, is why they are speaking out. White Lives Matter claim that they are tired of being “scapegoats” for media induced race wars.

These statements do not sound extremely controversial. However, among these groups exists a more sinister wing.  The same can be said of the Black Lives Matter movement. In both movements, we see disturbing trends. On the far right, we have Neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the KKK. On the far left, we have Antifa, Black Separatists, and Neo-Anarchists. On both ends of the spectrum, violence, bigotry,  and hateful comments are often dispersed.  Extreme opinions on both the left and the right are resulting in 1960s styled race-wars. It is truly sad to see.

Accusations of “hate-speech” have been numerous in recent years. With the rise of legalized gay marriage, transgender activism, and race riots, the label of “hate speech” is often seen in the media.  Many even advocate that “hate-speech” should be illegal. Protesters on the left can be seen holding signs saying, “Hate-speech is not Free-Speech”. 

Hate-Speech, as commonly defined, is any sort of slur or comment that demeans someone based on their race, religion, gender, or nationality.  But, is hate-speech considered free-speech?”

Yes and no.

Under the Constitution of the United States,  citizens are guaranteed the right to express grievances. There is no stipulations in the constitution as to what those grievances may be. In many instances, grievances are not always agreed upon. My grievance may be to support abortion, whereas another may consider it offensive, thus deeming it as “hate-speech”, since, in the mind of a pro-lifer, I would be advocating for something offensive to their religion.

The gray area of what is “hate speech” is very hazy. Free-Speech has been suppressed many times in American history. The Smith Act of 1940 , made it illegal for American citizens to openly support Communism or Socialism publicly during both World Wars, yet many people today support those policies without fear.

However, generally, as I understand how liberty and freedom works, is quite simple.

A man or woman has the right to say and/or believe whatever they want so long as their words are not encouraging criminal acts such as murder, theft, or vandalism.  From a civil standpoint, this would also include libel and slander.  Under the Civil Rights Act, this also expands into the work-place applicable to employers hiring employees without considering their race, gender, or religion.

If your words are not encouraging violence, libel, slander, or mayhem, then the Constitution supports your right to say whatever you desire, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If a man were standing on a public sidewalk holding a sign that said, “I hate White people”. Would I be offended? yes! Would I be upset? Yes. Would I organize a counter-protest? Very likely.  Would I ask that his action be made illegal? No.

In some situations, the ability to say controversial things sparks debate, communication, and growth.  The 1st amendment of the Constitution was not designed so that we may talk about the weather, it was designed so that people could say very controversial things outside of the norm of society without fear of suppression.

It is a very slippery slope. In fact, under the Patriot Act and the NDAA , free speech is suppressed. Under these laws, anyone who supports terrorism, even verbally, can be detained without a trial and/or placed on a watchlist effectively having their passports revoked.  It sounds good in theory, until you realize that it is very ambiguous. Let’s say I post on Facebook, “I hate paying taxes!”.  Under the Patriot Act, some controller from a far away office could legally monitor that comment and place me on a watchlist saying that I am advocating “anti-government” rhetoric.  It seems far fetched, but it is actually happening and has happened to many people.

Soon, our political leaders will be able to silence anyone so long as they use buzzwords like: Terrorism. Racist. Homophobic. Islamphobe. Bigot.  We see it all the time in politics. When Barack Obama was president, I was often called “racist” anytime I criticized him, even though my criticisms were always towards his policies and not his race, the accuser didn’t care, because my skin did not match theirs. On the flip side, when I criticize President Trump, the far-right accuses me of being an undercover “Antifa” member or a “liberal”.  Some could argue that such accusations could be illegal under “libel” and “slander”, since these are attacks on my personal character/reputation. General comments made towards society and public officials are absolutely protected under the 1st amendment.

I am non-partisan and I am not easily offended, so, I let those comments roll off my shoulders, however, the point is made…

Do we truly live in a society that is only able to criticize those who look exactly like us? I may catch a lot of flack for saying this, but, I believe that a man or woman should legally be allowed to utter any comment that does not command a criminal or libelous act. If they are general comments made and they do not instruct murder,theft,vandalism,libel, or slander, then the person/group should either be left alone, or, if you disagree, you should peacefully counter-protest that individual or group.

If a protester is advocating for murder or destruction, the protester should not be counter-protested, but rather, you should call the police and have them thrown in jail because they are guilty of conspiracy.  If a Neo-Nazi shouts into the streets, “I am going to kill all black people.”  This is not free-speech. He is openly expressing his intent to murder anyone who has black skin. The police should be called.  However, if that same Neo-Nazi exclaims, “We shouldn’t allow foreigners to immigrate into the US”,  his words are extremely unintelligent, but they are not illegal.

The fact that the Neo-Nazi is even allowed to say this will spark a debate. Debates are very necessary for human evolution. The only way we can remove stupidity is to allow for stupidity to rear its ugly head so that we may publicly shame it.

Free-Speech is often confused with “popular speech”.  Just because a speaker isn’t saying something that is widely accepted, doesn’t automatically mean that he/she should be locked in jail, castrated, or charged with a felony.

Are racists idiots? Yes

Should we fear all Muslims? No

Should we care whether or not Gay people get married? No, that’s their business.

Should we assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is racist? No

These are my opinions, but many may disagree. And they should have the right to. 

In the words of a great philosopher….

 “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

On October 28th, 2017,  Black Lives Matter will counter protest the “White Lives Matter” rally in shelbyville.  The Constitution says that both groups are allow to commence in their activities. Both groups are legally protected.  If violence, vandalism, libel, or slander is used during these rallies by either side, then you can expect arrests to be made. The judge will not care if you are a Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. If you do the crime you must do the time.

If the judge or jury issues what is perceived as an unfair verdict, the public has every right to protest, boycott, counter-sue the state, and/or express their grievances towards that also.

It’s time we get back to the basics and read a little “Common Sense.”

I’m sure Benjamin Franklin would agree.

Nalini-Global

2017

Randell Stroud

Brave Utah Nurse Defends 4th Amendment from Police

Utah Nurse, Alex Wubbels, has been all over the headlines recently after an altercation between her and Utah police was posted online and went viral.  The incident happened July 26, when a car crash victim was admitted to the University of Utah Hospital burn unit; he was in a coma. Though the man was not a suspect in the wreck, which killed the other driver, police asked for his blood to be drawn.

According to CNN reports:

-“Wubbels, the charge nurse in the burn unit, presented the officers with a printout of hospital policy on drawing blood and said their request did not meet the criteria. Hospital policy specified police needed either a judge’s order or the patient’s consent, or the patient needed to be under arrest, before obtaining a blood sample.
 :
Salt Lake City Mayor,Jackie Biskupski ,said Wednesday the officers violated several city and department policies, including those pertaining to arrests, ethics and officer conduct. The officers have 20 days to respond to the results of the internal investigation, after which Chief Mike Brown will determine what employment action should be taken. The police department said it had no comment on the report. “
 :
Video shows Utah nurse arrested on the job
 :
Detective Jeff Payne eventually grabbed Nurse Wubbels when she demanded a search warrant before allowing the patient’s blood to be drawn. She was then arrested as the altercation became more aggressive on part of the officers involved. Payne and the other officers involved have been placed on administrative leave. As a Libertarian, and staunch supporter of constitutional law, let us examine exactly why Alex Wubbels is a hero, from both a legal and moral standard.
 :
Legally, Wubbels was defending not only her company hospital policy, but the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.  The 4th amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
 :
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
 :
In this particular situation, the police are attempting to seize a man’s blood. Is blood considered personal property? Well, if we analyze any basic traffic stop, an officer who wants to seize a vehicle or any contents inside the vehicle, must first obtain the owner’s voluntary consent or obtain a certified judicial search warrant with probable cause established. If vehicles are considered personal property, it is easy to imagine that blood is the ultimate definition of personal property, a substance that is literally manufactured by our own bodies.   In 2013, the Supreme Court decided in Missouri v. McNeely ,  that the harvesting of blood in regards to a police investigation did require consent and/or a warrant.
Honestly, how would any of us feel if an officer could just walk up to us and say, “You look a little buzzed, roll up your sleeze, im drawing your blood now.” In 2015, the Tennessee Highway Patrol did just that with their  controversial “No refusal DUI checkpoint stops”, that were met with harsh criticism by civil liberties activists. Many even disobeyed and fought the constitutionality of such checkpoints. Regardless, search warrants were still issued during most of those check point stops.
A warrant creates a necessary roadblock between police and arbitrary abuse of power. It creates one last opportunity for a judge to look at the situation and say, “This officer doesn’t have the right to do this”,  or “This officer has the right”.  While many judges often distribute search warrants arbitrarily and unfairly, atleast it creates a small deterrence for officers to easily abuse their authority. And this is exactly why the founders drafted the 4th amendment the way they did. They were sick of the British walking into their houses and confiscating their good without any regard or debate of legalities.
This Utah nurse not only made a stand for the Constitution but also for human rights. The victim at hand was not accused of any crime  and the officers had no legal authority to take his property; i.e. his blood.  If the 4th amendment did not apply to our blood, it could create an opportunity for blood harvesting, experimentation, and all sorts of deadly scenarios.
In my Shadow Report,  Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform , I address the problem of “policing for profit”, whereas police departments often seize properties illegally, only to turn around and sell those items to profit their departments.  Civil asset Forfeiture is a huge concern all across this nation. I could only imagine if a market for blood was opened up to private corporations. It would create another fascist relationship between big pharma and big government.
Kudos to Alex Wubbels for defending life, liberty, and the 4th amendment of our Constitution.  It is a sad day in this country when a nurse is doing more to protect the 4th amendment than our elected congress members who passed laws like the Patriot Act which undermine the 4th amendment.
Maybe Ms.Wubbels should act as a Constitutional consultant to our Republican and Democratic leaders on what it means to strictly adhere to the founding principles of this nation which lead to the rise of what used to be known as— “The most free nation on Earth. “
I look forward to seeing Ms.Wubbels attain justice for the abuse she suffered protecting our beloved bill of rights.  She is a true role model to girls,boys,women, and men residing in this great nation of the United States and elsewhere.
Godspeed.
Nalini-Global
2017

Why 9/11 was the worst day in the 21st Century

 

As a historian, many people ask me, “What do you think the worst day in human history was ?”  I’m sure if I lived during the “black plague” in the 13th century or the “Mongol Invasions” lead under Ghengis Khan in the 11th century, my answer might be different. However, as a 30 year old man living in the 21st century, my answer has to be “September 11th, 2001”.  Although we are only 17 years into this century, less than a year in, the worst attack on American soil in our nation’s history took place, causing unforgettable mass panic and fear. A fear that has never quite evaporated from our conscious.

Not just for Americans, but for humanity as a whole. It’s no secret that the United States is considered the world’s super-power in terms of economics and military strength. Thus, when such a nation is attacked, it brings forth world-wide consequences. The September 11th attacks resulted in thousands of innocent American citizen casualties, thousands of US military causalities, and more than a million deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan; most of who were not enemy combatants.  In fact, the nation of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11—-Alas, that is a conversation for a different day. Economically, it resulted in Trillions of dollars being spent, causing world-wide massive inflation and debt.

16 years later, the wars in the middle east as a result of these attacks are still ongoing.

Since 9/11/2001, a complete overhaul of what it means to be “free” and “safe” has been forever altered. These attacks gave birth to Islamophobia, wars in Libya, Iraq,Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and increased terrorism  in countries outside the United States. France, UK, Germany, Sudan, Burma, Canada, all of which have had tensions with Muslims since 9/11.  Another side effect of the 9/11 attacks is the attack on our personal liberties under the guise of “protection”.

Because of these attacks, the United States felt compelled to pass laws like the “Patriot Act” and the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2012”.  The Patriot Act was passed under the Bush administration which allowed the government to supersede the need for a warrant to seize property or wiretap phones, so long as suspected “terrorism” was cited for the reason.  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, passed under the Obama administration, specifically sections 1021 and 1022, allows for the indefinite detention of American Citizens without use of trial; so long as their is “suspicion” of terrorism involved; A word that is still not completely defined.

Another response to the 9/11 attacks was the creation of the Transportation Administration Administration , A.K.A- TSA. The TSA also coincided with newly created government “watchlists” and “no-fly lists“. Anyone can be secretly put onto these lists for a host of arbitrary reasons, such as posting something negative about the government on social media, without the person being formally accused of any crime in a judicial court.  Many people have been put on such lists for simply sharing a similar name to a former criminal. The procedure for getting off the list is also very limited and the results are usually not successful and/or very time consuming.   According to a report issued by the Department of Defense and later publicized by the ACLU in 2009 , see —(,https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-inspector-general-reports-35-percent-error-rate-terror-watchlist) revealed that more than 35% of people put on watch-lists were done so in error or without good cause. Once put on such a list, most people remain there indefinitely with no expiration or “probationary” date.  Some people as young as 7 years old have been put on the list, revoking their ability to travel via air permanently.

Soon, other countries began to follow suit. The United Kingdom responded to the 9/11 attacks with the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 which allowed for indefinite detention of non-nationals in the UK.  The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 passed in the UK parliament, also allowed for double-jeopardy pending new evidence being submitted. Something completely unheard of in most westernized judicial systems.  However, the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005 was the most egregious law attacking British civil liberties. Under this legislation, the government was then allowed to tag, monitor, and detain anyone “suspected” of terrorism with little (if any) oversight from the courts.

In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former IT specialist with the CIA, leaked the NSA’s “spy program” to the public, that was operating under the authority of the Patriot Act. Snowden discovered that nearly all communication devices in the United States and parts of Europe were being monitored 24/7 by governing powers with the cooperation of major corporations in secrecy.  Such a leak turned Snowden in a political refugee who was forced to  flee to Russia, a country that previously had a war with the US backed “Mujahadeen” in the 1980s. In October of 2015, I met Ben Wizner, Snowden’s attorney, at a conference, who stated that Mr. Snowden desires to come back home to the United States, a dream that Wizner hopes will someday come true.

Since 9/11, Muslim extremists have attacked subway stations, parades, and other social events, such as the “Boston Marathon Bombings” and the recent attacks in Paris,France.  These extremists often use guerrilla warfare or nontraditional methods to attack their hosts. They are not like a traditional standing army that fights in a formation with a designated uniform. As a result, the use of unmanned “spy drones” have been deployed in war. These drones can hover for days, monitoring human movement, equipped with weaponry.  This technology is now being used by domestic law enforcement against civilians.

To this day, many speculate on ‘why” the attacks on 9/11 happened. Some say that the middle eastern culture is simply barbaric or is “jealous” of our liberal way of life. Others, such as former FBI director, Michael Scheurer, and former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, cite foreign policy moves in the past, like the sanctions placed on Iraq during the Clinton era that resulted in over 500,000 starving to death, for being potential causes of the 9/11 attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim it was an “inside job” perpetrated by profiteers. Regardless of “why” it happened, a response to these attacks were justified. Whether or not the United States responded correctly is an on-going debate. Personally, I think that the Bush administration and the Obama administration did some “good things” and some “bad things”, just as any other president would do. It’s a “gray” area that continues today. The question still lingers…

“How do we respect individual liberty while still keeping us safe?”

Just as during WWII and the Cold-War era, there is a witch-hunt happening. In the cold-war era, anyone who was negative or critical of government was automatically labeled a “communist” or “Nazi” and could be imprisoned under the Smith Act of 1940 for having certain political affiliations .  I fear that the same thing is happening today. Yes, there are terrorists in the world. Yes, there is a threat from Muslim extremism and domestic extremists. However, I feel that it is far too easy, legislatively, to label some person/protestor, common criminal or an activity as “terroristic”, so that the burdens of judicial oversight can be ignored, thus making some bureaucrat’s job easier to go after people they deem, “unpatriotic” or ideologically “unfavorable” to mainstream politics. Very reminiscent of the 1950’s which spawned the  COINTEL program  lead under J. Edgar Hoover.

These current parameters are certainly a slippery-slope that has effected many innocent people arbitrarily placed on surveillance, made to be informants against their will, and so forth. People live in constant fear of being “labeled”, thus, free speech and dissent become muffled.

“Have a negative view of your government? You better delete that last comment on Facebook, or else you may get a knock on your door!” – A quote you hear all too often these days.

However, on the other hand, the United States government cannot simply “do nothing” when such attacks happen like the ones that occurred on 9/11. A government’s natural reaction is to prevent such attacks from re-occurring and to reassure the public.  The problem is, many disagree on how to achieve that goal.  Yet, the important thing is, we all agree that we never want to see something like this happen again.  The question remains, is the so called “War on Terror” a winnable war? Can it be won? Have they already defeated us by making us change our values so much? I certainly believe that Americans and the rest of the western world certainly suffers from a form of PTSD after witnessing the 9/11 attacks. Fear and anxiety certainly envelop many of us when we fly or travel since those attacks occurred.

The attacks on the World Trade Center not only sent shockwaves through the hearts of Americans, but it also caused a catastrophic change in our values as a nation. As these values changed, so did the rest of the world’s values. As the world’s super-power, the entire globe was watching, listening, taking notes, and following suit.

16 years later. The war continues. Many sons and daughters are fighting in the same wars that their mothers and fathers served in.  Many children of deceased US soldiers carry resentment towards Muslims. Children of deceased middle eastern civilians carry resentment towards Americans. The cycle of hate and fear continue while those everyday people who have nothing to do with these wars get caught in a “legislative drive-by” AKA “Knee-jerk reaction laws”.

September 11th, 2001 permanently changed the way we travel, communicate, and do business.  The years leading up to 9/11, the internet was largely an unregulated free-market enterprise rife with expression. Our foreign policy entanglements were limited to brief skirmishes, green cards were relatively easy to obtain and the world was a lot more “self governing”.  Unfortunately, I do not see these trends reversing anytime soon. At the very least, we may be able to “weaken” some of these invasive measures, such as what happened with the “Patriot Act”. (later renamed the Freedom Act, which limited some of the powers of the Patriot Act).

If you are under the age of 40, and live in any westernized nation, it is very plausible and arguable to say that the September 11th attack was the worst day in your lifetime, perhaps not on a personal scale (factoring in death of relatives, health issues ect..), but on a public scale for humanity,western culture,values, and those who hold Libertarian leaning values.

Even if you disagree with my statement of 9/11 being the worst day in the 21st century, none can argue that it didn’t permanently change the geo-political landscape of this world. If you can recognize that fact, then you will see the rationale behind such a bold statement.

Where do we go from here? How do we heal a wound that still bleeds 16 years later in a society that continues to divide?  Forget Islamaphobia, attacks on civil liberties or the possibility of ISIS invading the United States. What scares me the most is that we are forgetting the values that bind us. Values that are explicitly and universally stated in the United States Constitution, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and even in most major religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and even Islam.

Thou shalt not kill…

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you….

Treat foreign aliens as if they were your family….

Do not murder…

Kindness begets kindness…

use resources sparingly…

let a non-believer relish in his own ways so long as he does no personal harm to you…

These are universal principles found everywhere in the world. Principles that have been overshadowed by fear, angst, anxiety, and our need to “right” about everything.

It is my dream that September 11th, 2001, can transform itself from being the worst day in the 21st century, to becoming a catalyst for conversation that enlightens all of us, a sort of renaissance/enlightenment for mankind. If you are reading this  article, perhaps we are one step closer to achieving that dream.

Sincerely,

Randell D Stroud

 

-Nalini-Global

2017

 

 

Kentucky Police Department tests the 4th Amendment

To: Paducah Police Chief, Brandon Barnhill-  bbarnhill@paducahky.gov

From: Nalini-Global- Naliniglobal@yahoo.com 

The Paducah Police Department of Kentucky has recently launched a new initiative known as the, “Lock it or Lose it” campaign. Officers will now be encouraged to conduct sweeps around the city to check vehicles parked on public property, to see if they are properly locked and/or if valuables are in plain-view. If the vehicle is found to be unlocked and unattended by the owner, the officer will run the license plate and make attempts to reach the owner of the vehicle by telephone. If the officer cannot make contact, the officer will place a door hanger on the owner’s registered home address linked to the license plate. The informational door hanger will contain a warning to keep their vehicle properly locked up.

Officers who come across vehicles that are properly locked, will leave a “Thank you” card on the windshield of the vehicle. On the back of the card, a survey can be completed and mailed to the Paducah Police Department. Those who fill out the survey are automatically entered into a drawing contest to win prizes.  Officer Christopher Fearon recently spoke on a local Television program called “The Paducah View“, promoting the initiative stating that , “….Paducah is a safe town to live in, and sometimes people gain a false sense of security because of that.”   The initiative is not a nation-wide federal mandate, however, other cities and states have launched similar programs such as the “Lock it or Lose it” program launched in Lakeland,Florida last year. The Lakeland Police Department uses even more invasive tactics such as placing a bright orange cone on the top of an unlocked vehicle and leaving “lock it or leave it” brochures inside of the vehicle in order to send a “wake up” message to the car owner to lock up his/her valuables.

According to an article written by the West Kentucky Star, Officer Fearon states that, “……the Paducah Police Department will not leave warning hangers on the car itself nor will they open the car doors.” However, there is a million dollar question that comes with such a statement.

How can you know if a car is unlocked unless you try to open it?

On the surface, such a program may seem innocent or even well-intended. To be honest, it probably is well intended. Some may jump to conspiracy theories about, “Big Brother is Watching”, or claim that there is some secret agenda, yet, I believe it is simply a plan that is not well-thought out albeit well intended.

I have two problems with this initiative.

  1. A potential breach of the 4th Amendment
  2.  An abuse of power 

For an officer to make contact with a person or his property, there generally has to be “probable cause” or “Reasonable Suspicion”. “Probable cause” is a principle that is highly debated, especially with practices such as the “Terry Stop” being the norm these days.  A “Terry Stop”, is more a less an officer’s legal right to stop someone for questioning if the subject is doing something “suspicious” but is not engaging in a blatant activity that warrants probable cause for arrest or seizure of property.

Looking at the “Lock it or Lose It” program, I can see many pitfalls with this well-intended program.

Under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, a private individual has the right to be secure in his possessions and maintain his privacy. This includes his home, his personal belongings, his e-mails, text messages, and yes……his vehicle! If an officer wants to enter the home of a citizen, search a vehicle, or seize property, he must obtain a warrant signed from a judge or the subject must voluntarily consent.

If an officer routinely approached your house, unwarranted, and began to “jiggle” the locks on your door to make sure they are “secured”, would you feel safer or violated? If your answer is “violated”, then you are probably not a supporter of this initiative. Or at least you shouldn’t be.   In order for an officer to determine whether or not a vehicle is locked, unless the door is left wide-open, the officer will have to physically attempt to open the door of the vehicle. The Paducah Police Department claims that they will not open doors, but how else could they test whether or not a car door is locked?

If this program becomes the norm around the nation, citizens will begin to develop a false-sense of trust for law enforcement officers who “check” their locks. While I believe most officers have good hearts and truly want to protect their communities, who is to say that this program wouldn’t be alluring to an officer who may be inclined to use this program to conduct full on searches or to plant evidence illegally? This type of program could create a curtain for abuse of power and make it easier for law enforcement to target citizens or to obtain an arrest and/or conviction.

If my car is stolen, or my valuables are taken because of my own negligence, I have no one to blame but myself and the person who lacks the moral aptitude to refrain from stealing.  Our local police are already burdened with investigators looking to track down murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and other violent criminals.  We cannot expect law enforcement to protect us 24/7 unless we all agreed to live in a militarized police-state where our every action, thought, and movement were all being recorded or monitored.

With the rise of the TSA, Terrorist threats and the controversy surrounding the “NSA Spy Program” leaked by former intelligence officer Edward Snowden, many Americans look at this program with the same question that has plagued us all since September 11th, 2001.

“How do we balance security while respecting our individual liberty and privacy?”

The police and military have a job to do. Their #1 duty is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of their fellow residents and citizens. Their job is not to make sure we button up our shirts correctly, brush our teeth every morning, or lock our cars when we run inside the grocery store to purchase a loaf of bread.

Not only is this program disrespecting the 4th amendment of the Constitution, but it is also creating unnecessary, “Busy Work” for police officers who could be applying their time and resources towards tackling and solving crimes that are actually taking place or have already taken place.  From a tax burden issue, who will pay for these informational cards to be printed up? What will be the administrative cost of this program a year from now?  How many man hours will be dedicated to this program? These, among other issues, certainly need to be addressed before further implementation of this program continues.

What are your thoughts? Should the program be discontinued, altered, or do you see it as perfectly innocent?

Let me know at, NaliniGlobal@yahoo.com

Thank you,

With love and honor

Randell D Stroud,

Founder of Nalini-Global

2017

(To be Submitted)