Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson



You Have Rights as Long as You Don't Use Them

Dave Ridley, who you may recall was arrested for exercising his 1st Amendment rights passing out a flier at a government office, was harassed again this past weekend for simply walking down the street exercising his 2nd amendment rights.

You have here the whole incident here from a recording made on a cell phone when it happened.

Dave was walking down the street in Manchester, NH and was subsequently stopped by the police, not because he was doing anything wrong, fit the descriptions of someone they were looking for or otherwise lead the police to have reasonable suspicion about his activities... He was stopped because he was using his right to open carry a fire arm.  As a result he was stopped, asked for his papers (ID) and had to prove he was NOT breaking the law before the police let him continue.  Just like something you see in one of the old back and white films of tourists traveling in dictatorships or government controlled countries.

Seems to me that this is completely backwards for America.  You would think the police would need to have reason to suspect you were not following the law before stopping you and giving you a hard time... not simply because you were walking down a street and legally carrying a gun.

Is it no longer a matter of being innocent until proven guilty?  If you choose to use your right to carry a fire arm are you instantly thought of as a criminal and must prove yourself innocent before being allowed to walk down the street?

This is what happens when we as a society stop using our rights, we lose our rights.

Let's hope we never get to the point were I'm writing about Dave's 3rd Amendment rights being violated because at that point it may be too late for any hope that this country be restored to a Constitutional Republic.


Secret FISA Courts

Last week I discussed Democrats seeking to expand warrantless wiretaping discussed in an article you can read HERE.  The oversight that is meant to make everything ok with the warrantless invasions by the government is that there will be review after the fact by secret FISA Courts.  So what exactly are the FISA courts and is their checking up enough to make warrantless invasions by the government ok?

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is a secret court made up of seven judges (later expanded to eleven) that were founded in 1978.  Since then they have given the ok on over 7500 warrants for searches and wiretaps and has only rejected one single request.  These hearings were done in 100% privacy with no public records or public opinions.

Since it's inception the powers of FISA have been expanded.  The largest expansion being under President Clinton through executive order 12949  which gave the power to conduct physical searches without the need of a warrant issued through open court, without notifying the subject that they have been searched and without the need to provide a physical inventory of any items seized.  This in essence tosses the 5th Amendment right out the window!

 Later in 2005 Democrats feigned shock at Bush's use of warrantless searches and wiretaps and turned it into part of the 2006 election (ignoring of course that it was Clinton's executive order in 1998 that gave the government nearly the same power) and it paid off for them as they sweep elections across the country yet now they push to continue expanding the same power they claimed they objected to just a few short years ago.

I don't care what side of the political spectrum you are from, this is frightening and both Democrats and Republicans support it (some just a little more hypocritically then others).



Democrats Seek to Expand Eavesdropping

Over the past couple years how many times have you heard complaints from the left that Bush is spying on Americans and warrantless wiretapping is evil and wrong?  I've lost count.  So imagine my shock when I read the following heading lin the New York Times... "Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping". 

The article goes on to say "It would be the first change in the law since the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants became public in December 2005."

So for years we hear the chats from the left about how evil Bush is and how he's spying without warrants and yet the first change to the law the Democrats look to make is to expand its power.

And if that isn't alarming enough here's the real kick in the pants, "The Democrats have proposed that the eavesdropping be reviewed by the secret FISA court to make sure that it has not ensnared any Americans."  Reviewed by a secret FISA court, well that should put everyone at ease right?

Folks, if you honestly thought you were going to get something different by voting against Republicans in '06 guess again.  We are still in Iraq and the government is still looking to expand it's warrantless spying powers. 


Merrimack Questions Need for Bi-Langual Signs

On July 4th an incident occurred in Wasserman park in Merrimack, NH which has since grown to reach national news levels.

A group of punks came into the town park and proceeded to cause problems for the lifeguard and break the rules of the park by drinking in an area where alcohol is prohibited.  They continued to ignore the lifeguard and continue causing problems to the point where police had to be called in.  When the police arrived they explained to the punks that alcohol was not allowed and pointed out the clearly displayed sign which lists the park rules.  The punks responding in fluent English claimed they couldn't read the sign because it wasn't in Spanish.

How hard is it to understand Alcohol Prohibited which in Spanish would be Alcohol Prohibido especially considering that you can SPEAK ENGLISH?  I would think you wouldn't need a degree in rocket science to translate that one.  Clearly some in the Hispanic society however find even that little bit of translating to be too complicated for them to handle to the point they are now pushing the town to adopt bi-lingual signs listing the park rules.

This incident has sparked a debate in Merrimack on whether or not the town should spend tax payer money putting up signs in other languages. Since many of those using the park are from outside downs, some of the local councilors believe correctly that it would be unfair to essentially punish the local tax payers for bad behavior of guests from other towns.

In my opinion this raises a couple of questions, the key question being whether or not spending money on bi-lingual signs will actually solve the problem.  Since the reports I've read on the incident that sparked this all pointed out that the troublemakers spoke fluent English to the police and considering how similar the English vs. Spanish translation of Alcohol Prohibited are, I have a hard time buying into the fact that they both could not understand the sign and could not understand the lifeguard's statements.  Based on that I wouldn't expect bi-lingual signs to make any difference.  That fact I'm sure will be glossed over in the national media coverage (national news vans have begun pulling into Merrimack in the last couple days).  And of course the debate on many forums discussing the story have turned to "diversity" and whether or not it's a good thing.  I'm sorry but diversity has NOTHING to do with a group of punks breaking park rules.  I could say more on "diversity" but I will save it for another article.

The other question I have is why do the most recent immigrant coming into this country expect more then any other group before them?  Many of my family came here on a boat from Italy.  They never once expected society to bend for them.  Instead they did what was needed to learn the language and now as the 2nd generation actually born here I consider myself 100% American and while I know some Italian I speak first and foremost English as did my mother.  I can count on my fingers how many times I heard my mother or grandparents speaking Italian it was so infrequent.  Many other immigrants coming to this country share similar stories of forcing themselves and their families to speak English in order to better themselves and fit into the culture they chose to move into.  Now however we see a far different group.  We as a society are expected to bend for them putting signs up in their languages.  Why?

Those of us who speak out against such insanity of course are labeled racists, as I'm sure someone will suggest in the feedback.  Simply because we believe like our own ancestors the newest immigrants should be expected to rise to the same level of achievement our own did.  Simply because we don't expect society to bend for the few but the few to do what it takes to fit into the society the choose to live in.


Take Me Out To The Ball Game Part 2

This is a continuation of the article about the trip my son and I took this past weekend to Cooperstown, NY for the Baseball Hall of Fame inductions of Tony Gwyn and Cal Ripken Jr.

Previously I discussed heroes of the game and some of the wonderful experiences my son and I have had meeting the true greats of the game of baseball.  However this year along with the great excitement of what Cal and Tony achieved there was also a dubious side to baseball. 

This year was the first year of eligibility for Mark McGwire who was soundly turned down by the voters.  We are also on the cusp of seeing history made when Bonds breaks Hank Aarons home run record but with the question of whether or not he did it fairly.

While walking around Cooperstown such topics were all the buzz on the street.  My son being only 5 didn't understand the complexity of some of them but never the less was interested in knowing why some players cheat.

As we walked past a store which featured Pete Rose signing autographs there were numbers of people muttering that Pete should be in the Hall of Fame.  Others laughed at shirts hanging in the windows of stores which poked light at drugged up sluggers touting mottos such as "755* done without drugs" or "Non Medicated Player".

My son after a brief discussion about the George Brett's pine tar bat asked how George could be in the Hall of Fame if he cheated so I had to try to explain how that was more of a mistake then cheating.  His questions however struck me how influential baseball can be and the complexity of it all.

On one hand there are clear cut bad guys such as the 1908 Black Sox who threw the World Series.  Then you have players such as George Brett who have made what I believe to be an honest mistake which created infamous situations.  To Pete Rose who's performance in the game was legendary yet who's personal life violated what baseball officials consider valid rules of conduct.  To McGwire, Bonds etc who "allegedly" used enhancements to allow themselves to perform beyond their natural abilities and Sosa who was caught using a corked bat.

Regarding that last group I see two sides to the story.  First you have baseball purists who want to see players such as Ripken who go out there and play to their abilities.  Cal's most famous for simply playing every single day and while he's had an outstanding career it was his number of consecutive games which set him apart in the record books.  And what makes that achievement so great is that in looking at it one feels that anyone if they try hard enough could do something like that.

On the other side you have Bonds who hits more home runs in a year and who is looking to hit the most home runs in a lifetime but he didn't do it naturally.  He took drugs to allow his body to achieve more then it naturally would have been able to.  Some people however don't mind that he took drugs because he made the game exciting to watch.  The nation was on the edge of their seats when McGwire and Sosa were going neck and neck toward breaking the home run record.  And nearly everyone finds games with players belting home runs left and right to be far more exciting to watch then pitching duels where each team is held to only 1 hit.  Purists such as myself however love them.  But if people want to see drugged up giants trouncing around performing beyond what normal humans can do should it be allowed?  Or if a player can perform better with a corked up bat should that be allowed?

That is why I look at players such as Cal Ripken Jr or Nolan Ryan or Roger Maris in a much different light then I view the steroid giants of today's game.  What would it teach our kids if we allow players such as McGwire or Bonds into the Hall of Fame?  That it's ok to cheat because you will be rewarded in the long run?

I almost think we'd be better off with two baseball leagues.  A true baseball league where players perform to the best of their abilities and that's it and a WWE type league where it is more about the show then true ability.

Ah such is the game of baseball and that is what makes it great.  Everyone can tell a story of the greats and the not so greats, the heroes and the dirty side of the game.  In the future I'm sure I will share more stories with you all about them all and I welcome you all to share your own as well.