If you were just the least bit selective in your data collection you could great really paranoid about big government. Check out this story (via email from Tony) Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations as armed police and attack dogs stand guard. And Local 2 Investigates Police Secrecy Behind Unmanned Aircraft Test.
Instead of paranoid, I think we should be “very skeptical”, “keep your powder dry”, and keep your training up to date.
If for some reason it ever becomes necessary to take down one of those planes do it while it is on the ground. If it’s already in the air then take out the communication gear on the ground.
I’ve often said the socialists think of the common person more as cattle to be dehorned, vaccinated, milked, and slaughtered than as people. The “central committee” or the “enlightened leaders” need to keep watch and do what is best for the common good. The right of the individual is unimportant next to the right of society as a whole. It’s time give up on these outmoded ideas and work for good of the collective. Those that resist are outlaws or insane and society is completely justified sending them to the work and reeducation camps. It’s for the good of society.
Yeah, right. And that is Why Boomershoot.
Update: This post is starting to get legs. The vaccination story above is obviously bordering near hysterical. I figured there was a grain of truth in it and the whole forced vaccination concept bothers me. Here are some more dispassionate versions of the same story:
- One Maryland county takes tough tack on vaccinations (Christian Science Monitor)
- Maryland Parents Told to Have Children Immunized (New York Times)
- Md. Schools Get Tough on Vaccinations (Associated Press)
- Prince George’s Co. parents brought to court over vaccines (Baltimore Sun)
Most of the articles just barely, at best, mention the protesters. The Christian Science Monitor has the best coverage of that angle:
But protesters outside the courthouse say that the summons to the courthouse amounted to a campaign of intimidation, and that parents weren’t adequately informed of their rights as parents or possible risks to their children.
“I think it’s offensive that the government would forcibly vaccinate kids. Individual rights are a good thing, and when you’re dealing with health issues, informed consent is an important value,” says Donna Hurlack, a Virginia gynecologist protesting outside the courthouse.
“There was a feeling of intimidation. Children were basically put in that building, lined up and given vaccines without any information given to parents about how to monitor their children for adverse vaccination reactions,” says Barbara Loe Fisher, president and cofounder of the National Vaccine Information Center, which advocates for more parental rights in immunization.
None mention the police and dogs but I found one picture that confirms that angle (from the Associated Press article above):
My best take on it is that the facts reported in the original article I linked to were probably correct. Yes, the spin on it was extreme but his point is valid. It was a forced vaccination. People were threatened with jail (point of a gun) if they didn’t comply. They were being treated a lot like cattle.
I am becoming increasingly disturbed by these types of stories. We also have the one about the land owners in Colorado who had 30% of their vacant lot stolen by a former Mayor (who is coincidentally also a lawyer) through an obscure law. And there’s also the report that they have been granting warrants for cellphone tracking without probable cause.
These stories don’t make me mad like they used to. Normally this weeks batch of stories would have been posted on my blog within minutes. These days I’m not sure that any of it is going to make a difference — we seem to have fallen over the edge and are rapidly sliding into the pit.
I’ve viewed Patrick Buchanan as a bit of a nut-case in recent years. But I’m going to pick up his latest book and give him a fair hearing. I fear that he may be right.
The first article is hysterical enough about the rest of the article that I have to doubt the veracity of the armed guards/attack dogs angle, especially without a photo. As for the second one, either they will have a mobile command station, which should be pretty easy to harass (a well placed rifle or a few cocktails would suffice), or they will have a fortified permanent station, which will require municipal resources that should be fairly simply to sabotage (and regular ingress/egress that should be very susceptible to harassment.)
And of course, a few minutes with a spectral analyzer near the command station would likely yield the info our hypothetical sabatour would need to put together a nasty spark-gap device, too. I’m also wondering how well the aircraft sensors would stand up to a well placed green laser or two.
Yeah, I am skeptical about the first article too. I considered looking for more info on that story but I had other things that needed to get done. I do know there there is a fair amount of truth to the mandatory immunization angle. I haven’t looked into it because we always got our kids, and ourselves immunized, but the states usually have religious exemptions. But that the state can mandate vaccinations at all is pretty creepy regardless of how much force or the number and type of exemptions they back up that mandate with.
The constant surveillance thing bothers me because it violates my Jews in the Attic Test. If they have to put a real helicoptor and pilot in the air it’s too expensive to be a realistic concern. But as the cost comes down with drones and other automation it starts getting more and more Big Brother like.
The frequency the drones are opperating on will soon be, if they aren’t already, spread spectrum which makes it really tough to jam even if you do know the range of frequencies involved. I think the laser is a great idea.
As far as the marxists are concerned, yes, it is part of the philosophy that man’s liberty must be restrained for the common good. The next question would logically be: Who makes the restraints? The unfortunate problem with leaders is that they’re from the same stock as the followers. The possible outcomes:
1. Selection based upon a narrow set of desirable attributes produces like-minded leaders, with similar shortcomings, that make lop-sided policy decisions (i.e. bigots)
2. Leaders selected from the general population exhibit the same personality defects present in the general population — likely with similar distribution given enough time
3. Assumption that leaders are inherently infallible, and can ascend to leadership status without resorting to undesirable human traits such as ruthlessness, greed and cruelty
The third is obviously impossible, and even if it was, it would occur so rarely that it would not be possible to build a lasting government. The closest mankind has ever come is to assert divine selection, or a hereditary link to the divinely selected. That’s cheating.
The Founders knew this was the case, and they made their best attempt to mitigate the problems, however impossible it may be to escape human nature and its desire to either be the authority or be ruled by one.
Marylanders can either fight or leave. A good place to start would be to ask where in the state’s constitution is the authority to force medical treatment on the Citizens.