Confederates Fail Again in Greene County.

The previous post has a follow-up, and it's actually good news.

20 of 21 Greene County Commissioners rejected completely a proposal from one commissioner, Jame Randolph, to install a Confederate flag on the county's courthouse. Just like the way residents rejected secession during the Civil War 150 years ago.

Previously, as I said, this is idiotic on many levels, especially Randolph's ludicrous claim he was motivated by some fealty to history. But we all know what history that flag represents.

Randolph says he knew the resolution would fail and that he won't try to introduce it again - so the question remains: What was the point of his effort? Was it merely to attract and agitate a specific part of the population, to organize them and alert them to .... what?

The Greene County press should ask that question but they won't.

Confederate Ignorance in Greene County

It's pretty clear the Greene County Commissioners who think flying a Confederate flag is historically vital have zero knowledge of the history of their own county and of East Tennessee.

Here's a report on what Greene County elected officials want --

Here's the facts, from an 1899 account, of how the vast majority of Tennessee and Greene County residents utterly rejected the Confederates and embraced instead the American flag and the American government.

Since History proves these officials utterly wrong - then what is the real reason behind their desire to fly a flag of the county's enemies?

UPDATE: The outcome was a Big Fat NO.

American Passports Set For Massive Changes

It's about to become next to impossible for an American to get a passport - unless you get it today, or by some fluke, if the so-far-seldom-reported-time for public comment on this idea is not extended.

And I mean it's gonna be tough -

"The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information. According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”

The State Department estimated that the average respondent would be able to compile all this information in just 45 minutes, which is obviously absurd given the amount of research that is likely to be required to even attempt to complete the form."

---

"It seems likely that only some, not all, applicants will be required to fill out the new questionnaire, but no criteria have been made public for determining who will be subjected to these additional new written interrogatories. So if the passport examiner wants to deny your application, all they will have to do is give you the impossible new form to complete. (NOTE: This requirement will likely be used if there is "questionable authenticity" to someone's birth records ... so, maybe this is a Birther Bill?)


It’s not clear from the supporting statement, statement of legal authorities, or regulatory assessment submitted by the State Department to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) why declining to discuss one’s siblings or to provide the phone number of your first supervisor when you were a teenager working at McDonalds would be a legitimate basis for denial of a passport to a U.S. citizen.

---

"Extra points to the person who gives the best answer in the comments to the question on the proposed form, “Please describe the circumstances of your birth including the names (as well as address and phone number, if available) of persons present or in attendance at your birth.”

When The State Breaks The Law

It is beyond depressing to see how Americans are steadily agreeing to abandon our Liberty and our Law to accommodate the wishes and policies of our own government. I was reading a post from No Silence Here this morning about how the TN Dept. of Environment and Conservation was breaking the law by recording conversations without telling those being taped.

It is illegal in Tennessee to tape someone without telling them you are doing so. Period, The End. (Please refer to the NOTE at the end of this post for the pertinent laws. Seems to me permission is required, but perhaps other arguments could also be made, depending on how a court might define 'reasonable expectation.')

And once this story was presented by a WSMV reporter, the TDEC issued 'new guidelines' to stop their illegal act. 'New guidelines', yeesh. So does that mean if you are arrested for stealing or for assault, all you need tell the investigating officers that you have adopted a 'new guideline' and will no longer do such a thing? They would simply say OK and you have a nice day?

Check out the following from the WSMV report:

"Is it good government to record the public without their knowledge?” [reporter Demetria] Kalodimos said.

“Well, our department is a regulatory agency and part of our charge is to enforce the law. So, I would say that, you know, in the exercise of carrying out our duties, that it is good government to do that. I see it as much ado about nothing,” said TDEC attorney Joe Sanders.

After Channel 4 started asking questions TDEC made a change.

Deputy Commissioner Paul Sloan issued a statement on Wednesday that said: “Because the issue has been raised, our department is committed to ensuring that as a matter of policy, we will disclose routine recording of conversations between members of our department and the public.”

Notice how the official says "since the issue has been raised". If the reports of their illegal taping had not been made public, then the illegal taping would continue. After all, it was routine, it was convenient, it made the agency's job easier to break the law. Their attorney views breaking the law as 'much ado about nothing.'

Again, what happens when you offer that defense if accused of breaking the law?

A comment on Mike Silence's post about the illegal taping is even more disturbing to me:

"Who cares if they records or listen to our conversations. . . I don't do anything illegal.

There is a bigger picture here. . . Finding illegal immigrants, illegal activities, illegal abuses (to woman and children), TERROR PLOTS, etc. . . If you look at the big picture and you are not conducting yourself in an inappropriate manner then you should not care of your conversation. The important issue is how it affects others and our country."

This mantra of 'only the guilty have anything to hide' has been often repeated in recent years, which is deeply deceptive and astonishingly cowardly, in my opinion. Abandoning your rights and liberties is necessary to achieve ... what? Obedience? Blind allegiance? A lack of concern for anyone except yourself?

Perhaps this view that the state is always innocent is one that has grown from Washington as states and their agencies mimic the philosophy that government is above the law. The ongoing debate to make permanent a law to provide warrantless wiretaps and surveillance seems to lack any sense of how the law is meant to function. The reason Congress is being pushed to adopt the law is that existing law has been violated:

"But we don't actually live in a country where private actors are permitted to commit crimes and violate laws provided that the President tells them that they should. The President has no greater power to authorize others to break the law than he does to break the law himself. Quite the contrary, Article II of the Constitution imposes the opposite obligation: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Lawbreaking is still illegal even if George Bush says it should be done. Does that principle really need to be explained?"

-----

"A Congressional grant of immunity for past lawbreaking would amount to a bipartisan endorsement of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program. To remove consequences for illegal behavior is, by definition, to approve of that behavior. Laws with no consequences for violations are meaningless. And those who seek to shield lawbreakers from accountability are endorsing the lawbreaking."

Are we, as a nation, so eager to gain even the most illusionary moment of perfect safety from the unknown potential of possible attack, that we willingly surrender our basic fundamental structure of Law and Liberty?

For some time now, we have been casually accepting a fatal premise - that the state and the corporation have rights which trump those of the individual. "You're already being watched and tracked pretty much everywhere you go and whatever you do," I am told by usually very smart and informed people. To believe that is to believe you have no rights and no hope for rights, or privacy or self-determination. It is one of the most cynical ideas ever to be embraced by America.


NOTE: Here are the most applicable laws regarding audio and videotaping without consent which I could locate:

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601: A person who is a party to a wire, oral or electronic communication, or who has obtained the consent of at least one party, can lawfully record a communication and divulge the contents of the recorded communication unless he has a criminal or tortious purpose for doing so. Violations are punishable as felonies with jail sentences of between two and 12 years and fines not exceeding $5,000. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-602, 40-35-111.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303.

Anyone whose communications have been unlawfully intercepted can sue to recover the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603.

Recording or disseminating a communication carried out through a cellular or cordless telephone, or disseminating the contents with knowledge of their illegal origin, without the consent of at least one party, can be punished as a felony with a potential prison sentence of between one and six years and a fine not to exceed $3,000. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-604, 40-35-111.

It is a misdemeanor to photograph, film or observe a person without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, when the photographing, filming or viewing "would offend or embarrass an ordinary person" and is done for sexual purposes. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-605, 39-13-607. Dissemination of a photograph or videotape taken in violation of these provisions is a felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(2).

TN Legislature Rejects Real ID Act

More good news today -- the TN Legislature has adopted a resolution rejecting the Real ID Act!

Mike Silence noted the vote on SJR248 today.

My hearty congratulations to the state - now it's time for the federal representatives from Tennessee to take action and repeal this terrible legislation. Forget asking for federal funds for the act -- repeal it!

Contact your elected officials via these email, phone and faxes.

Show Me Your Papers, American!

Some controversial new laws for American citizens has me wondering in a most negative fashion about how much government documentation the future American will be required to carry.

I've mentioned some of this before, like the Real ID Act, tacked onto legislation to provide relief funding for victims of the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia. The law mandates every citizen in the U.S. must have this new ID if they wish to open a bank account, travel on an airline, collect social security, enter a federal building, utilize any Federal service, get a job and more. And like Russ McBee has written, this law needs to be repealed.

Over the weekend, I learned about another new law, which I had never heard about, enacted under the title "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative." Under this law, American citizens who travel to Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, or take cruises to the Caribbean must now have passports to return to the U.S. As of next year, says the law, if you drive or walk into Mexico or Canada, you'll have to have a passport to return.

But this past weekend, the massive backlog of those Americans who seek such passports for travel is so large, the law has been put on hold for a few months until the State Dept. can hire hundreds of new employees to process applications. However:

"This summer also may not spell the end of the passport crunch.

Homeland Security has insisted it plans to go ahead with a January 2008 start for requiring passports at all land border crossing in the United States — a security measure that could trigger a new frenzy of applications."

Since the Real ID law mandates each state create their own IDs, will other states formally accept them since they are from other states? Will we need passports to travel from state to state? Or will we need documents giving permission to travel out of and return to our home states and documents giving permission from the states we wish to visit?

UPDATE: The state legislature has voted to reject the Real ID Act and calls for federal officials to repeal it.