The Rants of a Bitter Man

Only lunatics thought that hooking a monitored GPS system to your car was insane, that OnStar would be used to spy on the general American populace. You know, the ones we all called and still think are crazy?

…They were right.  Proof, here. Breakdown of intended powers? Here.

Short version: They will collect speed, location, and any other pertinent vehicle data they want and have access to.
“In addition to other purposes set out in the prior version of the Privacy Statement, we may use the information we collect about you and your Vehicle to improve the quality of our Service and offerings and may share the information we collect with law enforcement or other public safety officials, credit card processors and/or third parties we contract with who conduct joint marketing initiatives with OnStar.”
-Taken directly from OnStar’s explanation of the user agreement changes. (Class action lawsuit based on 4th amendment rights, anyone?)

But wait, they go on:
“Unless the Data Connection to your Vehicle is deactivated, data about your Vehicle will continue to be collected even if you do not have a Plan. It is important that you convey this to other drivers, occupants, or subsequent owners of your Vehicle. You may deactivate the Data Connection to your Vehicle at any time by contacting an OnStar Advisor.”

If it were on my car, I’d be digging under the hood to physically disconnect the unit, and then jerk the fuze it’s connected to. (FYI, I did a quick google search and found 366,000 results, all the top ones were links on how to locate and physically disconnect or remove the OnStar box from the vehicle.)

How long until the GPS modules in every single smart phone out there, which are already being used by Apple’s wonderful apps for the iPhone to track users movements, are used to track exactly where you are, not just what cell towers you are connected to, for governmental or commercial sale? (Companies and state governments have already tracked via signal movement.) Are we as a society really comfortable with a company who sells us a product, gathering information about us and our activities, and selling or providing the government with that information? For what purpose? Why would they even want it? (I really don’t want to know… the implications are scary.)

For heaven’s sakes… we’ve become animals; we are not walking around wearing collars with tracking devices, we happily carry the tracking devices around, convinced that we can’t go without them.

What has happened to us?

Brice Bitter

I was thinking today about the September 11^th attacks, ten years ago, in conjunction with conversations I’ve had with coworkers and friends from other nations and the actions of the United States in the world since 9/11.  And I’m honestly feeling a little down.

It isn’t the nanny-state or the false illusion of security here at home, or the atrocities abroad that have me down, it isn’t the neighbor and friends I have in my neighborhood who have recently returned from a 4^th tour in Iraq, the sacrifices or the costs that the U.S. has incurred that have me down, it isn’t even the anti-American protests and claims that the U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that have me down. 

It is a conversation I had while in college, back in 2005, that has me down; a conversation about freedom.

Today, I hear and think of all the tributes, I think of how the clergy and first responders were denied a place during the 9/11 commemoration in NYC.  I think of the billions of people around the world and countless people through all history who never had the chance of freedom; their lives full of toil and slavery to ideals, to ‘lords’ and ‘kings’, men, women, and children whose lives are worth nothing to their leaders, whose dreams were never mentioned, not even by themselves.  Dreams that probably only held a day with no threat to their lives by their neighbors, a warm bed in a dry home, and the food they’ve worked for on their own table.  I think of the utopian lectures upholding  true ‘meritocracy’, though by enforced theft of government upon death… the most ironic and sad discussions I’ve had to sit through.  I think of the NFL players who wanted to wear patriotic commemorative apparel even if they had to pay exorbitant fines.  I think of the richest nation in the world, the most productive populace in the world, and the most privileged people in the world…   and I see the  most criticized, the most maligned, and yet the  most faithful people.

Freedom?  What is it?  Well… freedom is the choice of a person or people to be ‘free’; free to make their own choices and receive the consequences.  Is America ‘free’?    To an extent.  You see, we don’t do a good job of letting people fail, and we do so on the backs of those who worked and chose not to.  We don’t allow a lot of choices simply because they keep others from making similar choices, like theft, murder, extortion, bribery, etc…   Yes, taking away someone’s property denies them freedom… because you are removing the consequence of their action; their reward.  It is theft.

But we don’t stop you from stealing, or, to an extent, any of the other choices, but we do impose consequences for those who do, as much as we can.  All of that aside, the point is that we also allow people the one choice we can’t take away, whether they want to be free, whether they will have freedom or not. 

This is the choice we provided Iraq, the choice we provided Afghanistan.  The choice, I believe, they didn’t understand. If they did, I weep for them. If not, I simply feel low.  Who has ‘won’ the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan?  The U.S. did, certainly. Why? Because we surely punished those who hurt us, (not a noble cause), and we did provide the opportunity of freedom.  Who ‘lost’ however?   The U.S. has.  Iraq has, Afghanistan has, the people of the middle east and the world have. 

The problem with ‘Freedom’ is also the virtue of ‘freedom’; it, by definition and nature, cannot be given.  It is impossible to grant ‘freedom’ to anyone. They must demand it, must fight for it. It must be paid for, and always has been paid for through all history, with blood, with treasure, with hope, with extreme toil and effort; with lives.

America has, to a great extent, tried to pay for others… but it cannot be so.  I don’t know if you can thrust the choice on anyone, or simply provide the opportunity to choose and have them choose freedom.  But I do know that most of the world’s people have never been offered that choice, never even wondered if they were capable of ruling themselves, and never had the power to create that choice on their own, or been taught to cheer as their trusted leaders remove the choice with promises they can never keep. 

America has proven that it is the most stable, industrious, happy, and prosperous structure of government known to man.  It is also the most generous.  When the world has a disaster, when an atrocity somewhere in the world is being committed, the world looks to the U.S.   Why?  It isn’t because we are the richest nation, nor is it because we are the strongest nation; the world looks to the U.S. because we come, we help.

Yet, our leaders have created an American Empire. Our influence spans the globe, intimidates nation, and earns the sharp criticism of people everywhere. All of Europe owes its sovereignty to the United States, but not their current problems.  Some of the criticism is valid, some is not. Some is generated by envy, and some is justified by hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, ironically enough, which only exists because we try to be better and try to push others to be better.  Truly, any honest scholar of history will be hard pressed to find a gentler world empire, a gentler world power.  But it isn’t enough.

Yet how to fix it?  Freedom?  It seems the only answer; let nations do as they will?  Let ‘freedom’ be demanded and blossom anew?  It is rare to the point of nonexistent that freedom spontaneously blossoms, and in history, it only has ever existed in western Civilization and Judeo-Christian nations.

‘Democracy’, however, exists in spades throughout the world; Saddam Hussein was ‘democratically’ elected time and time again, Iran with all its freedom ‘democratically’ elects the leaders which harshly punish any who speak against the ruling class, Venezuela, etc…  every nation the U.S. would look at and not consider ‘free’.   In that, and according to my definition of ‘freedom’, I include all socialist nations; if you can’t choose to fail, are you free?  If you can’t keep the work of your own hands, can’t choose what to do with what you make, the product of your own time and effort, are you free?   I say ‘no’.  No, France is not free. Canada is not free. England is not free, Australia is not free; disagree with me?  Go buy a handgun. Go buy a rifle.  In London, go try and buy a knife larger than six inches.  And America?  I don’t think we are fully ‘free’ anymore. To prove my point:  Don’t pay taxes on property that you already have legally purchased and own and have paid taxes on for years and years… and tell me who ‘owns’ your property.

Today, I am proud of America. We have our faults, sure; people are imperfect and people run the country. But America has proven, generation to generation, that freedom works. That a group of people can live together and work together and not kill each other under a free society… and even thrive. Thrive more than any other nation in history, and that they are the most charitable, caring, and giving. They are willing to champion the ‘little guy’, willing to sacrifice.  I am even proud that we have a society where you can choose not to be free; where you have to choose to not be free.

I think of those who stand.  I think of how the people stood taller after 9/11. The buildings were just buildings, but they were attacked because they were an icon, because they symbolized the success of freedom.  The buildings stood, sure, as much as any other building does.  The rescuers, the firemen, the police, the patriots who died at the Pentagon and in an empty field, they still stand, and stand larger than life. 

I feel low in my heart for those who have lost so much, for the cost to extend the chance of liberty, of true freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But I am proud of their sacrifice, proud to tears.  

Every generation must make the choice, every person make the choice of whether they will demand freedom, whether they will preserve it.  What will we all choose?  What will the people of Iraq and Afghanistan choose?  The signs are not good so far, but there is time.

But lose?  Free men never lose. They chose to be free, and no tyrant will rule them as long as they live. They can die, but in dying, as with the heroes of 9/11, they die for themselves, for others, and stand tall, taller than life.  They never lose. A choice for freedom has already conquered all else.  Rule is, and always will be, by consent of the governed.  Free men never lose, they conquer.

Well… I just finished watching the Republican debate… and I gotta say, I’m not impressed.  Seriously not impressed. My take?

Santorum is much better on issues than anyone will grant him time for, so MSNBC will NOT grant any time for him… he loses due to moderator.

Bachmann is trying too hard and she isn’t getting a fair take on questions or time.  Loses due to moderator.

Perry obviously is the whipping-boy for the media and for the candidates in the race right now. He also doesn’t debate well, and it is obvious. The media is testing him as he appears to be a front-runner, pressing him hard- looking for weakness.  Loses due to moderator and lack of debate poise.

Romney is being played off Perry and Huntsman by MSNBC, and he takes the bait only part of the time. Shamelessly promotes himself and his experience, refers to massive plan he released…  massive.  Lose due to moderator and tone.

Huntsman,  what can I say…  (Full disclaimer: In my opinion, the best thing he did for Utah, which he talked about a lot for his allotted time, was leave and go to China. I don’t believe him a true conservative, but an active progressive. My disclaimer is made)   …he took the bait to be played-off of Perry and Romney every time but once, when he was pressed to name people, face-to-face,  on his own comments.  Divisive moderator and ridiculous questions designed to make him either look good one moment, and weak the next. Lose due to moderator.

Herman Cain,  did extremely well. He did not fight, he did differentiate himself. He butted-in to offer solutions, plans, points.   He was denied much time by the moderator, and was never confronted with race questions peppered at the other candidates.  (wonder why, huh?  blasted racist MSNBC… give those questions to all!) questions directed to him were short and fairly inconsequential  due to answers already given.  Lose due to moderator.

Ron Paul did well… for the five minutes they let him actually talk over the massive time the thing ran… his points were all his strong points, the moderator played into his hands often, due to the fact that he’s already debated all those points and was ready. It seemed like throw-away time for Paul.  Not sure why they did that. Favortism via MSNBC in the middle of a debate is fishy.  They avoided his hot-button points I disagree with him on, namely foreign policy, drug policy, (though they flirted with it), education, and trade issues.   Due to the relatively soft treatment, I’m hesitant. It smells like a setup for later.  I still say ‘loss due to moderator’.   All the internet polls will show him with an insurmountable lead, of course… due to his extremely active and lobotomized-loyal internet following.   Sometimes it is just creepy, you know?

Newt Gingrich; I just don’t know what to make of that man. Moderator’s didn’t give him enough time due to the face that Gingrich didn’t play the moderator’s game, chose what he wanted to talk about regardless of question… he killed the moderator’s advantage.  Gingrich called-out the moderator in the beginning for trying to make the republican’s fight, as well as near the end for harping on a topic that they all agreed on. He stood with confidence and never used filler-words or special rhetoric talking points that others did.  He debated very, very well, as he has in the past.

but still, lose, due to moderator.
The moderator, MSNBC was the only one who ‘won’ in this situation. Seriously.  Focusing on issues where they all agree, when it is a candidates job to  differentiate themselves from the field, instead of looking at the things that really are different; the details on the important issues.
MSNBC held the debate for the ratings, there is no doubt about it. The only question I have is why they decided to when their viewership is so left-wing that there are likely very, very few conservatives who would be willing to watch.  That being said…
<deep breath>.. here’s my immediate response:

MSNBC was a joke as host. The candidates did the best with the rhetoric questions that they could. All of the questions were slanted to force candidates to either fight with each or accept an implied premise and pressure designed to fracture and damage the base.  It was a ‘debate’ right out of a sadistic, hard-left, Obama and democrat socialist/communist worshiping cretin’s wet-dream.  Seriously, what the heck was that?  Having the Huffington Post do “Fact Check” on the candidates and having Telemundo ask questions on immigration?? Yeah, that’s what I said, MSNBC ‘outsourced’ the fact check to the Huffington Post.  Yeah…  I’ll trust that one. Then they bring up and criticizing capital punishment after implying that if we don’t take out dictators, we’re a bad nation…  It was a slander machine, a plastering before anyone even emerges from a primary.  What kind of hypocrites ran this show? Reagan, the ‘great communicator’ who got that name by bypassing the media specifically to avoid this kind of ‘filter’, this exact kind of bias and propoganda machine, is rolling in his grave.

 If Hillary or Obama were there, the questions they would have been asked would have been more along the lines of:  “Shouldn’t cute cuddly kittens, like this one here, be allowed to live, shouldn’t little Suzie, again, standing here holding the kitten, be allowed to eat? Don’t your poilcies provide their food and welfare out of thin air?  How can you stand your own greatness? I just had a thrill up my leg when you deigned to acknowledged my existence!! Can I get an autograph? You’re so hip!”

 And then as a follow-up to the republican candidates: “Isn’t it true that your policies will force little Suzie to strangle this cute kitten with her bare hands and eat it raw in order to survive, only to die of starvation later? How do you justify breathing? Is your soul that black that you would kill the little girl and cute cuddly kitten that Obama/Hillary would save? Everyone knows conservatives and republicans want to starve the world and kill children…  if someone, like yourself were determined to kill as many people as possible, shouldn’t we work as a society to stop them? Why shouldn’t we just hang you now?”

 Bottom line? This was not a debate, this was a tribunal show-trial where MSNBC and the media demanded that the candidates play their game, by their rules, on their time. Gingrich was right, the media is trying to make them fight. I’m waiting for conservatives to wake-up and realize the documented bias of the media. The media isn’t going to give ANY of these candidates a fair show!

Some good solutions and details were bandied about. I liked Herman Cain and Ron Paul on states rights and the economy. I liked Santorum on foreign policy. I liked Gingrich for his candor, his proposed solutions, and his honest challenge of the real threat in the room, the ones bear-baiting; the media. I Liked Perry’s stance to not excuse his own actions and words in the past. I liked Romney’s effort at peace-making, at being Presidential. (Gingrich did it as well, but his came off as more demeaning to the”moderators” than as suggestions to the American people.  I liked Bachman on energy policy, (as well as Gingrich, Perry, Romeny, etc…)  Huntsman was a fairly steady disappointment across the board, but I am biased, so take that with a grain of salt. I liked all of them on fiscal policy. All of them.  Heathcare?  Cain Perry, and Gingrich were allowed to talk about it. THe focus of the moderators on welfare for Santorum was  anear throw-away.

Come to think of it, I should have thrown it out as soon as I saw the ‘moderators’.

Brice Bitter

Without responsibility, there is no freedom; without personal responsibility, there is no personal freedom.

I own my mistakes. I own my problems and the consequences of those. You can offer to help me with them, and that would be compassionate and charitable, but don’t you dare try to take away my consequences or my responsibility; I love my freedom.

One more point:  the ability to destroy at will is the most asinine and juvenile definition and view of power.  While it is a valid definition, only the weak-minded find it attractive for long.  The ability to create, truly create, at will, is power, the ability to be relied on, trusted, honorable, is true power.

The modern, dedicated-Christian, fiction writer’s dilemma, is actually acutely painful to me; how do I write something, a story, that is not simply a distraction from what really matters? Or can I?

You see… there is only so much time in the day, and only so much a person can read or consume in media during the day.  The question now is beyond ‘good’ and ‘bad’.  Now, due to the time constraints and the very enabling powers that mankind has sought for through all the ages which we have now, the simply title of ‘good’ no longer is justification, but can be a distraction from ‘better’, and even ‘best’.   In effect, the question must be asked, ‘does doing ‘good’ instead of ‘best’ qualify as ‘evil’?

Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of evil and bad in the world today, heaven knows that there is. In fact, I contend that there is likely a near equal proportion of evil and good.  I believe that there must be, for mankind to have the option to choose.  I don’t believe that there is a same amount, or even the same severity or power; I refuse to believe for an instant that hell can match anything coming from God. However, I do believe that there is an equal representation, in proportion to each other.  Hence, the world feels full of evil, while there are such intense bright spots all around.   In honesty, I think there is much more good than evil, but that through the media and life we are constantly shown the bad, and not the good… but that’s another discussion…

So, the question remains: ‘Is simply doing good, due to the time restrictions we all have, (only 24 hours in a day, etc.), instead of doing best, constitute ‘evil’?   The ‘best’ thing, I define as what is necessary to progress light and truth in the world and in life.  We all have things that must be done in order to come to Christ, and to help others. Sure, it is a good thing to spend time doing ‘x’, but if it isn’t the best thing to do with your time at the moment, is it a bad thing to do ‘x’ instead? 

Now, I don’t consider my fiction work wonderful, particularly insightful, or even ‘epic’.  All I could accomplish is a pale commentary to the real story, the true story that really matters, the Gospel.  When confronted with it, all great stories are types of Christ, and all fall short of Christ.  Woefully short.  It may be a good story that I write; it may be an uplifting, compelling, even somewhat edifying read that I produce… but it is just a pale imitation of what could be read, what could be done.  The true story has already been written by the perfect author, and I know it.  

So, do I promote myself and ‘good’ on the justification that more good in the world can only lead to a better world?  And yet also know that all that ‘good’ that I am adding to, is simply more distraction from what is best?

With all we can do in this life, especially with our influence and technology today, do we really have time left over from what is ‘best’?   Is there time for anything else, or is there already too little time to complete even what is ‘best’ at this point?

…just a thought.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Infringe:

–verb (used with object)

1.  to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object)

2.  to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on  or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

It was said that openly carrying guns to make a political statement was not reason enough to carry guns. It was said that the 2nd amendment did not need to be exercised to remain valid.

Well…  they were wrong.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14078120
(parent story here)

A citizen, though probably not in the most intelligent display, legally exercised his constitutional right to openly carry firearms. He was known to city police who have run into him three times before, (though the dash-camera seems to show the initial confronting officer seemed unfamiliar), and he was very cooperative, as before.

An officer responded to multiple 9-1-1 calls initially stopped the man at gunpoint.

On dash camera footage released of the incident the man can be heard declaring weapons and offering further compliance to the officer who kept demanding that the man keep his hands visible and above his head; the man his hands visible and calmly complied. “I have a knife in my pocket.” The officer again yelled at him to keep his hands where he could see them. “Do you want me to remove my gloves?” “Do you need me to remove…<garbled>  …I don’t have any ammunition with  me at all.” The officer simply restates his commands and the man continued to comply. The officer demanded identification, (dash cam footage is cut), then handcuffed the individual, removed all his weapons, (dash cam is started form a second responding vehicle), the man is put in the back of the second car, and further questioned,  all  in order to ‘determine that the guns were unloaded,’  which isn’t even part of the law. (The law states that open carry is legal as long as the gun is two actions from being fired. for instance, on a semi-automatic weapon like the ones he had: no bullet in chamber. The magazine may be loaded, but the chamber must be charged and the trigger pulled before the weapon fires.) In fact, if this man is a concealed carry permit holder, he could have had both weapons fully loaded and with ammunition in the chamber and still be within the scope of the law.

The police can be heard asking him where he was going, and what he was doing with the weapons.  

Not only do I believe this man’s 4th amendment rights were infringed, but his 2nd amendment rights were under direct attack. The city police stated that they intend to treat anyone else who open carries in the same way:
“…I don’t think we would change how we did this if it happened again tomorrow. It’s going to be approached the same way.”  -Sgt. Craig Martinez

I agree with the second statement. I have no problem allowing the Police the leeway to do their job and approach a situation carefully in order to defend the peace… However, I do disagree with how this was handled after the initial confrontation. This man was compliant, helpful, and more knowledgeable in the law than the officer.  They had no reason to detain or cuff the man after he surrendered his weapons, nor the right to make him surrender his weapons as long has he was in compliance to the law, which he willingly proved.  The officers had no right to interrogate him on his destination or intent with the weapons; they had no probable cause at that point.  He was peaceful, cooperative, and in full compliance of the law.  The officers, however, did have the right to expel him from Mall private property if the Mall so desired, which they did.  

So, how did KSL report this law abiding citizen? KSL Anchorman Bruce Lindsay commented on the story with worlds of meaning in his words after the declaration of the ’small fine’ levied for ‘disorderly conduct’:

“That’s a slap on the wrist, Sam, he’s done this three times already. Is there reason to believe he’ll do this again?”

Bruce, if by ‘he’s done this three times already’, you mean that he’s complied with the law to the full extent plus more while exercising his constitutional rights, then yes.   But why the outrage that he ONLY got a slap on the wrist, and  still calling for further crack down on this man’s constitutional rights, I don’t understand. He obeyed the law. You don’t have to agree with him, but you do have to respect him. Crazy or not, he is a law abiding citizen who went out of his way to understand the law, and, as an American citizen, you must respect his rights, or face a breakdown of all our rights.  Just “a slap on the wrist”?   That makes me sick.  First it’s a slap, then it’s slap on the cuffs. 

What right will we be fined for expressing next? Freedom to assemble? wait…  we already need permits for political rallies. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? …wait.. the IRS already garnishes and seizes whatever they want before you are even tried…  hm…   oh, I know, private property ownership?  wait… property taxes; we already have to pay the government to  ‘own’ what we already own. Freedom of religion? …wait… we can’t profess Christianity or pray in schools without being expelled, prosecuted, and sued.  You can claim the 5th and 6th amendments are violated in Guantanamo Bay and even mentioning the 10th amendment in legal circles brings titters; no one takes that one seriously. You’re called a “tenther” if you believe in the tenth amendment. I guess the founding father’s laughed when they put that one in too… it must have been a big joke. 

Was this the smartest way to invoke the 2nd amendment?  No.  But the argument that conceal carry is a better way to perform the 2nd amendment is also laughable;  do you have to pay your government, register, accept further restrictions, and demonstrate full competency in order to actually have your 2nd amendment rights? Or is that an ‘infringement’ of the 2nd amendment?

I also am shocked that the city of Orem has chosen to punish this man for complying to the law and exercising his constitutional right, while they violate his 4th amendment rights.  It appears that society will no longer tolerate open, peaceful expression of 2nd amendment rights.  

Apparently, we the people have the right to keep arms, but not bear them.  Why? because we didn’t exercise it. Now, everyone calls 9-1-1 when a firearm is sighted…  We only have ourselves to blame. The question now, is how do you fix it? I’m not sure, but I think this bill is a good start.  People are not afraid of guns, they are afraid of death and violence. So, is the answer to unlawful violence and death less personal protection, or more?

 Brice Bitter

Read the full bill of rights here.

Well… As I suspected, the city council re-addressed the lobbyist contract at the December meeting… the immediate next meeting. Where those who attended learned that the lobbyist came and the mayor called an emergency/special meeting with the lobbyist for monday  night, the day before the city council readdressed the issue. Not all city council members attended, and, though it was assured that the meeting was advertized to the public, no citizen attending the city council meeting had heard of it, and no one but the city council and mayor was reported to have attended this meeting with the lobbyist.

heated speech and debate, with little to no opposition against the measure, ensued for about an hour and a half on the issue, until all but two people had given-up and left the council meeting chambers.  The vote was then taken, 3-2, in favor of the contract.

Public remarks made before the debate started were truncated and misrepresented in the city paper when it did appear, a month later. To be fair, an hour and a half of city council members debate was also harshly truncated… and I also don’t think it was fairly represented either.

I was disgusted, not only at the issue being debated, but more importantly at the conduct of the city council members and mayor. Personal attacks and logical inferences about those who opposed the contract were hurled at citizens and representatives alike. Those who did comment, were informed that their comments were not made in a timely manner, nor were they valid since the citizens did not attend the public/private meeting with the lobbyist, which they did not know about. Further, they were informed that it was their fault for not knowing about it.  Not all the members were uncivil, but those who were made embarrassed that they represented the city.

In response, I wrote a letter to the city council members about their performance. I waited several weeks in hopes that minutes of the meeting would be posted on the city website, so I could settle my thoughts and possibly correct my impressions.  The minutes still have not posted.

In response, at the Jan.  18th meeting, two members called for a return of civility and respect for each other on the council and the public.

One representative stated that he brought his passion to his elected office, that he had no intention of lessening or changing his approach, and, that if anything ever did change, it would be because he was dead.  In fairness, he did say that he apologizes for those who find him offensive, yet affirmed his intention to continue being so.  I do not know if he was responding to me or not, since he did not identify the sender of the message he was responding to, but he did maintain eye contact with me nearly the entire time he spoke.  He claimed that a complaint letter he was responding to  impugned his character and indulged in personal attacks, yet claimed a need for civility and opened with an endorsement of the sender’s intelligence.  The city council member then stated that if the person was so smart, and if they intended to hold him to a higher standard, then they should start holding themselves to it first.

I’ve tried to find a way to understand his remarks differently,  but have only come up with one synopsis:
“I’m sorry you find me offensive, but I’ll stop being offensive when I’m buried. Stop with the personal attacks, you hypocrite!”

I’ve thought that “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” might be a bit more fair as a representation, but it doesn’t adequately cover his statements; it needs more.

I wouldn’t normally be upset or irritated  about this kind of attitude, if it were in defense of the Constitution, which the city council members took an oath to uphold… but this was in defense of conduct endorsing a lobbyist and admitted corrupted governmental system.

I did receive replies from other council members, and I explained my consternation a little better and more succinctly.  I don’t expect to have my representatives agree with me all the time, nor do I expect politics to always go my way. I respect debate, I respect dialog, and I respect disagreement.  I do, however, expect the same respect in return, especially from elected representatives… aka… the ‘public servant’, not the boss.

Politically, I recognize that the pledge of allegiance, (spoken at every meeting), is an oath to the constitution; the founding and supreme law of the country.   I draw the line in politics when it comes to infringing the constitution, no matter how much I want something.  Those who founded this country, those who currently serve this country, have dedicated their lives to the defending and founding of the constitution. We’ve spilled blood to defend it…  I feel it was just sold out to have a better chance at a road which we will not see for another 20 years at least.

Where do you draw the line?

Brice Bitter

I was very proud of my city council tonight as they refused a contract with a lobbyist that the city had employed in Washington DC in order to get earmark spending and grants for civic improvements and city projects. 

Do I use the city improvements and infrastructure that was purchased and funded by previous federal money?  Yes.  Why shouldn’t I?  I paid for it, I’ve been paying for them, and I am certain that I will continue paying for them and all the extra costs associated with having to send my money to DC in order to have the money sent back to me. Even if I don’t pay it directly in taxes, with the government currently printing, inflation will force me to pay on income that has already been taxed. (The government does take a bite, don’t she?)

The debate did not end with the vote, however, even though it is customary to move past a point or item on an agenda after a vote had been taken. The Mayor, who serves to officiate at the town hall meetings, was completely taken back and obviously expected the contract with the lobbyist to be continued, but was unpleasantly surprised to find that the council rejected her recommended course of action.  

What followed afterwards, immediately after the three second shock of silence to the failed contract, was an embarrassing display by the offended, losing voters and Mayor; a 30 minute mental lashing of the three council members who voted against the measure. Exclamations of disbelief, belittlement, one-sided debate, claimed certainty of lost federal funds, bleak pictures of civic service-less futures, even banter about ‘taking early retirement’ over the issue,  and blatant open manipulation for one more possible ‘yes’ vote, complete will bully pulpit, commenced.

Personally, I think that the measure will come up again and that one more vote will be found.  But I have hope that it will not.

The arguments included hints that the city is not solvent in the future without the money for service plants, water infrastructure, and a highway project that the current city populace simply cannot pay for, lost investment monies due to the dropped lobbying contract at the cusp of legislation fruition during a lame-duck session, worry over changing federal funding processes, earmark reform, assurances of the good character, intentions, and work of the lobbyist in question, and that this opportunity, once lost, will be irrecoverable were thrown against the ‘no’ voters.

No one asked the questions that I wanted answered: Why is a lobbyist the only way to get our Representatives and Senators to listen to us? Why does the city feel that retaining this lobbyist for the next 20 years to get a highway we don’t currently need, (but are desperate to arrange payment for), will pay off with money from a federal government that is already insolvent?  Why should the city support the idea of sending taxpayer money to Washington DC, just so we can spend more taxpayer money to persuade Washington DC to send it back to the taxpayers? Or is the city so intent on getting what they can, when they can, and sucking every last drop out of the taxpayer’s corpse, that they never ask; Is this really good for us?

My one city may not make a difference alone, and the federal government is either going to fail, or they are not going to be paying for any roads, or anything other than basic national defense, anywhere, anytime soon…  (Yeah, we all know which one of those options is going to happen…) But at least my city took a stand tonight, one I can be proud of. 

I am certain that the lobbyist does a good job, as I am certain that he probably brings in more money than he directly costs. He may be of impeccable character with the best intentions working with a corrupt system; one of the ‘good guys’ working for us, “the good people”.   But that doesn’t mean that I agree with his line of work, or that working with a corrupt system, hoping to impress, bribe, whatever, our state’s Representatives and Senators, to do ‘the right thing’ for our city and state,  is something that we should support, let alone agree with. It also doesn’t mean that lobbyists are cost effective overall. (We pay for both sides, remember?)  Lobbyists may be a symptom, or a contributing virus of a greater cancer, but unless a stand is made, somewhere, the illness will continue to spread, to entrench deeper into the system, and eventually kill it off.  (Did I mention that the federal government is insolvent?)

We all pay for these projects. Federal money always comes with strings; whether we see the affects or not. We all pay for it, but somehow it is easier to spend the federal cash, the play money, because somehow we believe it isn’t our hard earned money…  It is an illusion; a lie we tell ourselves.  At some point, you have to choose whether to jump off the runaway train or join the drinkers in the dining car running up the tab at the bar.  I prefer jumping sober, before the train runs off a cliff.

I hope the city council members are still standing when it comes up again… because if I know the look on my mayor’s face, it will.
The only time we have to stand is now, it is also the only time we fall.

“If not us, who?  If not now, when?” - Pres. Ronald Reagan.

-Brice Bitter

last Saturday morning I listened to several of the opening statements at Governor’s panel on illegal immigration, and was extremely saddened. 

I have not seen political grandstanding on a state level like this ever before. It is disgusting.

Opening statements ranged from praising the State for opening and providing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants at State universities and colleges. Others noted that we need to have compassion on the legal immigrants, instead of “selective compassion” for only the illegal immigrants. Statements were made acknowledging the Federal government’s constitutional authority to set immigration policy, but only in conjunction with condemnation of the Federal government’s failure to act in regards to immigration. Only one comment on the Federal government’s actions was made; one, noting that the Federal government is actively complicit. “Local businesses” were championed and represented; who believed that illegal immigrants were or should be considered legal simply because “they work hard, and are willing to do jobs that others will not.” Local law enforcement was represented and it was stated that immigration policy enforcement, or non-enforcement, was a local issue that should be left to local police chiefs and executives.  I noted that the rights of and compassion for non-immigrant citizens were never mentioned in any of the opening statements.

I wondered why, as a voting, tax-paying citizen, there was no one espousing representation for me. Not my representative for my area, not any representative ever once said anything about representing citizens. 

I also wondered where those who supported the U.S. Constitution were to be found.

The entire debate and panel makes me completely sick for one reason; I believe in the rule of law.  Our elected officials have, through their statements and actions, professed that they, the lawmakers of our state, do not believe in the rule of law.

America, politically, is a very funny place. Our government is founded on the basic ideal that if the populace doesn’t like what the government is doing, (rule of law), that we simply disobey the offending law or laws, until they are changed. This is ‘legally’ done through injunctions, new legislation, delays or refusal of enforcement, de-funding law enforcement, and suing for review and dismissal of that law through the Supreme Courts of the respective states, or the nation.  The last check, is the people. Regardless of how a law is written or enforced, the people may overload law enforcement by general, passive revolt or resistance; we just don’t obey said law.  This was stated as the government only governs “by the consent of the governed” – one of the ‘natural’ laws of society which is written into the basis of the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents. 

With that wonderful fact active in the United States and American culture, and my belief in the ‘rule of law’, (especially the previous mentioned law of consent), only leaves me with two options stemming from one question: do we believe in the U.S. Constitution? Is that a law we will consent to be governed by?

Answer – Yes. We then have two options and there is NO debate on what policy is to be enacted and the entire panel is a sham and an unconstitutional rebellion. First; the Federal government has the right and Constitutional authority to make immigration policy, which they have and we have laws and punishments currently on the law books for illegal immigration, so if we do wish to uphold the federal government, we need to decide whether to enforce federal law ourselves, or to sue the government for dereliction of duty.

The second option is that we invoke our right as citizens, and our duty as those who can and will act, to ‘provide guards for [our] future defense’ in crafting our own immigration policy and enforcing it.  This option requires that illegal immigration poses a danger and a threat to the people, and must be treated accordingly. This option is barely across a blurred fine line from the second answer, below.

Answer – No.  The Constitution is not valid as a government in our minds… therefore we come out in open, active rebellion.  We declare our own sovereignty through crafting and enforcing our own laws, whatever we deem them to be.

No state representative or senator’s opening comments which I heard ever mentioned or referenced illegal immigration as a threat, danger, or anything more than simply “posing a problem,” yet they all were referencing how the state needed to act in crafting our own immigration policy,  because the Federal government failed to act.

The Federal government has acted, there are laws on the books, and the constitutional authority has been satisfied. I am left, in admiration of the “Arizona law”, in which state I see illegal immigration as a danger and threat as violence has spilled across the border, as American citizens are prohibited from entering and using federal land due to dangers arising from illegal immigration and the drug trade and human trafficking that it brings.
Arizona, in my mind, is justified in taking the step to enforce existing federal immigration policy.

If the state of Utah is not willing to join our cause with Arizona in an effort to enforce currently defined Federal immigration law, we have the choice to rebel, or to sue for redress and wait.

After hearing what was said in the opening statements of the panel, I can only conclude that politicians are pandering to illegal immigrants, felons, who have no right to vote, but are being supported and encouraged by elected officials.

We should be ashamed.

A travesty has been committed in the state of Utah.

A list of 1300 allegedly illegal aliens was released to law enforcement, government, and media authorities with requests that the illegal immigrants on the list be deported.

Needless to say, it caused quite a stir in the illegal and legal immigrant community, as names, addresses, and some SSN’s were included on the list.

Now, the list creation was traced to two government employees in the Department of Workforce Services (DWS), and the two workers have been or will be fired, and criminal charges may be pending against them.

We should be ashamed.

While, if there are legal immigrant’s information on that list, the two workers should be investigated and prosecuted, these two workers are being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness to pacify illegal immigrants. Not the legally voting community, but the illegal immigrants.

These two good citizens are heroes. Why? They, at their own peril, exposed the State of Utah aiding and abetting felons, and since these workers were in DWS, it is easily assumed that the state was helping these illegal immigrants gain employment, services, and aid.  That action is a conspiracy charge. Conspiracy to defraud the state and federal government.

These names were taken from an existing state database.  The state was willingly, knowingly, and actively engaged in breaking the law and no one in the government would do anything about it. These workers exposed it and sent the evidence to the media and law enforcement, in a way that DID NOT implicate the state government, expecting the media to do their historical and constitutional job of holding the government accountable.

The workers were wrong.

The Media in this country has not done their job of holding the government accountable for years.  If these workers had been part of Enron, and had exposed the crimes and problems in that company, or a part of BP’s drilling team on the Deepwater Horizon rig warning of a breach in procedure that would cause problems, or any other company committing fraud, conspiracy, or aiding and abetting felons, these two would be hailed as heroes.

Now, many in the liberal community want the names of these two released, because ‘justice’ just can’t come fast enough for them.

Our government is actively destroying the very laws it has created and is constitutionally required to uphold. If we do not have our laws, we have no rights and fail to protect the ‘human rights’ we proclaim as inherent in all men.

I’ve heard that if Utah, or any other state, enforces the law on illegal aliens, or enforces the law to any regard, that it will destroy our economy and our society.  Frankly, if our government does not enforce the laws, it is already destroying our society and economy. But if we do not have a law-abiding society, should it not fall? Should we not create a society that can actually be honest with itself and obey the law?  When the laws are ignored, it is just one step away from removing all our rights.

I salute these heroes, and thank them for exposing the bald hypocrisy of a government, a house, divided against itself and the people.

Brice Bitter