Government mind control showcased by county prosecutor

The extent to which government has gone in its attempt to control the thoughts of citizens is showcased in today's Advocate by the report headlined Girl, 15, accused of sending nude photos over phone.

It's about the local court's prosecution of a kid who sent nude photos of herself via cell phone to some other kids. Charged with two felonies, she could be labeled a sex offender and put under government behavior control for 20 years.

A sexual offender? And the other kids who got the photos? The report indicated that even they could be charged. Doesn't it make you feel good to have government looking over your shoulder, protecting your morals and guiding your thoughts?

This likely is a kid who, when opening her e-mail is drowning in spam that wants to know if she'd like to buy pills to increase the size of her penis, salves to make her lover more sensitive, and any other slimy crap that can be imagined by basement-level pervs throughout the world.

Why doesn't government get that stuff off everyone's computer instead of regulating what citizens say (in words and pictures) in private over their private phones and computers?

As I understand government's mind-control capability, you can be charged as a perv for downloading photos and written materials that don't meet standards set by high-thinking moralists who oversee state and federal governments. Yet the perverted spam rolls on like a river. Don't tell me government couldn't stop it. But better headlines for government are to be had in local grunts coming after local citizens. What a crock.

I'm not saying the girl should have done what she did, but I know at age 15 if I had a cell phone and I knew a girl who had a cell phone I would surely have encouraged her to be a bit naughty with it. More than a bit, in fact.

Back then, though, our phones were on party lines with live operators. So my chances of naughtiness, phone-wise, would have been slim to none.

Complicating such an endeavor would have been my parents and her parents who likely would thrash all unclean thoughts out of us if we got caught.

Which points to the differences of then and now. Parents took care of their kids' morals and behavior and local government wouldn't have dared to poke around in our private activities or thoughts. Back then, such notions were still merely sci-fi.

All of which makes this a good time to review The Price of Freedom.

Guns: Score one against the Loony Left

The gun issue decided by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote was, simply, do individuals have the right to own guns?

What amazes me is that any level of government in this country could ever make a law that assumes individuals don't have that right, that the right to own guns belongs exclusively to militia, which is to say to government.

It is absurd to believe that the revolutionaries who wrote our Constitution for lasting freedom - and who were guarding against oppressive government in the Amendments - were, in the Second Amendment, giving a monopoly on gun ownership to government.

That this issue has been settled at last is little comfort. Government has all but taken over our lives and tightens its grip with each new law, while the Loony Left cheers.

If that upsets you, read this.

We should test drivers for impairment, not for birthdays

An older driver went into the wall of McDonald's last week and it was her age, not her impairment (if any) that came under attack. Commentators to the Advocate report chirped about the need to remove older folks from the roadways.

As a 73-year-old driver with my first McDonald's wall - or anything else - yet to be hit with my car in 57 years behind the wheel, I'm pretty sure I can drive at least as well as any of those commenters. I have the added advantage, most of the time, of a 69-year-old wife yelling in my ear about approaching hazards, many of them thousands of feet away and most of them imaginary.

Old age itself does, I admit, eventually become an impairment and whenever I get penalized by age I fully intend to arrange for transportation by others. It will be a sad day, and I hope it will be many years from now, but I promise to peacefully submit my keys.

In the meantime I don't want to hear anymore crap about taking the keys of, or requiring special tests for, folks unfortunate enough to grow older.

What I do want to hear is about sensible laws in Ohio that identify and penalize impaired driving - by people of all ages.

Start with the definition of - and reliable tests for - driving while "impaired." Such a definition would include not what is in one's bloodstream, urine, or breath but instead a computerized measure of the driver's ability to think, control his body, react to emergencies, and read both speedometer and distant traffic signals.

As mentioned here yesterday, the present law measures only chemicals deemed to be "controlled substances" found in body fluids and breath. It ignores effects of medicine - prescription and otherwise - which slow you down, make you light-headed, make you pass out and even, fer God's sake, cause weird things such as "anal leakage." Having anal leakage while driving would surely impair anyone's ability concentrate or to steer in a straight line.

Meantime, there is a Nintendo gamester thing called Wii Fit, described by Business Week as "a sturdy board slightly larger than a bathroom scale, about an inch high, that communicates with the Wii console wirelessly. Players step onto the board, which senses their movements, balance, and center of gravity. Included software features dozens of activities based on strength training, aerobics, and yoga..."

Seems to me that if Nintendo can mass-produce a "game" that can do all that, Ohio lawmen can do better than make suspects blow into a tube or pee in a cup - poor excuses for tests that will get dangerous drivers off the road.

Let's license newspapers

The Advocate likes the proposal for having city bureaucrats pick certain trash-hauling companies and the area(s) where they could do business. Yesterday's editorial Trash collection ideas are not a waste proclaimed that "at first glance, there are a lot of benefits."

The Advocate appears to be ready to hand over yet another freedom to the Magic Nanny. Such a change would take us one step closer to the licensing of other types of businesses - say, um, newspapers.

If we sink to government-supervised trash collection, the stretch to Magic-Nanny-governed newspapers is closer.

Local bureaucrats could authorize the Columbus Dispatch to report news and sell ads in the western part of Licking County to center of Granville. The Advocate could do business from that line to Hanover, where the Zanesville Times Recorder would begin its territory. The Advocate could report news and sell ads as far north as Van Atta and south to Hebron, where the Mount Vernon News and the Buckeye Lake Beacon would take over.

Bureaucrats could set the price of all these newspapers while mandating delivery times and ad rates. The Nanny could require every household to subscribe by simply folding the fee into local water bills. Readers could purchase only their assigned newspaper, no matter how bad it is - and however terrible, you could count on it getting worse when government takes charge. Never mind that, government would set it up so each news "provider" would profit. A lot.

Added to the cost of the newspaper would be the expense of supporting another layer of government bureaucracy with its legions of license-issuers and enforcers, so the price - but not the value - would have to increase, though government would take great pains to hide that fact.

As an added benefit to citizens of Newark in general and the Diebold regime in particular, Gannett's contract would require this company to move its printing operation out of Newark to save wear on city streets; no more big trucks hauling newsprint in and USA Todays out. The damage by trash trucks to city streets might not be as great as Gannett's semis, a consideration which so far seems to have escaped Advocate editorialists - along with advantages of a free and competitive marketplace.

Self-defense by force isn't just a guy thing

The Ohio Senate unanimously agreed that Ohioans should be able to respond with force in defense of their lives and family. Further, that doing so should not open them to civil lawsuits.

State Senator Jay Hottinger of Newark is to be congratulated for his vote on this, the Ohio "Castle Doctrine."

We should use the occasion to remember that this isn't just another NRA Second Amendment fight, though the NRA is leading this law through state legislatures. SB 184 - the fight of law-abiding citizens who want to live safely in their own homes - now goes to the House for consideration.

We also need to remember that this isn't just a guy thing. Many, if not most, homes today are headed by the "weaker sex," mostly the sex that needs emboldened for self-defense. They need to buy guns and learn to use them safely, and this might be a small impetus.

That Ohio and other states need to "legalize" something so fundamentally necessary as the "right" to defend oneself in one's own home against criminals is pretty sick. It is just one more sign of how far off the edge the legal profession has pushed rights of regular people.

Obama, God and guns

Obama did a real knee-cap on himself with his rural-folks-cling-to-guns-and-religion speech. So bad was it that the term "Crackerquiddick" has arisen in media vernacular, likely to act for a long time as the Senator's personal cross.

At first, I gave Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt. But as the thing reverberates and draws fire, I think it may be among the first indicators of what this country is in for, once he is elected to the Presidency (and in my mind that's a given).

I think it gave us all a peek at the man's brand of Chicago Liberalism and the probability that he is a danger to liberty. Check what the NRA says about it.

There's a piece in National Review Online by Mark Steyn entitled "God and Guns." It's over-written, but worth your time if you care about freedom and what's happening to it in Europe and America.

It says, in part: "Senator Obama’s remarks about poor dumb bitter rural losers 'clinging to' guns and God certainly testify to the instinctive snobbery of a big segment of the political class. ... What Michelle Malkin calls Crackerquiddick ... is not just snobbish nor even merely wrongheaded. It’s an attack on two of the critical advantages the U.S. holds over most of the rest of the western world. In the other G7 developed nations, nobody clings to God’n’guns. The guns got taken away, and the Europeans gave up on churchgoing once they embraced Big Government as the new religion."
...
"Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn’t it."

You're still racist and wrong, Advocate

A few days ago the Advocate published two articles that were both racist and wrong. They promoted racial-victimization mentality that has for many years been the tradition in mainstream media. I made that observation here 1/29/07 "Advocate promotes racial victimization mentality"

Sunday, the Advocate again tried to fan the flames of racism among its readers with an editorial entitled "Everyone should be represented."

Reader comments burned this racist editorial to a crisp. They left no doubt that Licking County is past the point of racism in any of its forms, including reverse discrimination. Writers used wit and satire - but never bigotry against skin color or heritage - to lambast the newspaper's bigoted stance.

We are at last growing up, getting beyond and above those times in our history when skin color seemed important. This is not to say that everyone is cured, but at least the local opinion leaders - Advocate excluded - have taken that step.

Hooray, Licking County. Shame on you, Advocate.

Ohio's low score from Brady is admirable

"Ohio is not doing enough to protect its citizens against gun violence, according to an annual scorecard released Thursday by backers of the Brady gun-control law," wrote the Columbus Dispatch today.

The NRA says this is a good thing. On its web site today it speaks about the scoring by the Brady Campaign:

"Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense."

Jeff Garvas, president of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said, in the Dispatch report, "I like to look at the Brady scorecard to see how well we're doing," Garvas said. "They're going after the rights of law-abiding people."

A low score from Brady is a high mark for freedom. We are proud.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards would restrict Second Amendment rights

The NRA distributed a news release 1/18/08 entitled "Leading Democratic Candidates Call for Severe Restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights"

Here it is:

"With the Presidential nominating season in full swing, trying to pin down the various candidates’ unequivocal stance on issues of import can often be difficult, if not impossible. Amidst their political posturing and refining of positions at the recent Las Vegas Caucus, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), were asked a series of questions about the gun issue. All called for severe restrictions on our Second Amendment rights."

Here's a link to the that part of a recent debate among Democrat party candidates.

Property rights are at stake in Foundation squabble over bike path

There is no better gift to Newark and Licking County than the extensive set of bike trails built by the Evans Foundation and its leader, Gib Reese. It has been a decades-long, very expensive, and very difficult endeavor.

Gib took on the project before "being green" became fashionable, and likely his work has been the inspiration for, and prototype of, the trails that have since proliferated in Ohio and elsewhere.

The main trail extends from Johnstown on the west side of the county to a point beyond Hanover, far to the east of Newark, with but one short breach in the near east side of the city. (See map). I have experienced most of the trails by biking them, and nobody values them as a community asset more than I.

But I am bothered by the attitude Gib is projecting in the press toward those who own property over which he wants to build the next link.

Here's the way the Advocate reported on that aspect:

Reese said he can’t understand why someone would fight against a bike path, something that benefits the community and increases property values.

“If someone wants to be selfish and block it, I suppose they can hire an attorney and try to block it,” Reese said. “I can’t imagine anybody is going to want to be so selfish, because what use would anybody have with (the strip of land)?

“They can do it, or at least try. I’m not saying I’ll just sit back and let it happen.”

It distresses me to say anything negative about Gib Reese because of all he's done for us, and I think most folks hold that attitude. But the fact is, he is not winning any friends by trying to trample the rights of property owners, if that's what's going on here.

There was no mention in the Advocate's report or that of the Dispatch of a claim by the Foundation that its ownership of the old railroad includes continued use of right-of-way. If it does not, there's no question about whose decision it is to allow continued use of the land by anyone other than the owners. Nor do these reports say anything about an effort by the Foundation to negotiate - not with a right-of-way lease payment, not with the offer of a privacy fence, not anything. So what kind of arrogance is that (if it's true)? It's the kind that's going to lose support for the commander and for the Foundation, no matter how pure and philanthropic their motives.

More closed public records proposed by judges

A new method by which Ohio judges may hide court records is about to become official policy.

An article in the Columbus Dispatch tells how Ohio judges are dishing up a set of rules that chips "away at the current openness of court records by allowing parties to a case to request privacy if releasing the records could:
"• Lead to injury of individuals.
"• Jeopardize privacy rights and interests.
"• Compromise proprietary business information.
"• Harm public safety.
"• Threaten the fairness of judicial processes."

That covers almost anything, can be interpreted however any judge sees fit, and be used to hide whatever is desired and for whatever reason.

All this is courtesy of Supreme Court's Commission on the Rules of Superintendence for Ohio Courts. Thirteen of the commission's 20 members are judges.

Here we have yet another case of yet another group of public employees who are employed as keepers of public records and who are now saying they should and will decide whether citizens may know what they're doing and to whom. Public scrutiny - essential for fair and honest government, including the courts - is taking a hit.

Anybody who cares in the least about open government needs to read this Dispatch article. Public comments will be received through December 19th by writing to Jo Ellen Cline, legislative counsel, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 S. Front St., 7th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, or clinej@sconet.state.oh.us.

NRA's balls are outgrowing its musket

As a member of the National Rifle Association for many many years, I've spent many many dollars in defense of this country's Second Amendment. When you think about it, that is incredibly wasteful thing to have to do, considering the stupidity of anyone who questions The Second Amendment or tries to circumvent it.

It has been - and still is - necessary because there are multitudes of morons who don't "believe in it," many of whom are ensconced as journalists; morons who will destroy it if guys like me don't shell out to protect it. That's how stupid this country has become.

Likely the Second Amendment's existence depends on the NRA and it owes practically nothing to journalists. But that's no excuse for the NRA's attack on the First Amendment.

At issue is the absurd NRA-backed law passed by the Ohio legislature that gives concealed-carry licensees an exemption to the open records requirement based in the constitution.

Why these people are ashamed of their status as being licensed to carry a gun is totally beyond me. If they are that ashamed of it, then why don't they give it up? I hope to become qualified for one of these permits and I don't care who knows it. Even if I did understand their concern, it wouldn't matter to the case in point.

As explained in a recent Advocate editorial, the Ohio law allows only journalists, not just any citizen, the right to look at records of concealed-carry permits.

As the Advocate said, "when a journalist inspects the record of a concealed-carry permit holder, he can look at the information but not touch his pen, or press the 'record' button, to take notes." He has to memorize whatever he's after in those records, which would open the way for inaccuracies and little taste for publication of those memorized facts.

The Advocate says this law is unconstitutional and that's dead-on correct.

The NRA over-stepped its purpose and its scope in this matter and the legislature passed a law that is unconstitutional. It was totally unnecessary in protecting anything in the Second Amendment, and it's time for the Ohio legislators to put it right.

If they don't, the Advocate should put its money where its mouth is and force the issue in court.

In lieu of common sense

Consumers have a right to know how their food is produced and processed, obviously. It's not at all obvious, though, if you're a 1) a farmer who is concerned more about profits than public health, or 2) a government employee protecting welfare of farmers but not necessarily consumers.

The issue arises - again - because Ohio Agriculture deciders are in the process of deciding whether citizens should know whether they are drinking synthetic growth hormones in the milk they buy. It was reported by the Columbus Dispatch 11/17/07.

Farmers who don't use these hormones want to advertise that fact on milk labels. That they can't do this without the approval of Ohio bureaucracy demonstrates not only how far government has intruded into the "free marketplace" but the depths to which lobbyists (in this case the farmers who are using these hormones to stimulate milk production) are affecting - and likely endangering - public health.

The Ag Department has, according to the Dispatch article, "formed an advisory committee of 20 people, including dairy farmers, farm organizations, Ohio State professors and consumers, to help formulate a policy. The department also will hold a second public forum on the issue next month."

In lieu of common sense, that's one way to deal with it.

Writing a whiney editorial doesn't help

Advocate editorialists wondered in yesterday's edition "if Ohio lawmakers have a vendetta against the public's right to records and openness in government."

The preface to this is a mention of an Ohio bill that would further limit access to public records regarding public employees and also a mention of the legal closure of "many foster parent records" with the help of our own Jay Hottinger, who voted in favor of it.

At least they called out a name, finally.

Protection of the public's right to know has to be diligently and constantly defended. And that means, Advocate, that your right to public records requires you to fight for it, not just whine when another set of records gets sealed by government.

You expect your readers to come to your aid in keeping government open when 1) you charge us for the right to search your data base of news articles? and 2) you won't even raise the issue of members of Newark's Economic Development Committee holding a meeting in New Albany in apparent violation of the state's open meetings act?

Newspapers no longer defend against unfair and illegal government practices. Not just the Advocate, but very few of them, including - perhaps especially - the Columbus Dispatch.

So why don't you pull Jay Hottinger out front and ask him some serious questions about his vote? And why don't you put on record those councilmen and others who met in New Albany?

It takes will power, dedication, money, and time. The fight for freedom is a war and it never goes away. Read this.

Writing a whiney editorial doesn't get it. Get off your butt, Advocate.

I dare you to listen to this song

Ahmadinejad: Listen to the other side, for a change

Neither Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nor his ideas nor his voice are to be feared. I am interested in what he has to say.

That our government and our government-herded media are afraid we'll hear arguments against what's being fed to us from Washington seems evident by the attempt to shout him down before he's opened his mouth.

Shut up and let the man speak.

Anyone is free to hold the opinion of President Bush

Nicole and Jeffrey Rank from West Virginia were handcuffed, arrested, fingerprinted, and briefly jailed for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at an Independence Day speech the president gave in 2004.

After the couple had been removed, Bush told the crowd: "On this Fourth of July, we confirm our love of freedom, the freedom for people to speak their minds. ... Free thought, free expression, that's what we believe."
- From THE WEEK, 9/7/07, quoting, in part, a USA Today editorial

Reminds me of the name of the column written by local author Roland C. Eyers, "Everyone's Entitled to My Own Opinion."

War death toll is old news, but ...

Americans dying on foreign soil is old news. Day after day the count continues upward without relief or any end in sight. Most recently two men who went to Sheridan High School together died in Afghanistan. Here's the Advocate report.

Day after day and month after month, more people die. Real people with real parents, spouses, children and friends. Many thousands more are injured, maimed for life.

Yet to many of us they boil down to mere numbers and we keep it impersonal in order to avoid the horrible reality behind those numbers. We keep it impersonal so we can forget, though we know they are dying for us.

So far the CNN American death count in Iraq as of 8/27/07 stands at 3,732, of whom 157 are from Ohio and in Afghanistan 426. The number of wounded in Iraq is 27,506, of whom 1,129 are from Ohio.

Real people giving us the ultimate sacrifice. Let's not forget.

Generations of valor

Click on this link and be grateful.

State bureaucracy is responsible for animal nuisances

The run-away wild geese population, along with the Ohio Division of Wildlife's inability and/or unwillingness to do anything about it, is the symptom of a government agency gone awry.

It wasn't many years ago that my wife and I drove down to Buckeye Lake to see the wild geese living there. That's how scarce they were in Ohio.

Today, you can see vast flocks of them covering farm fields and flocking to the banks of ponds in large numbers, likely because they were so successfully stocked in Ohio by state workers.

Now geese, like deer, have become a nuisance but citizens have no rights when it comes to defending their property against them. An article in the Columbus Dispatch last Sunday told of geese attacking people trying to enter a business building. They had to be escorted inside.

The article said the state had received 280 complaints this year of aggressive behavior from geese. Their best solution? Get a dog.

I have a better one. Get a gun, except that apparently is illegal. The article said "People may use dogs, noise and other nonlethal means to drive off geese. If those fail, the Division of Wildlife issues permits allowing the relocation or destruction of the nest and eggs, and of the adult geese."

You have to wade around in goose crap until you get a state bureaucrat to tell you it's okay to defend yourself.

I say that geese and deer should have a bounty put on them. The Division of Wildlife needs to quit stocking and protecting nuisances and let landowners take care of their own problems in their own way.