Rise of the Nanny Police State: Town Governments Across the US Ban Sledding

By John Vibes

Dubuque, Iowa ? Local politicians in cities and towns across America have implemented laws that will ban children from sledding.

Town officials in Dubuque, Iowa for example, have banned sledding in 48 of its 50 parks because they fear that children will get hurt and that their parents could sue the city.

?We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them. We can?t manage the risk at all of those places,? Marie Ware, Dubuque?s leisure services manager told reporters.

"Everybody likes sledding, OK? Everyone wants to promote outdoor activities, and we want people to be active. But everyone knows sledding is a risky activity, we want to manage that risk," she added.

In other cities such as Des Moines, Iowa; Montville, New Jersey; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Columbia City, Indiana, the local governments have not entirely banned sledding, but instead posted signs warning people that they are sledding at their own risk. This approach gives some level of legal protection to the city if someone happens to get hurt, without enacting an all out ban.

In places where these bans have been put into place, many children and family?s have ignored the laws and engaged in civil disobedience. Town officials said that fines are expected for repeat offenders.

It is only a matter of time before the first arrests are made of those ?rebel children? who dare to have fun outdoors.

The natural tendency of the state to control every aspect of our lives is constantly on the rise.?The message from the state is clear, either you keep your kids locked up in the house or you very well may be the one locked up.

Children's book author, Kari Anne Roy, received an unexpected visit from Child Protective Services (CPS) and the Austin Police Department last year. She was being investigated for allowing her son Isaac, 6, to play outside unsupervised.

In June of last year,?Jeffrey Williamson?s 8-year-old son skipped church to play in the neighborhood. Williamson was subsequently arrested for child endangerment after a neighbor called the police to report an unsupervised child on the loose.

Also last year, there was the case of?5-year-old Eric Lopez, who was charged with sexual misconduct after he decided to drop his pants on the playground.

_
John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he is also the owner of a successful music promotion company. In 2013, he became one of the organizers of the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled "Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance" at bookpatch.com.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.0"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- NYPD 'Slowdown' Saves Taxpayers $10M A Week In Parking Ticket Fines
- NJ Man Arrested for Refusing to Hand Over Camera as "Evidence" After Cop Veers Off Road
- Police in the US Kill Citizens at Over 70 Times the Rate of Other First-World Nations
- Cop Arrested for His Violent Behavior to be Reinstated Despite the Department Not Wanting Him
- Extended Video Shows Aftermath of Tamir Rice Shooting; Cops Gave No Aid, Restrained Sister
- Cop Trying to Kill the Family Dog, Kills Woman Instead, In Front of her Husband and 4-year-old Son
- New York Family Left Homeless After Police Rip Down Walls to Serve DWI Warrant
- How Lithuanian Cops React to a Drunk, Aggressive American Girl

I'm not sure it's the government bureaucracy to blame.

"Town officials in Dubuque, Iowa for example, have banned sledding in 48 of its 50 parks because they fear that children will get hurt and that their parents could sue the city."

It's quite likely that this step was made not out of blue, but exactly because there were parents who did sue the city.

Same as when there's yet another incident of an overboard zero-tolerance at yet another school, it may also very well be in response to the paranoia expressed by the parents, and this zero tolerance is exactly what they demanded. Quite likely the same mother who today is crying that her angel was arrested for even mentioning a gun, is the one who only yesterday adamantly demanded exactly that, to "protect" said angel.

I don't need to reach very far for examples - my own spouse is an exhibit #1.

This has nothing to do with 'Nanny-State', it is full-blown fascism .
Sadly, it is what often happens when you give 'The Little Man' any power -
He abuses it to impose whatever twisted idea he may have on people he should have no power ever in the first place . Having grown up in Iowa, I can tell you that there's not much else for kids to do in the winter. They say Dubuque has 50 parks, but I would wager that maybe 5 of them have hills big enough for sledding. I guess there's always Meth..... LOL! No doubt there is plenty of meth! :D Allegheny County, PA had a place called "Sunny Slopes" in South Park. It was a big half-funnel with hay bales at the bottom. Teen agers and some adults would go there at night, get a fire in a tash barrel or two and then we'd ride sleds and inner tubes to the bottom. Great fun for most of the night. They closed Sunny Slopes to sledding about thirty years ago.
Pass any play area and look for "see-saws." They aren't there anymore. Yet the road signs advising of a play area show a see-saw. What irony.
WE are gong to immobilize our selves in this country. Whew, Just had Crazed Suits and Tie Mob gnawing at my Cars Tires coming home from purchasing Bird Food. Must have been Local Politicians. Crikey, Cigs but no Lighter. Dayum am afraid to go back out.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense Of Its 'No Fly' List

by Tim Cushing

The top secret "No-Fly" list has been problematic since day one. The DHS and FBI apparently believe over 20,000 people are too dangerous to allow to board a plane but not dangerous enough to arrest.

This is the process the government follows to place would-be travelers on the no-fly list.

1. The government places a person on the no-fly list.

That's all there is to it. The list is too "sensitive" to publish and exposing its methodology would apparently result in airliners raining down around us.

If you're a lucky recipient of the "no-fly" designation, here's how you're informed of your new status.

1. Purchase a ticket and attempt to travel. 2. Be rebuffed by TSA personnel.

This process can sometimes be applied with more flexibility.

1. Purchase a roundtrip ticket and fly to a foreign destination. 2. Attempt to return home. 3. Be rebuffed by local customs/security officials.

You won't know you're on The List until the list is triggered, which could happen when you're a few thousand miles from home. And if you think you're boarding the next boat back to the US, think again. The list is also "no-sail," meaning passenger ships are out of the question.

Now, if you're on the list and wish to be removed or, at the very least, informed of why you've been banned from commercial airline travel, there's no reason to panic. The DHS has a resolution process that relies very heavily on "process" and skips the "resolution" completely.

Their only recourse is to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security's "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program," after which DHS responds with a letter that does not explain why they were denied boarding. The letter does not confirm or deny whether their names remain on the No Fly List, and does not indicate whether they can fly. The only way for a person to find out if his or her name was removed from the No Fly List is to buy a plane ticket, go to the airport, see if he or she can get on the flight ? taking the risk of being denied boarding and marked as a suspected terrorist, and losing the cost of the airline ticket.

One wonders what a letter that answers no questions and explains nothing is supposed to "redress."

Dear Sir/Madam No Fly,

Thank you for expressing an interest in our Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. The Department of Homeland Security works in conjunction with all domestic airports, as well as those in 22 other nations worldwide, in order to provide you with a safe traveling experience. We hope that you will continue to make use of our products and services.

Thank you again for your support.

If you have additional comments or questions, please dial (202) 282-8495.

Sincerely, The Department of Homeland Security

This decade-long lack of specifics or actual redress has led to the ACLU suing the federal government on the behalf of thirteen no-fly list members.

Thirteen people on the no-fly list have sued the U.S. government, arguing that their placement deprives them of due process and smears their reputation by branding them as terrorists. Several of the men who filed suit have been surrounded at airport security areas, detained and interrogated.

The suit seeks to either remove the plaintiffs from the no-fly list or tell them why they are on it.

Government attorney Scott Risner addressed these complaints by arguing that air travel is not a "right" but a "convenience."

Risner said placement on the list doesn't stop people from traveling, and stopping people from using one mode of travel doesn't deprive them of their liberty. That's a key question in determining whether the government must ensure due process and one that's at the heart of the constitutionality of being placed on the list.

"We're not suggesting that there's not a convenience in air travel," Risner said. "(But) there's no right to travel without impediments. That's what's happening here.

Risner went so far as to point out that those stranded by sudden inclusion on the no fly list had made it back to the US via alternate forms of travel, thus "proving" a lack of air travel isn't preventing traveling.

Unfortunately for Risner, Judge Anna J. Brown wasn't buying it.

"To call it 'convenience' is marginalizing their argument," Brown said. [She] said alternatives to flying are significantly more expensive. "It's hugely time-consuming, and who knows what impediments there are between the Port of Portland and other countries."

She also pointed out that sea and land travel options aren't suitable replacements for flying, especially when time is of the essence and that the government's argument "fails to take into account the realities of modern life."

The DHS and FBI would obviously like everything to proceed the way it has for years, which means convincing the judge that flying isn't a fundamental right. This removes the question of constitutionality, as least as far as flight restrictions go.

The ACLU has gone further, though, declaring the entire system to be screwed up.

"We're asking the court to finally put a check on the government's use of a blacklist that denies Americans the ability to fly without giving them the explanation or fair hearing that the Constitution requires. It's a question of basic fairness," said ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, one of the ACLU attorneys who will argue the case Friday in Portland. "It does not make our country safer to ban people from flying without giving them an after-the-fact redress process that allows them to correct the errors that led to their mistaken inclusion on the list."

It also points out that issuance of notice and due process are required for much less far-reaching actions.

The ACLU argues that this system violates the Fifth Amendment's command that the government cannot deprive a person of liberty "without due process of law." Courts have ruled that the Constitution requires some kind of notice and hearing for far less severe actions, such as losing state assistance for utility bills or being suspended from school for 10 days.

Judge Brown hasn't said when she'll issue a ruling, but so far she seems less than impressed with the government's arguments. In the meantime, 20,000 people, including the 13 US citizens represented here (four of which are military veterans), are still stuck in War on Terror limbo -- unofficially "detained" in the US by secretive travel restrictions.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- TSA Puts on the Dog
- Charges Dismissed For Teen Arrested Over NRA T-Shirt
- 5-Year-Old's Suspension Over Toy Cap Gun Reversed
- "There's A LOT Of Wrong Doing Taking Place (By The U.S. Government) That Americans Aren't Aware Of"
- "I Think Glenn Greenwald Should Calm Down" Piers Morgan
- "Snowden Is The Traitor! (NOT ME!) And Anybody That'd Call Him A Hero Is Terribly Misguided!"
- Maddow Does Her Best To Convince You Snowden Is The One Stealing Your Information NOT Obama
- Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Government's Idle Hands: Underwear Bomber 2.0

by Jeffrey Tucker

Government has a serious problem. It's got nothing worthwhile to do. All the cool things in life come from the private sector, and this is more obvious than ever. The market is creating whole worlds before our eyes, while the government seems ever more like a hopeless anachronism.

Government's life depends on public frenzy about some grand task it is seeking to accomplish. But today, there is no epic struggle, no grand historic project, no leading us to the light, no vanquishing evil and all those other things government used to claim to do.

It has certainly flopped as the Savior of the Economy. It can't educate the kids, it can't give us riches and it can't even deliver mail.

So its idle hands do the devil's work. Government grabs our money and dishes it out, roughs people up in the name of safety or security or whatever and otherwise hectors and prods us in a billion dumb ways that make it harder and harder to achieve a better life.

Oh, but wait! Let's not forget the War on Terror. Surely, there is a job worth doing.

Just last week, the headlines blared that government authorities had done it again. They had marvelously protected the homeland from a catastrophic bombing. The plot, fortunately foiled, involved an amazing bomb sewn into underwear, to be worn on another U.S. flight.

But the U.S. officials intervened and saved the day. They bombed the heck out of the nasty terror cell, slaughtered a few of these vermin. Ah, the world is safe for another day.

This is what we were told. I saw the headlines and smelled a rat, but I moved on. But then the headlines continued the next day and the next. You know how this happens. You finally relent and read the thing because the editors think it is important and, of course, it is irresponsible not to be "in the know."

But by the time I actually started paying attention to the latest act in this security theater, the story had changed ? not just a little, but a lot. It turns out that the U.S. had an agent inside this terrorist operation. He was a Saudi national in the pay of the CIA, and he was operating in Yemen. Pretty exotic stuff.

The details continued to pour out. This guy was not just an informant. He actually delivered the real bomb to the CIA! Now, that's an effective agent. Right? It seems so. What's more, he was the actual guy who was going to carry out this operation.

And the operation itself? A suicide bombing. He volunteered to die. He was given the bomb that he would use. He took the bomb to the CIA. To what extent he was the actual plotter, the guy who talked others into this whole thing and whether the bomb even worked ? these things are all unknown. All that is known is that this unnamed informant turns out to be the terrorist in question and that he himself did all of this on behalf of the CIA.

Now, let's just say you are an Islamic follower in Yemen and like nearly everyone else in this region, you are pretty fed up with U.S imperialism. This young punk from Saudi Arabia suggests a plot to blow up an American airliner. Maybe this sounds interesting and epic, but maybe somewhat reckless.

In fact, you are going to be pretty suspicious of this whole idea, but he is driving everyone crazy with demands that he be given a bomb. Then he even suggests that he be the suicide bomber. You might be thinking, "Hmm, whatever else, at least this plot could result in one fatality: this stupid punk from Saudi Arabia!

"Here's your bomb. Knock yourself out. Break more than a leg."

I, of course, have no idea if this is what happened. But the CIA's involvement here compromises the narrative enormously.

As David Shipler wrote in The New York Times:

"The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years ? or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

"But all these dramas were facilitated by the FBI, whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naively played their parts until they were arrested."

In the Middle Ages, there was a profession called the wine taster. His job was not to discern the vintage or tell if the bouquet had a hint of blackberry. His job was to make sure the wine was not poison.

But let's say many years went by and none of the wine was poison. The wine taster started getting nervous for his job and profession. So he went around the city and tried to get people to poison wines. He made himself a presence among all the vandals and vagrants and volunteered to do the poisoning himself.

If the news of his mischief came out, do you think he would have been a hero or a villain? It seems that he would have been and should have been completely washed up. He was going around trying to get people to poison wines as a way of maintaining his job. This is a moral outrage. He would surely be out of work.

This is what the government is doing to us these days. It is trying to inspire terrorism and then claiming credit for having discovered it. Then it scares people into thinking that their job is extremely important, and therefore, without it, we would all be sunk.

In other words, this looks less like national security and ever more like a racket.

People say that terrorists are desperate cowards. Maybe. But then what phrase is left for a government that does this sort of thing as a way of maintaining its lease on life in times when ever more people are fed up with the whole game?
__
Jeffrey Tucker, publisher and executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, is author of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo and It's a Jetsons World. You can write him directly here.

View the original article here