Thursday, November 25, 2010


EXCERPT: "The city [Houston] is installing 250 to 300 cameras at downtown intersections in an effort to prevent and fight terrorism and crime, part of a security initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."

"The intent is to protect critical infrastructure and prevent terrorism. Experience has shown that when people plan terroristic acts, they plan and they do dry runs, so what we would be looking for is suspicious activity around certain locations. And for any crimes, you can go back and look at the video and identify the perpetrators."Dennis Storemski, Director of the Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security. 

"I'm not in favor of it. The cost of operating the cameras, as well as their capability to invade privacy, was troubling. That's big government watching our every move. Mike Wells

"We live in an age right now where there's really no expectation that there would be no video in a public space. Everybody that has a cell phone has a video camera. This happens all the time. We're just doing it for public safety purposes." Dennis Storemski

"Cameras in public spaces already have proven successful in major worldwide incidents, such as identifying suspects in the 2005 subway bombings in London." Storemski

"Julio Flores, a waiter at a downtown skyscraper, said he felt more comfortable knowing that surveillance camera footage could be used to solve crimes or to track suspects."

"Just knowing that there is a camera just makes me feel a little bit safer." Judith Hanson

This is how Americans lose their freedoms, a bit at a time. They buy off on the bullcrap that some bureaucrat shovels their way, all in the name of security.

Consider what the 4th Amendment has to say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat." Ronald Reagan

"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." Jonathan Swift

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

So Mr.Storemski thinks it is okay to have these cameras since, in his words, "We're just doing it for public safety purposes." We have the RIGHT to be secure in our effects, that means things like cars, purses, packages, briefcases, etc. Do these cameras zoom in? So if you are in your car, and you open your car door, does the government have the right to zoom in to see what you have in there? How about the trunk? A police officer pulls you over for a bad tail light and unless they have probable cause, they cannot just search your car. They can ASK your permission and if you are dumb enough to give it, then you deserve what you get. But a camera can zoom in and do in effect, what a police officer, by law, cannot, unless he again, has probable cause.

Mr. Storemski states that "everyone" has a cell phone in public and that this is no different. That is comparing apples to oranges. A person walking around with a cell phones does not have the capability or technology to anonymously zoom in to eyeball something of interest to them. They are a private citizen, not a government with access to databases, personal files, etc.

What happens to the woman near a camera who opens her purse to get something out. That is a fairly private act, even in a public place, yet what happens if the camera operator zooms in? Is that not an invasion of her privacy? Say she has a weapon in there, does the camera operator call the cops? When they grab her and she shows a CCW permit, is that not an unlawful detention because she was a citizen going about her legitmate business. But liberals will scream and moan if an illegal alien has to produce ID in order to vote and God forbid that an illegal alien have to pay out-of-state tuition! YEOW, look out.

How about conversation? Is that not covered under the 4th Amendment? The government cannot simply wiretap your phone, or listen in on your cell phone can they? Unless again, they have probable cause. Where is the Left on this, they who raised hell about the Patriot Act (written by Joe Biden), tapping the phones of suspected terrorists, reading emails from suspected terrorists, and horror of horrors, checking up at libraries on what suspected terrorists have been reading.

What will Americans say when they install cameras, like the ones in London, that have directional microphones on them so that "they" can listen in on potential "crimes?" That it is all in the name of public safety? Will they feel safer because the government can listen in on potential terrorists?

One has to wonder what the excuse was in Germany to allow Brownshirts to patrol the streets? Public safety? Crime control?

What is the most disturbing thing here is that Storemski would link these cameras with solving crimes in London. That is all well and good except for one thing, the English do not have a Constitution that specifically limits government, WE DO! It appears that once again, the Constitution is being trampled by this regime, all in the name of "security."

Americans had better look to the words of their Founding Fathers, who fled from tyranny seeking freedom, and who knew full well what tyranny was all about. Ben Franklin observed: "Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." And it was Thomas Jefferson who later observed that they WILL get neither and deservedly so.

Consider what our ancestors faced from King George III and what we have had to deal with from a disconnected and uncaring Federal Government and that we, as a people, have not revolted yet. We had ObamaKare rammed down our throats. We had bailouts rammed down our throats. We had the takeover of Government Motors rammed down our throats. Our taxes are going up to cover for decades of overspending. Stupid people are making bad policy and walking away without a good coating of tar and feathers when it fails and WE have to suffer the effects of it. We have a government forcing us to walk through a scanner that can see the sweat rolling down one's back or suffer a crotch-grab in public while they exempt themselves! WTF! Consider that for a moment. We are private citizens, buying a ticket on a private carrier, in an airport that is not federal property, and we are subjected to proving OUR INNOCENCE to board our flights! Exactly how many terrorists has the TSA nabbed since 2001? Oh yeah. None. If those scanners are SO IMPORTANT to our security, why were they taped off on a high travel day?

The Patriot Act that the Left mewled about during Bush43's term are strangely silent now. Maybe because their buddy, Ol Union Label Biden wrote it! Maybe because this is just another notch in their agenda, "top down, bottom up, and inside and out," as Van Jones states. Rest assured America, this is going to get worse as the Colossus turns up the heat on the frogs swimming in cold water.



  1. Gunny,
    On this one, you are talking apples and oranges. Is the CCTV in the department store any less invasive because it is operated by a private entity? (used as evidence in court)

  2. Gunny,

    Good post. Wait until we get a republican president, then the libturds will be screaming about their rights again and how the evil republicans are treading on the constitution.

    To comprehend the selective memories of the left is mind-numbing.

    Conservatives are the only ones that want our government to adhere to the constitution. The left only wants to cherrypick which parts that they want enforced depending on who is in charge.

    The bottom line is that we have a constitution and that our laws must abide to it all the time.

    I hope this new congress will start reading it for once. It's their job, and not the lobbists and special interest groups that actually write the legislation as is common practice.

  3. The comment from Hanson is ludicrous. This IDIOT will STILL be mugged,raped,whatever,WITH or WITHOUT the damned cameras. By the time anyone who MAY be monitoring that particular camera could send the police,the criminal is LONG gone,successful in his endeavour.She'd be better off packing a pistol,and KNOW how and when to use it.I just do not get these fools who think these cameras are the answer.

  4. I so agree with everything you have said Gunny!
    But I stand up for those who do!! This is an awful breach in our civil rights, and somehow it must be stopped. It is doing nothing but bringing ordinary citizens under subjection. What better way than to humiliate them in public, and leave them helpless to do anything about it?
    There are so many thing being done by this Obamanation it's hard to zero in on all of them. This morning I called the fcc over this
    Internet Neutrality act, which is the fairness doctrine for the internet. Which might very well shut you down. I emailed them yesterday. I told them this is a first amendment intrusion.
    I can only feel that this too will pass, thanks to people like you that keep the pressure on those who will try and overthrow this country a right at a time.

  5. Pack Rat,

    I disagree amigo. The CCTV from the store can't invade my privacy, i.e., my car and much of them are installed to prevent shoplifting or pilfering by employees in the workplace. Also, the private security cannot database information unles there is a crime. I worked armed security for years as a second job and our cameras were used where money was concerned and the tapes were reused every 24 hours. That was a condition of employment, this is the government doing it and using our tax dollars to do it!

  6. Hardnox,

    Bachmann is holding Constitution classes for the newbies comig into Congress so scumbags like Trent Lott can't co-opt them. Plus, they are going to read the Constitution PRIOR to voting on a bill to see if it meets the Const. requirements.

    A great first step.

  7. clyde,

    They fall for it because they believe the government hype. "it's for your own good" is enough for many of the sheep.

  8. Nanna,

    What the left refuse to realize is that WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED! We can go low-tech if we have to. Where one blog is silenced, three more will pop up. Billboards, posters, pamphlets, etc will still be used against them.

  9. Just for the record Gunny, somehow I deleted the first line of my post before I posted it. I said, I don't fly, and don't have to put up with the scanners and pat downs, then followed it by saying I stand up for the rights of those who do.
    Don't know just what I did, but it was a lou lou, and made my comment at the beginning not make a lot of sense. (Don't blame this on my age now :-)...)

  10. Hi its really very nice blog,very useful information..Mobiles