Thread: Supreme Court Justice Breyer warns of 'Orwellian' government

Supreme Court Justice Breyer warns of 'Orwellian' government

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) There's an old saying used by serial conspiracy theorists who get a little tired of being told they're crazy: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to get you!" That said, it's no secret among politicos and administration watchers that political nemeses of President Barack Obama have warned early and often during his tenure that he is a borderline dictator and hell bent on trashing the Constitution.

And while such statements tend to sound a bit over the top, they take an entirely different meaning when you have a Supreme Court justice warning Americans that their own government is in danger of getting out of hand.

At issue is a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court with huge Fourth Amendment privacy implications. It seems the federal government is supportive of allowing law enforcement agencies to use GPS tracking of individuals without a warrant. Opponents believe that would amount to a blatant violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

One such skeptic is none other than Justice Stephen Breyer, who noted during oral arguments before the high court this week that should justices rule in the government's favor, it could lead to the type of round-the-clock surveillance reminiscent of the totalitarian world envisioned by author George Orwell in the 1940's novel 1984.

"If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States," Breyer noted, openly questioning what a democratic society might look like if the government had that kind of power. "So if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984 from their brief."

The case stems from D.C. police installing a GPS tracker on the vehicle of nightclub owner Antoine Jones because they suspected him of dealing cocaine. They used GPS to track him for a month, tracing his movements to a stash house in Maryland. Their warrant was expired when they installed the GPS device.

In an incredible attempt at trivializing one of the most sacred of personal protections enshrined in the Constitution, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben posited that should most Americans view warrantless tracking as a Big Brother invasion of privacy, they would demand Congress intervene with legislation.

So in other words, the government should be permitted to do so unless, or until, Americans object. If they don't, then it's okay and not a violation of the Constitution.

Such twisted logic is probably why high-ranking U.S. officials can view 24-7-365 warrantless surveillance as permissible, and an increase in federal spending of 10 percent instead of the 12 percent called for by the president as "cutting the budget."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034167_Orwel ... z1dshbeTss


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034167_Orwel ... z1dshRyM9u

If blunt truth makes you uncomfortable, maybe you need to be uncomfortable



An Uncomfortable Discussion


A lot of freedom advocates go out of their way to avoid talking about violent resistance to tyranny. Understandable, they'd rather just use words, win hearts and minds, and try to outlast the current police state garbage going on. But in a way, I think this is a huge mistake.

No, it's not because I just can't wait to kill someone. Even if it is completely justified, I suspect that killing another human being would be a really horrible thing to have to do. I've made it this far without ever being in a real fight, and I hope that holds true for the rest of my life. However, I think the discussion of forced resistance to "legal" evil is of utmost importance.

To say, or to imply, that we never want to resist by force, carries with it the implication that resisting "legal" aggression is actually immoral. Obviously, resisting the control freaks is hazardous, and usually a bad idea practically speaking, but to say that it's actually wrong to resist logically implies that they have the moral right to do whatever they want to us. Even if we go along with control freaks out of self-preservation, the primary message that people need to understand is that rhetoric about "government," and "authority," and "law," cannot make bad into good, or good into bad. "Legal" aggression and extortion is just as immoral as the "illegal" kind, and resisting it is just as righteous (albeit a lot more dangerous).

Of course--of course, of course, of course--I would prefer that humanity chooses peaceful coexistence, and that there isn't violence and bloodshed on the way there. But concepts of self-ownership and a voluntary society are intertwined with the right of self-defense, even against attackers who call their aggression "law." If we cannot discuss that, because we find the topic too unpleasant (which, of course, the idea of killing people is), then we are not sending a complete, consistent message regarding freedom.

So, with that in mind, here is a link to my latest YouTube video, titled "Shooting Cops," which I'm guessing is going to stir up the hornets nest once again. But it needs to be stirred.

Shooting Cops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjDHQ16MyKY

In an incredible attempt at trivializing one of the most sacred of personal protections enshrined in the Constitution, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben posited that should most Americans view warrantless tracking as a Big Brother invasion of privacy, they would demand Congress intervene with legislation.

Wake up America!