Obama Big Brother poster

Sales of George Orwell's classic novel "1984" have skyrocketed since knowledge of the NSA's eavesdropping programs became widespread.

Collection of blood samples at roadblocks ires Alabamans

Drivers in Alabama over the weekend were concerned as rumors of sporadic roadblocks spread through northeastern Alabama. According to the rumors, which spread quickly on Facebook and other social media, the roadblocks were manned by local law enforcement and agents of the Department of Homeland Security who were collecting DNA samples from drivers.

The rumor seemed to be confirmed by law enforcement officials on the Alabama news site, AL.com. The AL.com report said that law enforcement authorities in St. Clair and Bibb counties had confirmed that the roadblocks took place as part of a research study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.

Lt. Freddie Turrentine of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department told AL.com that the roadblocks were positioned at several locations around the county from Friday through Sunday. Off duty deputies would stop cars and ask for participation in the voluntary and paid survey. Turrentine said that signs at the roadblocks clearly stated that participation was voluntary and for pay. Drivers were offered $10 for a mouth swab and $50 for a blood test. Those who refused were not detained, Turrentine said, even though social media reports had indicated otherwise.

A report on Birmingham’s ABC 33/40 quoted Erika Skeivlas, a driver who participated in the survey. Skeivlas said that researchers swabbed her mouth and took a blood sample after asking her a few questions from an iPad. Skeivlas said, “Basically they were asking how much over the counter or prescription medication you take? How many times a day do you take it? Do you drink alcohol? Do you drive after drinking?”

Skeivlas said that she was given a paper stating that the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation was conducting the survey which was funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to “better understand impaired driving on our nation's roadways.” There was no indication that the Department of Homeland Security was involved in any way.

Jose Ucles, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told AL.com on Sunday that the researchers did not collect DNA, but were testing the volunteer drivers for over-the-counter, prescription, and illegal drugs as well as checking the driver’s blood alcohol content. The results of the tests were kept anonymous and not relayed to law enforcement.

The roadblocks were part of a major driver impairment study at 60 different locations within the country. Previous studies were done in 1973, 1986, 1996 and 2007. Lt. Turrentine confirmed that St. Clair County had also participated in the 2007 study.

Diane Williams, the Pacific Institute’s communications officer, confirmed to Examiner that no DNA samples were taken at the roadblocks. John Lacey, the researcher responsible for the study was not immediately available for comment.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Verizon phone records are different from IRS scandal

This week’s revelations of widespread data gathering by the federal government have shocked many Americans.  Coming on the heels of the recent scandals about Justice Department spying on reporters and IRS agents harassing political opponents, the new information about America’s intelligence gathering activities have drawn widespread opposition and indignation.  There are important differences between the activities of the National Security Agency and the other scandals, however.

On Wednesday, leaked court documents demanding that Verizon turn over phone records to the federal government sparked an uproar over the NSA’s phone surveillance program.  On Friday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released more details about the program.  Reported by the Associated Press, Clapper noted the program, which presumably includes other companies as well as Verizon, is reviewed every 90 days and the government is prohibited from indiscriminately examining the records of Americans.  The information obtained by the NSA does not contain the content of the calls, but only “metadata” such as the phone numbers involved, time, location, and duration of the call.

On Friday, the Washington Post also published leaked reports of PRISM, a secret program that analyzes internet traffic in a manner similar to the NSA’s examination of phone records.  According to the leaked documents, “e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...log-ins, etc., online social networking details” were available from major internet companies.  A CNET analysis of the PRISM documents indicates that it is theoretically possible that the government has been reading private emails of American citizens.

Even though the amount of information collected by the NSA and PRISM is staggering, there is so far no evidence that it has been used to spy on Americans or intrude on their privacy.  Instead, it seems that the federal government has been engaged in a process called “data mining.”  Data mining is the use of computer programs to discover hidden patterns in data.  Private companies frequently use data mining to target advertisements to likely customers.  Cookies on websites and tracking software collect information about internet users, which is then sold to internet advertisers.  Computer programs can even “read” your emails to target ads to your screen.  Similar programs might be used to block suspicious credit card transactions based on the user’s past history. 

While the NSA is not interested in selling anything to Americans, it is presumably interested in suspicious contacts between the United States and known terrorists in other countries.  On Thursday, Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico that “Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States.”  Rogers added, “It is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

Rogers appears to be correct.  Both programs appear to be legal if they were implemented properly.  In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that telephone users have no expectation of privacy with regard to telephone numbers dialed because telephone companies regularly track such information.  Likewise, CNET points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 and the Protect America Act of 2007 permit intelligence gathering of internet data.  The Protect America Act is limited to people “reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” (Section 105A) and the Section 702 of the FISA Act clarifies that U.S. citizens or people within the United States cannot be targeted. 

On Friday, President Obama defended the NSA programs, saying, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.” In a PBS transcript, Obama continued, “By sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. Now, with respect to the Internet and e-mails, this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, and it doesn't apply to people living in the United States.” 

In a separate speech on Friday, transcribed by NBC Bay Area, Obama noted that “ if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The other scandals of the Obama Administration have worked to diminish public trust in government, however.  Even before the recent scandals, Pew showed public trust in government at all-time low levels.  The reports of systematic abuses of power against the president’s political opponents (summary on Examiner.com) and spying on reporters have only heightened the crisis of confidence in the federal government.   A June 5 Rasmussen poll showed that an unprecedented 56 percent of Americans view the federal government as a threat to individual rights.  Even normally trusted agencies such as the FBI have been implicated in the Obama Administration’s apparent suppression of conservative groups.   Even the New York Times said Thursday that “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

Unlike the data mining by the NSA, the allegations against Obama Administration in the IRS and DOJ media spying scandals include the specific targeting of American citizens.  The IRS has admitted that it specifically targeted conservative groups and an investigation by McClatchy News confirmed that no liberal or nonpartisan groups received unfair treatment.  Several IRS employees have said that their scrutiny and harassment of conservative groups was directed by IRS officials in Washington according to the Associated Press.  Likewise, Attorney General Holder personally approved the warrant for surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen according to MSNBC.  Unlike the NSA surveillance, which was apparently a legitimate program directed at foreign terrorists, the IRS and Justice Department programs were specifically directed at Americans and apparently had political motives.

The NSA’s surveillance programs are not new.  They have been public knowledge since 2005 when the New York Times published an account of the program.  However, the programs are likely viewed with more concern by many Americans due to the recent reports of spying and abuses of power against American citizens.  If the IRS and DOJ could illegally target Americans for political purposes, many are concerned that NSA data might be used for the same reason.  

Originally published on Examiner.com

Liberals are inconsistent on abortion

Life-size model of an eight-week unborn baby (Bill Davenport)

Even though abortion took a back seat to economic issues in this year’s midterm elections, it remains an important and divisive topic.  The issue of abortion played a central role in the legislative fight over Obamacare and recently returned to the public eye when a Minnesota couple unveiled an internet poll to decide whether to abort their baby or not.  (Incidentally, the couple said that the poll’s results were 77% in favor of abortion.  When repetitive and fraudulent votes were discarded, the result shifted to 73% in favor of sparing the baby’s life.)

As with many other issues, the facts about abortion are often obscured by emotional and irrational claims.  Interestingly, the leftist position on abortion is at odds with the liberal position on many other issues.  There are several arguments that liberals use to defend abortion.  One of the most common is that the abortion decision is a woman’s alone because it affects her body and the government has no right to dictate what a person can do with their body.  “Keep your laws off my body” is a slogan often seen on signs at pro-abortion rallies. 

This line of reasoning fails on several levels.  First, the notion that the government has no right to say what someone can or cannot do with their body is not correct.  There are numerous other situations in which the government tells us what we can or cannot do, even when no one else is affected.  One of the best examples is that most states have passed laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.  Failure to wear a helmet affects no one but the rider.  In fact the abortion issue is one of the few areas in which liberals push for a more limited government role.  In everything from health care to light bulbs liberals usually favor increased government intervention in American life.

A common liberal interpretation stemming from the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 is that abortion is constitutionally protected based on the right to privacy.  The problem with this argument is that the right to privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (including its amendments). 

The conservative position that favors more restrictions on abortion is not inconsistent with conservative beliefs in limited government.  Conservatives believe that the government does have certain legitimate, constitutional roles that are enumerated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Government has a duty to establish justice and provide for the general welfare by protecting its citizens.  No citizens are more in need of protection than fetal-Americans, unborn babies.  Further, the Declaration of Independence specifically lists the right to life as self-evident an inalienable.

Second, the abortion decision does not affect the woman alone.  Every single abortion affects at least one other person:  the baby.  Additionally, the decision also affects the father, who in almost any other situation would have the parental right to be involved in a decision affecting his child.  The lack of concern for the unborn child flies in the face of liberal compassion and concern for children on other issues.  On most other issues, liberals proclaim concern for children, yet abortion is almost 100% fatal for the children (there are some survivors). 

An additional argument used to support abortion is the idea that it is necessary to protect the lives or mental health of women, particularly those who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.  In reality, only 1% of abortions are the result of rape or incest.  A further 3% are due to risks to the mother’s health.  Even taking into account the abortions performed because of possible fetal abnormalities (1%), that leaves the overwhelming majority (on the order of 95%) of abortions performed as an elective procedure for social or birth control reasons.  This equates to almost 21,000 elective abortions per year in Georgia and almost 1.5 million nationally.

In the rare cases of rape or incest pregnancies, the guilt for the sexual abuse is not with the baby.  Killing the baby does not erase the pain and shame that the victim feels after the attack.  On the contrary, guilt from knowing that they were complicit in the death of their baby makes the mental anguish of many sexual abuse victims worse.  Even in other cases of elective abortion, depression, guilt and suicidal feelings often plague the mother.  Perhaps this is why instances of substance abuse are higher for women who have had abortions.  Additionally, a host of physical health problems are also linked to abortion.  Women who have had an abortion are at a significantly higher risk for breast cancer as well as having an increased likelihood of miscarriage or complications on future pregnancies.  Perhaps this explains why 94% of women who have had abortions regret making the choice.

A one-minute-old baby (Makalp)

Along the same lines, some abortion proponents argue that a mother should not be required to bring a child bearing the genes and DNA of their attacker or abuser into the world.  They believe that the child is destined to follow the criminal path of its biological father.  These arguments smack of eugenics and the belief that some people are genetically inferior to others.  In reality, a person’s actions and personality are not determined by his genetics, but by his choices, which are a product of his environment and ethics.  A child whose father is a criminal can still grow up to be an honest and productive member of society.  Even in cases where there is a genetic history of mental illness, this can often be treated as well.

Similar to this argument is the belief that only wanted children should be born.  Children who are unwanted or who belong to poor parents might be better off not being born.  The answer to this argument is that if a mother does not want to care for her child, there are a multitude of loving parents who are willing to adopt.

A final common argument in favor of abortion is the claim that government regulations are an attempt to impose morality.  “You can’t legislate morality” is an oft repeated phrase.  In fact, we can and do legislate morality.  Almost all of our laws reflect our society’s morality from laws against murder to laws against theft.  If an action was not considered immoral or harmful, there would be no need to make a law against it.  Liberals did not hesitate to impose their moral belief that health care is a right on the rest of the nation.

As a society we have decided that killing is acceptable only in limited circumstances.  War is one such circumstance, but then only in the case of an armed combatant.  Killing is also permissible to defend someone’s life (or, in many states, property).  Finally, killing is permissible by the state after due process has determined the guilt of a criminal and has set the penalty for his crimes as death.  None of these circumstances describe abortion.

In general, liberals are quick to come to the defense of criminals who are denied due process, yet in the abortion debate they deny due process to an innocent baby.  In effect, the unborn baby is being punished with death for the sins (if not crimes) of his parents.  There is no judge, no jury, and no appeal.

Liberals are also inconsistent in their application of the first amendment with respect to abortion.  Although liberals normally view first amendment rights as expansive enough to cover everything from flag burning to nude dancing, they have historically supported heavy restrictions on the right to protest abortion.  Pro-abortion groups have even used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, intended to prosecute mafia dons, in an attempt to stifle the abortion debate.

Stripping away all the extraneous arguments about abortion, the whole issue boils down to whether a fetus, an unborn baby, is human.  I first became aware of abortion as an elementary school student in rural Georgia.  Two older girls in my church, Beth Manley and Alison Byrum (both of whom have since died in separate incidents), were working on a school project about abortion and asked the rest of the children to answer a short survey on the subject.  I was probably in fourth or fifth grade at the time and had never heard of abortion.  When they explained what it was, it seemed inconceivable to me that it could be legal for a mother to elect to kill her unborn baby.  Even at eleven or twelve years old, it seemed obvious that an unborn baby is a living person and that killing a person is murder.

Today, advanced medical technology makes it even harder to perpetuate the myth that an unborn baby is simply a blob of unliving tissue.  Three-D ultrasounds give an unprecedented view of life in the womb and show remarkably developed babies.  The film Silent Scream vividly depicts the pain and fear of an unborn baby as it is literally ripped apart in the womb by an abortionist.  

A legal inconsistency is that many states allow prosecution for murder when unborn babies are killed.  Exceptions in these laws allow legal abortions.  It is illogical to say that a baby just outside the birth canal is human while the same baby inches inside the mother’s body is not.  The evidence is strong that unborn babies are just as alive and just as human as the rest of us. 

A final inconsistency is that many liberals claim to desire fewer abortions but actively oppose even reasonable restrictions on the practice.  Attempts to place a waiting period on the procedure, to require parental consent in the case of minors, or to give the father a voice in the decision almost always meet with strong opposition from pro-abortion advocates.  Similarly, they have long been on a quest to find federal funding for abortions.  Pro-abortion politicians who repeated the mantra that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” usually concentrated on the “safe” and “legal” part of the statement, while doing little to make it rare.

There are two bright spots for pro-lifers in the abortion debate.  One is that public opinion on the issue has been trending toward the pro-life viewpoint in recent years.  This is probably due to the new knowledge about unborn babies, as well as the fact that many people born after 1973 realize that they could have easily been aborted on the whim of their mother.  A second positive development is that the number of abortions has decreased markedly since the early 1990s.

A clear majority of Americans now believe that abortion is morally wrong and that more restrictive abortion laws are needed.  As attitudes change, abortion is becoming less socially acceptable and less common (although it is on the increase in Georgia).  It is hopefully only a matter of time before the courts and legislatures around the country accept the constitutional will of the people.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Beth Manley and Alison Byrum who first made me aware of the tragedy of abortion.