We purchased our weekly Washington Post today at the Commissary and two very interesting articles were found within the Wahington Post Magazine. I have been recently trying to decide where I fit in political party wise and this article made me realize that even more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302933.htmlThe first article was simply the Editor's note, but bit my interest. It brought up the fourth amendment:
"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 the constitution was written in 1787, our founding fathers wanted to preserve the liberties of man. They did not want big government and wanted to make sure that individual liberties are protected. Within the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, you find these liberties attempted to be protected.
What I do not understand is the recent want for government to do everything for you. The want for government to bail out companies, pay for health care, give out food stamps, etc. Yes, I understand that sometimes atypical events occur that things such as food stamps and welfare are needed. The problem I have is when people get comfortable within the welfare system and never try to better their lives and are then provided for by the state. People need to be able to take care of themselves and have a system in place that encourages that. Our Constitution was written to protect the individual and to allow the individual to be more important than the collective. We, as America, have stepped away from this and are walking down the wrong path.
So, what does this have to do with the other article? Well, first, it is way too long to summarize effectively, so read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html
But for those that do not want to read it, I'll summarize. A small town mayor and his wife fell victim to drug dealers mailing a package of weed to their home, wanting to pick it up off their porch before the couple got home. The package was discovered in a post office and authori
ties tracked the package and kept watch on the house. The husband brought the package into the house addressed to his wife thinking it was some new gardening equipment she had ordered online and then continued upstairs to get ready for a committee meeting that night. His mother-in law, who had recently moved in with them, looked out the window to see hooded men with guns coming towards the home. She screamed. Next thing, the door in busted in and the hooded men went after the two dogs. They shot one in the face, then proceeded to shoot it 3 more times, killing it. The more timid of the dogs goes running into the other room and was shot while running away, then once again and bled to death.
Meanwhile, the mother is pushed on the floor, handcuffed with the plastic ties, and a gun put to her head. The mayor, hearing the shots, announces that he is upstairs and slowly walks down the stairs with his hands up. upon reaching near the bottom, he too is handcuffed with the plastic ties. No reasons were given as to why these men were in his house. Looking out the door that was once there he see's police officers, proving that he wasn't being burglarized. He started going through his head as to what he would have done wrong and could not think of anything. The wife is driving home and sees all the commotion and thinks the worst and upon coming out of her car asked about her husband and mother and then her dogs. She breaks down upon finding out that her dogs had passed. They were like her children. The dogs are brought out of the house on stretchers, dead, by animal control, dripping blood everywhere.
The police continue to go through everything and say a "warrant is on the way." They seem defeated when they find nothing, no cash, bongs, rolling paper, nothing that would point to these two being involved in the drug business. They leave with only the box that was mailed to the house and leaves the home in ruins and covered with dog blood. The husband, Cheye, calls a friend to come help clean up the blood for Trinity, his wife. The three of them sleep in the living room on an air mattress because they were scared. Their door wouldn't lock and a drug dealer didn't have his weed.
Trinity's father, her mothers first husband, came in the next few days to help out with the house and didn't leave till all of the blood was gone in the house and the sidewalk. The mother took leave and organized the house to put it back into the state it was before the incident. Their life and home would never feel safe again.
The Prince George's County Police never apologized for what they did. They said that they do know that drug dealers have been delivering packages to innocent people hoping to get the package off the front porch before the people come home from work.
So, what does this all mean? Has the War on Drugs stepped over civil liberties? What rights do people truly have over their property and their loved ones? Has big government stepped over it's boundaries? I believe the answer is yes.
Police should never be able to just go into someone's home without knocking unless they have strong evidence that they will be in danger. The article pointed out that the police could have easily discovered that this was the mayor's house and his wife that the package was addressed to if they simply Googled the name or actually contacted the local police.
I am completely disgusted by this whole story. It makes me see the views of Libertarians as a possible party that I may look more into. I cannot understand how government can do this and believe that our founding fathers would be disgusted by how we are running the country.
But for those that do not want to read it, I'll summarize. A small town mayor and his wife fell victim to drug dealers mailing a package of weed to their home, wanting to pick it up off their porch before the couple got home. The package was discovered in a post office and authori
ties tracked the package and kept watch on the house. The husband brought the package into the house addressed to his wife thinking it was some new gardening equipment she had ordered online and then continued upstairs to get ready for a committee meeting that night. His mother-in law, who had recently moved in with them, looked out the window to see hooded men with guns coming towards the home. She screamed. Next thing, the door in busted in and the hooded men went after the two dogs. They shot one in the face, then proceeded to shoot it 3 more times, killing it. The more timid of the dogs goes running into the other room and was shot while running away, then once again and bled to death.Meanwhile, the mother is pushed on the floor, handcuffed with the plastic ties, and a gun put to her head. The mayor, hearing the shots, announces that he is upstairs and slowly walks down the stairs with his hands up. upon reaching near the bottom, he too is handcuffed with the plastic ties. No reasons were given as to why these men were in his house. Looking out the door that was once there he see's police officers, proving that he wasn't being burglarized. He started going through his head as to what he would have done wrong and could not think of anything. The wife is driving home and sees all the commotion and thinks the worst and upon coming out of her car asked about her husband and mother and then her dogs. She breaks down upon finding out that her dogs had passed. They were like her children. The dogs are brought out of the house on stretchers, dead, by animal control, dripping blood everywhere.
The police continue to go through everything and say a "warrant is on the way." They seem defeated when they find nothing, no cash, bongs, rolling paper, nothing that would point to these two being involved in the drug business. They leave with only the box that was mailed to the house and leaves the home in ruins and covered with dog blood. The husband, Cheye, calls a friend to come help clean up the blood for Trinity, his wife. The three of them sleep in the living room on an air mattress because they were scared. Their door wouldn't lock and a drug dealer didn't have his weed.
Trinity's father, her mothers first husband, came in the next few days to help out with the house and didn't leave till all of the blood was gone in the house and the sidewalk. The mother took leave and organized the house to put it back into the state it was before the incident. Their life and home would never feel safe again.
The Prince George's County Police never apologized for what they did. They said that they do know that drug dealers have been delivering packages to innocent people hoping to get the package off the front porch before the people come home from work.
So, what does this all mean? Has the War on Drugs stepped over civil liberties? What rights do people truly have over their property and their loved ones? Has big government stepped over it's boundaries? I believe the answer is yes.
Police should never be able to just go into someone's home without knocking unless they have strong evidence that they will be in danger. The article pointed out that the police could have easily discovered that this was the mayor's house and his wife that the package was addressed to if they simply Googled the name or actually contacted the local police.
I am completely disgusted by this whole story. It makes me see the views of Libertarians as a possible party that I may look more into. I cannot understand how government can do this and believe that our founding fathers would be disgusted by how we are running the country.
If I were you, I would just go and make some grammatical corrections to your post - I read a lot of "see's" and at first you call the mayor "governor." Those types of mistakes sometimes make the author look as though they know not what they say...I don't think you're that type of person.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your initial assertions, I agree that perhaps reform needs to be done to the social infrastructure in the United States, however you informed me, a boy from the urban setting of Chicago, exactly why you would have such views towards social programs...you're from the suburbs. It takes a certain amount of experience in Urban America (yes I capitalized urban)to truly understand why we need some social programs. Issues of welfare, and social funding is much deeper then the way you make it sound.
Explore the differences in education funding between Fairfax VA and Chicago IL...and then look at the resulting test scores. Look at the average single family household rates in Urban America and compare that to success rates in terms of college graduation and whatever else you'd consider a part of a successful lifestyle. I think if you knew these things you wouldn't be so radical to get rid of what little these people have left.
And what social programming had to do with your second post, I have absolutely no clue...but still, I just wanted to address the first assertions.