23 May 2011

What You Gonna Do?

Good thing this clown is a sheriff:

According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Unlike police chiefs, sheriffs (in Indiana, at least) have to be elected to their office.  This means that the good citizens of Newton County will have an opportunity to kick this jack-booted thug out of office when he comes up for re-election.  If they do not take advantage of this opportunity, any violation of their rights will be entirely deserved, and will not deserve anyone’s sympathy.

And take note, America:  If you refuse to stand up against those who seek to violate/ignore/trample your rights, you will get everything you deserve.  The correct response to the TSA’s enhanced pat-downs is lawsuits, boycotts, and angry calls, letters, emails, and faxes to your state and federal representatives.  Standing by and watching your children get molested in order to enjoy the “convenience” of flying is unconscionable.  These are your rights; defend them.

Likewise, the proper response to this outrage in Newton County is booting this clown out of office, coupled with angry letters, phone calls, and emails to every state official.  In fact, it would be a good idea to pester the ICLU into appealing the ruling, if they haven’t begun to do so already.  One might consider writing an amicus curiae for the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals as well, assuming an appeal is accepted.

At this point, it is obvious that the rights of those not only in Newton County are in danger of being trampled to death, but the rights of all Americans are in a likewise precarious situation. The question, then, remains:  are you, as Americans, just going to lay there and take it?  Or will you stand up for yourself for a change?


  1. If I'm not leaving the contienent, I now refuse to fly. I haven't had occasion to go overseas for several years now, but that's the only reason I would consider flying.

  2. @Oz- I wish more Americans had your attitude. I bet airlines would be more inclined to lobby against the TSA if their profits disappeared because people decided to boycott flying.

  3. Police chiefs are also elected, 'round here.

    As for flying, I've held Oz's view since the liquid ban went into effect. If it's not possible to get there by driving, I don't go. Simple.

  4. @Matt- I haven't heard of very many police chief elections, which is why I hesitated to include them. Do police officers in your area behave with more courtesy to citizens? I ask because one difference I've noted between sheriffs and police officers is that former aren't as antagonistic to citizens, and I suspect that's because they have to answer to citizens directly.

    In regards to the boycott, I'm now beginning to wonder what sort of impact the TSA has made on a) gas prices and b) tourism. I wonder where I can find relevant stats.

  5. Well, I don't know if it's strictly a local thing or not, but I also live in Indiana, so my chief of police has at least theoretically the same power to do house-to-house searches as that idiot sheriff does. I'm not too frightened, though, since he's also my next-door neighbor, the county treasurer lives further down the block, and our state house rep is a block over. :)

    My guess on the reason sheriffs are usually better with the public is because their domain of responsibility doesn't incline them quite as much to think of everyone not wearing a badge as a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet. They mostly guard the jails (where the line between who's a criminal and who's not has already been established by due process of law), serve court papers (on people who might or might not be criminals, but usually won't come out shooting at the guy who's just bringing paper), and patrol a few unincorporated areas (where there's almost no crime except speeding...and a speeder's likely to bitch about his ticket but pay it anyway, and then go back to being a law-abiding citizen).

    As for me, in a sense it could be said that I support this new initiative. Let's go ahead and just drop the whole "serve and protect" bullshit once and for all. Let the police openly declare themselves to be exactly the hostile occupying army they already are and have been for decades, and see just how much support they manage to retain from the ordinary citizens then.

    There are more of us than there are of them, and the only reason they've ever gotten away with the sort of thing they've been doing is that most people think of themselves as law-abiding, and thus safe. Drop the illusion, and being a cop gets a lot less safe.

  6. @Matt- I support ending the charade as well. The sooner everyone wakes up to the fact that cops are a hostile army and the public servants they claim, the better.