Restricting Your Movement

What we are seeing on an international level is the restriction of your ability to move about freely. It began with border patrols and then passports were created. Passports were not actually required for traveling from country to country until after World War I. The primary purpose of the passport was only to prove the country of citizenship and allow the person to return to their own country, it was not needed to leave your country. Why should I need permission to leave my country if another country will allow me in. Up until 911, Americans could travel to both Mexico and Canada without a passport.

Now here is where we get into what is really going on. After 911, Mexico did not require a passport for US citizens to go there, the United States did. If the problem is terrorists coming into the United States then why should I need a passport to leave if the other country will let me in?

Okay, lets look at other travel restrictions. In order to drive a car you need to have a drivers license. In the United States we tend to believe that drivers licenses were intended to prove that you had taken a test and knew how to drive; but, the reality is that up until 1977 you could buy a car and drive on the roads of Belgium with no drivers license. It was not until 1913 that any state of the union required a drivers license of all people who drove within the state and years later before all the other states required it. It has now become our primary form of identification.

The people in many countries hate the idea of having to have a national identification as it was used by the Nazis and the Communists, you needed permission to move about in your own country and people did not like it. Your drivers license and Social Security card served the same purpose and both were sold on the idea that neither was required to travel or for use as identification and both became exactly that.

You cannot take a boat, plane or car to another country without having a passport and a drivers license today. Lets fast forward. The TSA is now conducting check ins at train stations in the United States. Why should I need to prove who I am to take a train within the United States. Oh, in Sweden to take a bus you must use electronic currency and it identifies you. LOL.

You can take your boat and sail to another country; but, the United Nations is about to pass the Law Of the Sea Treaty (yes we are truly lost). What do you want to bet that it will require a form of identification is required to just sail in the international waters which no man has a right to control?

So our right to travel is restricted by plane, boat and train. It is restricted by car. Well, maybe I can use horses. Sorry, those are chipped and the wild horses are being killed, this has been going on against the law by the government for about 10 years.

My question is then, by what manner of transportation am I allowed to move about freely? I guess by bicycle in most places and by foot. Prior to the 1900s most people in history had never been further than 20 or so miles from their home in their life.

Well here is a thought, at least you can still take the bus or subway without having to report who you are. Well, up until now. Here is a lovely story from The Baltimore Sun - MTA recording bus conversations to eavesdrop on trouble

The local transit authority for Maryland is going to begin not only filming inside the buses; but, it will also be recording all of your conversations and storing them electronically. Here is what their defense is according to the article (the next two paragraphs are taken directly from the linked article.

"But one of the bills' sponsors, Del. Melvin Stukes, an MTA customer service investigator, said state officials have been "gun-shy" in dealing with the ACLU and unions. The intent of the legislation, he said, was to eliminate bad language that often sparks violence.

"This is not your bathroom. This is not your bedroom. Buses are public spaces and people are elbow to elbow," Stukes said. "I'm not trying to punish people. I'm just trying to clean up problems I hear about every day so that people realize that MTA is trying to provide a more congenial, more cordial ride."

I guess just want us to talk nicely. That is the dumbest thing I have even heard. There is no law against cussing on a bus, cussing itself is not illegal. They do not claim that they will arrest people for using profanity so why do they need to record the conversations?

I do hope my wonderful and intelligent readers see where this is going. Your travel will not be restricted just as long as we know who you are and where you are going and eventually why; but, we can guess that using the internet. You might ask why restricting travel is so important, it is fairly simple it is to control communications that do not go over the internet or cell phones, those are already claimed to be unprotected by the courts, no right to privacy with either.

While there are those who might think the Pimpernel is just some slob, the fact is that I am a recognized expert on the Constitution. Ask your attorney how many American Jurisprudence Awards they have, I have two and one is in Constitutional Law. People who know me personally read this blog and are more than welcome to see it; but, they know. Now lets talk about cell phones.

When radio first came out, it was determined that there was only so much band with that existed and therefore any company wishing to broadcast radio had to do so in a proper manner, they sort of had to fulfill a public benefit because there was a limitation on how many could broadcast. That made sense and the court cases gave the government the right to regulate the airwaves. Times change and now we have cell phones, yet, the same old court cases were used to say that the government has the right to listen into your private conversations because they have the right to monitor the airwaves; but, that is to make a joke of the reasons behind the original cases. The logic was twisted.

The government was not allowed to tap your phone, to record or listen to your private calls because they could not be heard by others, they were not public broadcasts that could be heard by anyone with a radio. It was presumed that the operators were not listening in and the rules prohibited them from doing so, though some did. Cell phones can be listened to by anyone with the proper equipment and that was used as one of the excuses for allowing the government to tap all cell phone conversations; but, the joke is that I am less concerned about some random person attempting to listen to ever cell phone conversation than the government doing the same. The government has taken the prior court decisions and completely ignored the logic behind them to get to the result they want.

I want you to think about this. The laws were put in place to protect the unwitting public from seeing or hearing obscenity without knowing what they might be exposed to. If a parent was just checking out different radio stations they didn't want their child to hear things that were improper. If something were not publicly broadcast with the technology of the time, the telephone, then it was protected and nobody was authorized to listen in. This same logic and court rulings apply to e-mails, they are unprotected because someone with a lot of time could read them and the solution is that the government can read them all. We made the rules to protect your privacy and those same rules are now used to say you have none, that is not good logic.

So, the government does not trust it's own citizens. They want to know everything that you say and do. The restriction travel allows them this ability because you are only going to walk so far.