Your prescriptions aren't private

If you think your prescriptions are a private matter between yourself, your health-care provider, and your pharmacist ... you're wrong.


Exclusive investigation: Your prescriptions aren't private - Story Longform:
(August 29, 2016)

“I could have lost my family, I could have lost my career,” said Marlon Jones, an assistant fire chief with the Unified Fire Authority of Salt Lake County, Utah. Jones says he was falsely charged with felonies related to doctor shopping as a result of a warrantless search by local police in Cottonwood Heights.

Investigators were looking into the theft of prescription drugs from area ambulances. With no suspects, no probable cause and no warrant, a police officer working the case logged into Utah’s controlled substance database and searched the prescription drug records for all 480 fire department employees. “I had no idea that a police officer, just on a whim, could go into my medical records and then determine what’s appropriate, in his opinion,” recounted Ryan Pyle, a fellow firefighter paramedic whose prescription records got swept up in the same warrantless search.

There are situations where other health-care providers need to know your medical history, and what prescription drugs you have been taking; this is a separate issue from law-enforcement people using your medical history in an attempt to find someone ... anyone! ... to prosecute.

There's no solution to this problem, except that if you discover that law enforcement officers have access to your medical history, and they intend to use that history to prosecute you, then you should raise holy hell.

If the police use your prescription history against you in court, your lawyer should move that any information attained by this illegal access should not be admissible in court.

We've talked about privacy issues again.  This is just another way in which well-meaning officials can use medical information against you.

Felons are exempt from the laws which require people to declare ownership of firearms, which felons are legally forbidden to possess.  This is a similar violation of the Fifth Amendment .. if not actually, then at least potentially.   See HAYNES V UNITED STATES which protects felons from prosecution from self-incrimination if they fail to register a gun which they are not legally allowed to own!

No, you do not have my permission without a warrant

Who may read my private correspondence without a warrant?

Nobody; except me, the addressee, and my mother.  And my mother is dead.

UPDATE: (9/3/16)  I'm not The Only One who objects to this governmental invasion of my personal privacy without warrant or notice.)  

the Patrick Henry Society.

FBI Director James Comey .... wants to assure us that there's nothing to see here, we should just move on.
In the meantime, he wants to invade our private conversations because he can.  
Not because he should, not because we agree to his invasion of our privacy, but because he can;
if he can break the code; since when must we count on Iphone security codes rather than the Constitution to protect our right to privacy?

He wants to have an "adult conversation"?  Then he should put on his Big Boy Pants and understand that just because that's what he WANTS, that doesn't necessarily mean he can HAVE IT!

Because Constitution.  Because WARRANT.  Because SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

Say I live on Rural Route 12, and my mailbox is a big tin thing with a red flag on the side.  If that flag is up, the mailman knows to stop and collect from my outbasket.  That's okay, that's his job and he's not reading my mail.

When you take my letters out of my mailbox, pal, you better have gone before a judge and presented a valid reason to do so.  And that judge needs to give you a warrant.  One for me, one for my neighbor, one for the stranger who just moved in down the road.  Specific cases ... not some broadly imprecise, the-whole-world "I need to read everybody's mail, 'cause one of them might be part of a conspiracy".

It's my mail, and you can't have it.  Consider that my final offer, except for the shotgun I use to keep the fox out of the henhouse.  And you're looking might red just now, pal.

Knockout Animals

David Codrea recently posted a condemnation of that "social phenomenon" (not his words) called by media "The Knockout Game".

It's not a game. It's rampant lawlessness. It's gang violence. It's a pack of jackals circling a victim


Watch this.

No "Trigger Warning", except: this is America?

  Watch while the animals find, then surround, then take down their prey.
(The video is from a commentator on Codrea's article.)

Watch them as they abuse his unconscious body, then taking his trousers and shoes, passing them around to be tossed into the air as if they were trophies.   They first take down their prey, then they violate his sanctity, then they violate his humanity.   Then they abuse his body with kicks ad punches, pick him up and toss his corpse in the air, in apparent glee.

And at some point during the killing frenzy their prey ... dies.
There may have been some time between the fatal knockout blow and his death for someone to call for an ambulance. Nobody in this video wanted  that.  They wanted to kill him, and were delighted at their success.

What are the odds, eight to one?  Hard to tell from this fuzzy video.

I've never seen anything more horrifying than this short scene.

Finally, a good reason to vote for Trump

Streisand: I’ll Leave The Country If Trump Wins | Daily Wire:

Acclaimed singer Barbra Streisand is joining the list of disgruntled celebrities threatening to leave America if Donald Trump is elected president. She made the comments during an interview with Sydney-based journalist Michael Usher during an Australian news program broadcast on Sunday.

(I'll miss Samuel L. Jackson)

Poodle Shooters

Anyone who considers the 5.56mm/.223 caliber M15 (SEMI-automatic) rifle a "Powerful Weapon" is either an ignoramus, or a Politician.
But I repeat myself.

Editorial: Finally, Democrats Speak About Gun Control:

Democrats, of course, have largely avoided the issue for many years, fearing the electoral consequences of being outgunned by the N.R.A. But in the wake of high-profile mass shootings involving powerful weapons — including a few committed by murderers with apparent terrorist leanings — and notorious killings by and of police officers in a number of cities, the party apparently thinks voters are ready to say that enough is enough. Clinton is said to be committed to making new gun restrictions a central theme of her campaign, and her choice for vice president of Sen. Tim Kaine, a former governor of Virginia who has long advocated stricter gun laws, lends credence to that scenario.

"Credence" my ...

Hillary, that bold political move is going to come back and bite you on the .....   oh, but I repeat myself.

That it wasn't a 'Battle' ... That was the Point

That Time the NRA Tied the Tiananmen Square Massacre to American Gun Rights - The Trace:

 Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University, tells The Trace that if the Chinese students had handguns at Tiananmen Square, “the result would have been an even worse disaster than what occurred. The students were outmanned by huge numbers” — an estimated 10,000 troops — ”and there is no way that, even armed, they could have won that battle.”

The egrigious comments made at the "The Trace" website demonstrate how far The Left is from understanding the underlying character of the American Citizenry.

In 1989, citizens in Communist China rallied by the thousands to protest against governmental controls on their (non-existent) political rights     There were thousands of unarmed (by fiat) citizens; there were thousands of armed troops, along with tanks, sent by the government to put down a 'riot' by 'hooligans'.

Not a protest by citizens, but a "riot by hooligans".

There never was a battle; nor was a battle planned by the protesters.

Instead, there was a massacre by armed government, with tanks and mortars to back them up, against their own citizens.

Think about that.


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Today in America ...

... free citizens demand their First Amendment Constitutional Rights to protest, to assemble, to speak; and they are not machine-gunned by federal troops because of one of the Constitutional Rights which has received a lot of bad press in the past few decades:  the Second Amendment.

Yes, the Chinese in Tienanmen Square would have still been massacred; against tanks, and massed troops with fully automatic weapons, any citizen who tried to fire upon the Government Troops would have been shot down, or crushed by tanks.

Which, by the way, was exactly what happened.   But what if those unarmed citizens had been armed?

They would still have been machine-gunned, still have been crushed by the treads of tanks, and the "rebellion" would still have been crushed along with their bodies.

... but in America there is a constitutional right to be armed.   And as bad as the Chinese devastation of their own people was, an American devastation would not be entirely one-sided.

That would result in more than a highly publicized protest; that would result in a Civil War.  One which was not sparked by regional differences, or a demand to Secession  as our own Civil War was.

This would have been clearly understood as a People demanding their right against a Totalitarian, Tyrannical government ... and  it would have resulted in blood being shed on both sides.  It wouldn't been 10,000 troops against unarmed civilians.  It would have resulted in many, many deaths on both sides.  American troops are reluctant to fire on unarmed civilians, but they are more reluctant to fire on armed civilians who are protesting their rights.

OREGON:

Earlier this year we witnessed an attempted protest by ranchers in my home state.  It wasn't settled by the murder of hundreds of protesters; it was settled by the murder of a single leader of the protest.

(And aren't we SO much more 'civilized' than the Red Chinese?)

WAS this a murder?   It was a protest, not a battle.   One can't help but wonder how Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University might have compared it to Tienanmen Square.

The only difference between China and the current administration in America is that the Chinese government is at least open in it's thuggery; the current administration in America is more .....
,,, selective.

It's nice to live in a civilized society, isn't it?

GOOOOOOOOD Morning Vietnam!

Adrian Kraunaur was one of the most beloved Disk Jockeys in Viet Nam.

I have heard that, but I never heard him; he was there in '65-66, I was there in '69-70.  So I never actually heard him.  I found this video on the web, which was him.  Here's what he really looked and sounded like.



Okay, that's not very exciting.

Now, here's Robin Williams' version:



What's important about the original interview with The Real Adrian?

He describes Robin williams as someone who was insecure and ... well, if you really care, you can go back and play the ENTIRE Adrian Kraunaur interview.

Who every thought that Robin Williams was that insecure?  Until this year.

Back Story:
So I was chatting with a friend and listening to the Radio back in 1987 (I guess) and the radio station came on with a contest:  they playing a song and asked for callers to be the first to name the song and the artist.  I said "Oh heck, that's Pink Sunshine singing "I Never Knew My Daddy Was A Funny Boy", from their album "The Wall"  (I'm making this up .. it was 30 years ago for crissakes!) and when I called the station they said "That's Right!  You just won two free tickets to "Good Morning Vietnam".

So I gave them my address, they sent me the tickets, and my friend and I went to see the movie.

I was disappointed in this YouTube video, because they never showed the punchline .... which I thought was the best line of the movie:

At the end, this cute little VietNamese kid, whom Kraunaur had made friends with, runs off into the middle of Saigon and blows himself up.

Kraunaur/Williams turns to the camera, and says his memorable line:

"That's NOT going to look good on my resume."

I guess you need a really dark sense of humor to appreciate it.

When he hanged himself, I didn't think that really looked good on his resume, either.

Blue Light Special

9 injured after balloons cause Orlando mall shooting scare:

I see where 9 people were injured in the panic resulting from some balloons popping in an Orlando shopping mall, but I don't see any reports of firearms being drawn in defense by CHL carriers.

Wasn't Florida one of the first states in America to legalize Concealed Carry?

Instead, shoppers were so amazed that their expected "Blue Light Special" didn't announce special one-time discounts on merchandise, they trampled each other in panic.

Floridians ... this is NOT going to look good on your resume!

The Witch is Back!

Re-working an old law for a new ‘effective immediately’ gun grab - Personal Liberty:

Gun owners in Massachusetts are running into all kinds of problems as they attempt to deal with Attorney General Maura Healey’s unilateral decision to ban hundreds of previously legal firearms by reinterpreting a 1998 law. Boston Herald reported that Healey is taking a new approach to enforcing the law, which mirrors the federal assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, to keep gun makers from producing state-compliant versions of the rifles on the ban list.

Wimpy HEALEY sez:

"I would gladly ban you tomorrow for a gun that is legal today!"

What we have here is an 'ex post facto law', which means that you (gun owner) are penalized today for some act you legally performed yesterday (bought a firearm); because Healey says that you have purchased an object which, although legal when you bought it, is no longer legal. So you are liable to awful penalties.

Because ... Healey.

There are flies all over this reeking pile of doggie-doo, and only the people who might be directly affected by this the proposed law are calling "SHAME!" on it.

PERSONAL NOTE:  I once had an RTO (Radio-Telephone Operator) named Healey working for me, who proved his courage by calmly continuing to maintain contact with 'higher authorities' under direct fire as I was crying for illumination (flares from Base Camp Artillery) during a fire-fight.   He got through, directed adjustment for consecutive Artillery Flares so we could see what we were shooting at, and was entirely unruffled during the entire kerfuffle.   I hope he is not related to the Healey-creature in question, because I thought he was an exemplary individual.

The Venezuelan Solution

In blood-drenched Venezuela, police may be part of the problem

The police (and the Military) in Venezuela have a tough decision to make every day.

They don't know whom to shoot.

The Militants, the Criminals, or the Citizens?  

Tough call, so the Police and Military have refined their problem until it is no longer a problem:

Just shoot everybody who has a gun.

The Criminals and the Militants have also adopted this philosophy, except that they don't require their victims to have a gun.   They just shoot everybody.

In fact, they often shoot police (and military) just to gain possession of their guns.

The Citizens of Venezuela are in a quandary, though; they're not legally allowed to own a gun, but they know that the police, the military and the criminals consider them to be sheep; all three groups predate on them to one degree or another, and so they have decided that it's better to be shot for a wolf than a sheep.

As a consequence, they find guns, somewhere, if only to protect themselves from the police, the Military, and the Criminals.   Hell, they're going to die anyway!

Which doesn't work out very well for the (otherwise) peaceful citizens of Venezuela, except that they might ... maybe .. someday .. be able to defend themselves against the criminals; who are not necessarily to greatest threat to the peaceful citizens of Venezuela, and their families.

In America, there is a great cry to restrict legal firearms possession to the police, and the military.

Criminals, it is widely accepted, will have guns anyway.

But in a country (Venezuela .. I love that name) where firearms ownership is forbidden, as soon as an honest citizen acquires a firearm to protect themselves ... they have allowed themselves to be a target for the police, and the military.

Well, they're already a target for the criminals.  And in Venezuela, there is a fine line between police, military and criminals.  A line which has been crossed, as a matter of course.


Venezuelan military/police have been murdered by criminals for the sole purpose of acquiring their guns.

Some Americans have made the case that firearms in America should only be possessed by police, and Military.

Is this what you want America to turn into?  You want to live in a Northern Venezuela?

Remember .. in America, police have no obligation to protect citizens from crime.   Even the near likelihood of murder imposes on obligation on police to protect citizens.  Their job is to show up when the blood runs cold, and 'investigate'.  Not to stop mureders.

And today, in California, a new law designed to keep arms away from 'dangerous persons' is adding problems to the already addled mix of Laws and Permissions, to the point where nobody seems comfortable with their Second Amendment rights because .... who knows?

It seems to me that when you try to abridge constitutional rights, you've opened a Pandora's Box of complications and confusion which serves no citizen well.  

California has long been a hotbed of conspiracy against the Constitution; the lawmakers there seem to consider their state to be the testing ground of new ways to impose limitations on the civik rights of their citizens.

Other than as an exercise of their power over the people who elected themselves to high office, it's difficult to understand why elected officials in California should consider their High Office as a license to steal ... steal away the freedoms, steal away the protections, and steal away the dignity of their fellow citizens.

I use to live in California.  It has an "iffy" weather pattern, they buy water from other states and could not otherwise sustain their bloated (both in ecological and political terms) population.

There is not a great deal to choose from, between Venezuela and California.

Except that in Venezuela, you get to shoot the bastards.