The Rehberg v. Paulk court decision is a few months old now, but I think it’s an important one for people to be aware of.  I claim no support for the defendant on the overall merits of the case, but I have serious concerns about the ramifications of several elements of the decision.  Specifically, these:

Here, Rehberg lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone and fax numbers he dialed. Once he voluntarily provided that information to BellSouth and Alltel (later Sprint), Rehberg lacked any further valid expectation that those third parties would not turn the information over to law enforcement officers. Absent a valid right of privacy, Rehberg cannot state a constitutional violation regarding the subpoenas for his phone and fax information.

Rehberg’s voluntary delivery of emails to third parties constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information. Rehberg does not allege Hodges and Paulk illegally searched his home computer for emails, but alleges Hodges and Paulk subpoenaed the emails directly from the third-party Internet service provider to which Rehberg transmitted the messages. Lacking a valid expectation of privacy in that email information, Rehberg fails to state a Fourth Amendment violation for the subpoenas for his Internet records.

What they are claiming is that we, as citizens, do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when doing business with our service providers.  Or, in other words, we cannot, or should not, expect that when we make telephone calls or send emails – which the vast majority of us have no means of doing without accessing some sort of service provider – that who we call, who we email, or the content of those emails will remain between us, the people we contacted, and the companies providing the service.

Now, please note that the issue here is not whether law enforcement agents could, in some manner, access the information.  The issue is that they did not require a warrant. To my mind, this is a clear and obvious breach of Constitutional rights, because they would never have obtained the information directly from the defendant without a warrant.  But because of this fictional absence of “reasonable expectation of privacy,” they claim that there was no violation of Constitutional rights in obtaining this information without a warrant.

Well, I look at it this way: Would they let me access this guy’s telephone records or emails?  Of course not!  Why?  Because that’s his private information. Hmmm…sounds like a “reasonable expectation of privacy” to me.  If the information is such that we would not expect that “Joe Schmoe” off the street should be able to access it, then common sense would dictate that the average citizen has a “reasonable expectation of [the] privacy” of that information.

So what can we do?  Spread the word.  Let the government know that we know about this decision, and that we think their idea of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in this matter is completely bogus and self-serving.  Let the telephone and internet companies know that we absolutely expect that our information will remain private (unless an appropriate warrant is issued which, hopefully, would not be an issue for any of my readers!).  In short, communicate that the court is out of touch with the will of the people and with the clear sense of the Constitution’s wording.  Anything but roll over and play dead!  We have to stay vigilant!

(The quotes above were obtained from http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100311081.  The case is Rehberg v. Paulk, and the decision was handed down by the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, on March 11, 2010.)

Filed under: Politics/Current Events by Rachel
[Comments (0)]  [link]  [TB]

Our nation has definitely seen the death – or at least the near-death – of common sense, of late.  We have also seen the death of self-control.  This is evident in a wide variety of areas.

Sexual “freedom” abounds.  Those of us who believe homosexual activity to be a sin are called “homophobes.”  Fornication and adultery are perceived as normal.  So normal, we generally don’t bat an eyelash.  The pornography industry is growing by leaps and bounds.  Even the vows taken to seal what should be the marriage covenant are viewed as more of a “suggestion.”  Those who have promised “’til death do us part” decide it’s just too hard and not worth the effort, give up, and move on.

This is apparent in less “serious” areas, as well, though.  Take food, for instance.  Americans are fat.  The diet industry is booming, and still, we’re fat.  The best diet supplements in the world cannot make up for eating junk, and lots of it.  (I do recognize that there are some people who are overweight because of medical issues, just as there are a few people out there who divorced their spouses because of serious issues like abuse.  But we’re talking about trends here, and the trends are caused by the “norms” of people who are “lazy at love,” or eat too much, and not the exceptions who have done their best and don’t know what else to do.)

The Lord told us that the one who is faithful with little will be given much, and it would behoove us to practice our self-control in the little things, so that we don’t have abused children and marriages falling apart, because when the big things come up, the proper response is less unnatural.  (I’m talking to myself here, too.  Self-control is hard, and I definitely don’t have it right!)  Let’s see if we can’t raise the next generation to believe in personal responsibility, like previous generations and unlike most of ours.

Filed under: Hard Topics, Politics/Current Events by Rachel
[Comments (10)]  [link]  [TB]

Giveaway Update: The winner is LaVonne!

[UPDATE: Thank you to Amy for very gently, lovingly pointing out that I have communicated poorly - she didn't put it that way! - in my opening paragraph.  Because I'm not sure how best to reword it at this point, I'm just going to add some clarification here.  "The liberal set..." in the paragraph below is intended to refer to those liberals who also specifically fit the description that follows; it is not intended to describe or define liberals as individuals or as a group.  If I have caused offense to any other readers, I sincerely apologize, and ask that you would have the grace to forgive the big old foot I have crammed into my mouth and see past that to the intent.]

With Earth Day coming up tomorrow, we are hearing a lot of emphasis on “going green.” Despite its apparent ownership by the liberal set who embrace “Mother Nature” as god and value animal life over human life, going green is a good thing!  In the very beginning, God put Adam in the garden “to tend it and keep it.”  Even after the Fall, Adam and Eve were told to “fill the earth and subdue it.”  We’ve been given a stewardship.  As faithful stewards, we should do what we can to make as little negative long-term impact as possible on this earth that has been entrusted to us.

For some of us, that seems a daunting task!  Our modern lives produce so much trash, pollution, and chemical contamination (of our bodies, water supplies, and the ground itself) that we don’t even know where to start!  What works for me is baby steps.  Trying to change all of my cleaning supplies and personal care products over to healthier, more earthy-friendly versions is overwhelming.  But searching for one healthier, safer substitute is doable.  (Seventh Generation has some interesting statistics about how much pollution we would eliminate if every household replaced only a single bottle of something every year!)  Recycling every potentially recyclable item is overwhelming.  But getting in the habit of recycling cans is doable.  Cutting out all of our household’s excess electrical usage is overwhelming.  But buying one power strip to enable “vampire” plugs to be turned off is doable.  (They make some that have two types of plugs, so that you can turn off only half the power strip.  This is great if, for instance, you need your DVR to stay on, but would like to turn off the television.)

This year, why not celebrate Earth Day by choosing one baby step to take – either a lifestyle change (like using a different product or beginning to recycle), or a one-time change that will have an effect in the long-term (like installing a power strip that will allow you to turn off electronics when not in use, or a timer on something that is currently always on)?  If you want to introduce a little bit of accountability, or just gain a bit of community in the process, consider taking one of Cascadian Farm’s pledges on Facebook.  These pledges are simply eight different baby steps (you choose which one(s) to commit to) in the quest to become more “green.”  For everyone who signs a pledge through May 31st, Cascadian Farms will donate $1 (up to $40,000) to the Organic Farming Research Foundation, which “fosters the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems.”  We all know that’s not only good for the earth, it’s good for us, too!  So visit Cascadian Farm on Facebook and sign a pledge, and your baby step can actually be two baby steps – the one you commit to, and the extra $1 donated to the Organic Farming Research Foundation.

I pledged to check my fridge before grocery shopping, to plan to use what’s in it, rather than buying unnecessarily and wasting food – good for the earth and for my budget!

To Win:

For a chance to win a “Live Green” prize pack from Cascadian Farm, including a reusable grocery bag and Cascadian Farm cereals and snacks…

Required entry – leave a comment on this post telling us one baby step you’ve made.  (If you’ve found a good “green” product that works, please tell us what it is!)

For extra entries (leave a separate comment for each additional entry, so I can be sure to count them appropriately) -

1. Make a pledge through Cascadian Farm’s Facebook page.
2. Become a fan of Cascadian Farm on Facebook.
3. Become a fan of Titus2Homemaker on Facebook.
4. Email a friend about this giveaway, blog about it, or share it through some other form of online social networking.
5. Subscribe to my feed.

US only, please.  This giveaway will be closed to entries at midnight, EST, on April 30th.

Note: The information in this post, about Cascadian Farms, their pledges, and the Organic Farming Research Foundation, and the prize package, were provided by MyBlogSpark and Cascadian Farms.

Filed under: Contests, Frugality & Economics, Health & Safety, Politics/Current Events by Rachel
[Comments (15)]  [link]  [TB]

Yesterday, I wrote about the War Between the States (the “Civil War”), and I promised another post about slavery.  This is that post.

The problem with slavery in the mid-19th-century South was not slavery.  It could be readily argued that slavery, in and of itself, is not wrong.  Now, if I’ve ruffled your feathers, please hear me out.  I may not be saying what you think I’m saying, but the whole post is necessary to convey the whole thought.  Throughout history, throughout the world, nations have conquered other nations and taken their people as slaves.  Even the ancient Israelites did so, with God’s blessing!  Even today, the Constitution does not forbid slavery in certain circumstances.  (Bet you didn’t know that!)  It permits slavery in instances of debt (for purposes of “working off” the debt, essentially).  Slavery was not the problem.

But there was a problem!  So, if it wasn’t slavery, what was it?  Wrong attitudes/wrong thinking.  See, the institution of slavery in the American South was not like slavery in, for instance, ancient Israel.  We did not have slaves by conquest.  (It could possibly be argued that the slaves held here were conquered by other nations within the continent of Africa, so it’s “still the same thing,” but if we argued that, we would still be missing the real point.)  We had (as a whole, at least) slaves by ethnicity, based on an incorrect understanding of personhood.

The general belief at that time was that those with “negroid” features were somehow less human than their more European counterparts.  Let me state unequivocally that this is absolutely, completely false!  This incorrect belief was the real problem with the institution of slavery in the American South.

Now, it may seem like a minor distinction to say that this was the root problem, rather than slavery itself, but it’s not.  This distinction has tremendous bearing upon the failure to properly integrate all members of society when emancipation actually did take place.  How?  Because we fixed the symptom, not the problem. We did away with slavery (apart from that debt clause), but not with the incorrect beliefs and wrong attitudes.  As a result, dark-skinned Americans had a hard time finding people who were willing to employ them, befriend them, or even live near them.  In the 1960’s, we still had separate water fountains, schools, and seats on buses – all because we never fixed the underlying attitude.  (I would venture to say that most people in the 1960’s wouldn’t say that darker-skinned individuals are inhuman, but there were still – and, in a few instances, still are – vestiges of this idea in the mistaken belief that we are fundamentally different.)

We need to all recognize that people are people, period.  The difference between your dark skin and my light skin is no greater a difference than the difference between my hazel eyes and my daughters’ blue eyes.  God made us all of one blood. There is only one human race – the human race.  To believe otherwise is the very definition of “racist.”  (So, Uncle Sam, stop asking me for my “race” on all of your forms.  If I’m filling out the form, it’s “human.”  Any further distinction is racist.)

Filed under: Deep Thinking, Hard Topics, History and Geography, Politics/Current Events, Theology & Spiritual Growth by Rachel
[Comments (4)]  [link]  [TB]

I have had this post percolating for a couple of weeks.  With all of the hoopla surrounding (VA) Gov. McDonnell’s Confederate history proclamation, I decided this would be as good a time as any to post it.

In a discussion lately about a mixed-up elderly woman who confused her state flag (of Ohio) with this one (above), a friend commented that she would have to boycott any store that flew this flag.  I was frustrated and disappointed to hear yet another expression of miseducation about the meaning of this flag.

Unfortunately, upon seeing this (the Confederate battle flag, which also happens to be the best-known of the Confederate flags), many Americans are offended.  Why?  Because they see it as racist, support of a nation that fought for the right to own other human beings.  While there may be a racist few who do intend it this way, the majority of us do not, and support of the South is very, very rarely, if ever, support for slavery.

Contrary to popular misinformation (perpetuated by a Federally-dominated educational system and, not incidentally, the victors of the so-called “Civil War”), the War Between the States was not about slavery. The Southern states were upset because they felt they were being unduly oppressed by the Federal government, and not being fairly represented (both issues which, I might add, we are still dealing with today).  In the same spirit as the Revolutionaries (George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.), they chose to remove themselves from this tyrannical government and form their own, separate nation.  At which point the power-hungry dictator Lincoln made it clear that he was more willing to beat us up, kill us off, and rape our land and families than to allow us to leave quietly.

For the South, the war was never about slavery.  It was not about “white supremacy” or “white rights”; it was about States’ rights – the right of the individual states to govern themselves as they saw fit, without undue interference from the Feds.  These men gave their lives, not to be able to own others, but to protect the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution, which were being ignored by those in power.

At that point in history, the right to secede from the Union was one generally recognized – including by those in the north.  It was looking as though England and France might come fight for us, as well.  So Lincoln had to do something.  What he did was make it about slavery, publicly speaking, so that outside support for the South would die down.  His Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but great politics – a speech that sounded good, but without any actual power behind it.  (It freed slaves only in those states where he currently had no control.)

Ultimately, when the North won the war and the slaves actually were freed, it wasn’t entirely a good thing.  Not that they were free from slavery, but how it was done.  (More on this in a whole post tomorrow/Tuesday, so if you want to chew me up and spit me out, please at least wait and read that first.)  There was a sudden flooding of dark-skinned Americans into the workplace, most of whom had nothing, had nowhere to go, were not educated (because of limitations placed on them up to this point, not due to their choices or abilities), and could not find people to hire them (because the sudden forcing of this “break” upon the American people meant that the people were not prepared for this new way of life).  Thus, the creation of the welfare system which has enslaved generations of dark-skinned Americans in stark disproportion to other segments of the population.  The Federal government is still doing us all harm – black and white alike!

So when I fly my Confederate flag, or say I’m proud to be Southern, or when I seek to commemorate my heritage as a Southerner, I am not supporting slavery or racism.  I am saying that I am proud to live in a state whose heritage includes valiant men who were willing to fight and die in the spirit of the Revolutionaries: for my rights as an American and my state’s rights as a State.  I am grateful to have been left a legacy of willingness to fight against tyranny.

[For more information, I recommend The Real Lincoln and When in the Course of Human Events ('though I don't agree with every single thing in them; When in the Course of Human Events has a discussion of evolution, for instance, near the end).  And if you still don't believe that states retain the right of secession, you might find it interesting to do a little bit of research on the states that currently have resolutions threatening secession if the Federal government continues on its current track.]

Filed under: History and Geography, Politics/Current Events by Rachel
[Comments (1)]  [link]  [TB]