Who Do You Trust? America's Confidence in Government

I admit that I didn't watch President Biden's "State of the Union Address" on Tuesday. Frankly, I didn't care. Now, it's not that I don't care about what's happening in America or elsewhere in the world. Far from it. I am very concerned about what is happening around the world and here at home in the U.S..

It's just that I'm not interested in hearing the lies and watching the antics coming from both sides. This is not what I expect from people who are suppose to be educated and elected to serve the American People. I see two camps having more in common with the faux-gang "Jets" and "Sharks" from the West Side Story than the likes of Jefferson, Washington, or Lincoln!

The lack of respect and civility is not linked to one party (although the media would like for you to think so). It's both parties and it's been going on for far too long now. They act like spoiled children on a school playground, or worse, like some cheap "reality" TV show (the "Kardashians" come to mind).

It illustrates the near total breakdown of our the political system into two extremist camps. America is no longer the Republic it was intended. It's a neo-fascist Corporatocracy run by an Oligarchy. The rest is all kabuki theater with the corporate media acting as the chorus or narrator from ancient Greek plays, directing our attention from one actor to another and editorializing the scene with their comments.

I know that I'm not the only person who feels this way.  Based on several polls, most Americans overall have little or no trust in the media. In a Gallup Poll from October 2022, only about 34% say they had a "great or fair amount of trust" in the media. In a poll conducted in 1976, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and Watergate, that number was 72%.

That same poll showed that over one third (38%) of Americans had absolutely no trust in the media at all. By comparison, that figure was just 4% in 1976. Today, 28% currently acknowledged having  confidence in the media.

It's worth noting that those who do trust the media the most tend to be Democrats (70%). Those who trust it the least are Republicans and conservatives (86%). Independents (the nation's largest political bloc) have a pretty low feeling about the media too (73%).

Given that freedom of speech, expression, and assembly are listed first among our list of freedoms, that's significant. It impacts our core as a nation, but should we be surprised? After all,  America is no longer a Republic. It's a corporatocracy, meaning that it's our political institutions, economy and judicial system exist to represent corporate interests, not that of the American People.

As an aside, a corporatocracy is not "Communist" or "socialist" (unless you're referring to "corporate socialism" or "corporate welfare"). It is, by definition, a form of fascism. This fits in rather neatly with our surveillance state. Those who run this corporatocracy are members of the top 1% percent or so, commonly referred to as a oligarchy or kleptocracy.

So, when we look at the news media, what we see is the product of just five corporations. That's right. Just five corporations control 96+% of everything we read, hear, and watch. That includes not just the news and its content, but television programs we watch, the movies we see, the video games we play, many of the books selected for mass publication as well as majority of the magazines and newspapers out there not to mention the radio stations we listen too.

This control extends naturally to government where it has formed a sinister symbiotic relationship of sorts. Corporations underwrite the funding of both political parties and individual campaigns. They influence who gets what committee assignments or the backing needed to run for which office.

Their lobbyists not just review bills, but also provide summaries and make "recommendations" to the appropriate individuals on how to vote, but often write the legislation. Through their connections with the media, they can affect public opinion. As an aside, as of 2023, there are 12,096 registered lobbyists to lobby Congress. None of them are there on your behalf.

In a separate Gallup poll from October 2022, they include some interesting numbers about confidence in the three branches of government---Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. According to the poll, only 43% of Americans have any trust in the Executive branch irrespective of who is occupying it.

38% of voters say they have any confidence in the Legislative branch (the Senate and House of Representatives) regardless of which of the two corporate parties are in control. That's not really surprising since the approval rating for both branches of Congress have been in the proverbial toilet for decades (in recent years, the approval numbers have been as low as 9%).

What's is surprising, however, is the trust that voters place in the Judicial branch. Historically, most Americans trusted the judicial system. It seemed to be exempt from the public's contempt of the other two branches. Not anymore. Ever since the Supreme Court's dual bungling of Citizens United and Roe v Wade, their numbers have taken a nose dive. The poll showed that just 47% of Americans had any faith in the Judicial branch.

Ironically, when it came to state and local governments, there was a dramatic turnabout. According to the poll, 57% of those surveyed trusted their state government while 67% trusted their local government. Perhaps this shouldn't be too surprising since American was intended to have a weak federal government while state and local governments were to be stronger, reflecting their closeness to the people. Apparently most Americans still feel the same way.

When we look at "trust" by political division, we get a glimpse of the nation's schism. When asked if they had a "great deal or fair amount of trust" in the Executive branch as an institution,  86% of Democrats said yes. 43% of Independents agreed, but just 7% of Republicans/Conservatives went along.

When asked the same question about the Legislative branch, there was a similar response. 54% said they did. However, only 36% of Independents had any faith in the Legislative branch while only 25% of Republicans/Conservatives. did.

In looking at the Judicial branch, we had a reversal. 67% of Republicans/Conservatives trusted the nation's legal system (perhaps a reflection of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Roe v. Wade). Yet, despite overwhelming support from the Right, just 25% of Democrats had any confidence in the Judicial system. Meanwhile, the majority Independents have only a 46%  rate of trust.  

As an aside, our currency is suppose to be backed solely on the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Government. Kind of makes you wonder what happens next when the majority of Americans have no or little faith in a federal government which is  $31 trillion dollars in debt doesn't it?  

When the question turned to local and state governments, we got a rare agreement among the three primary political factions. When asked about having trust in state government, 64% of Democrats said they did. So did 56% of Republicans/Conservatives and 54% of Independents.

What about local government? Well, again there was some cross agreement. 73% of Democrats, 70% of Republican/Conservatives, and 61% of Independents agreed that they trusted in local government.  

So, what does this mean? The responses appear to indicate what many of us suspected. The federal government and its control by Wall Street is the primary problem. We want a government which is closer to us where we can have more input and control (not unlike what our Founding Fathers wanted too). We also don't like the control of information we currently see. We just want to be given the unvarnished facts.  

Lastly, with the majority of Americans having left the two Wall Street parties, the American voter has made it abundantly clear what they thought about all the partisan incompetence, petty bickering, corruption, media bias, and election rigging. 

It appears that nearly everything happening in Washington is the antithesis of what it means to be an American.  So, now when we talk about where the fundamental changes in our corrupt political system need to be made first, perhaps this gives us a starting point.

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Trustin Federal Government Branches Continue to Falter

 

American Dystopia

Americans' Trust in Media Remains Near Record Low

 

Sanctuary Cities and Crime: A Lethal Combination

"Sanctuary Cities" tend to be a very controversial topic as you may well imagine. After all, it's topic which deals with human lives and our treatment of fellow human beings, the notion of "just" versus "unjust" laws, and economics, which of course, impact everybody in one fashion or another. Many will argue that use of "Sanctuary Cities" is little more than an attempt to usurp Federal authority over immigration laws; laws which some feel are unjust in that it denies individuals the freedom of movement and opportunity to seek self-betterment through economic means. In short, "Sanctuary Cities" revalidate the notion of being an American, such as the pursuit of happiness and individual sovereignty. Opponents , on the other hand, see sanctuary cities and other communities as nothing more than an attempt to circumvent Federal laws by aiding and abetting criminals.

As proof, some point to the unspoken policy of the liberal media to downplay the seriousness of the crime and refer to these individuals as "undocumented" or "unauthorized" immigrants rather than as illegal immigrants, and certainly never as criminals even though technically, although that would be their correct designation. The media also attempts to portray these individuals as simply being hardworking individuals holding down regular jobs trapped by an unjust system and hounded by inbred uneducated genetic throwbacks (a characterization that opponents of illegal immigration would strongly object to).

In addition, some would argue that the use of "Sanctuary Cities" is little more than an attempt to increase Federal aid money, which is based on population counts, as well as to fill low paying and hard to fill jobs. Just another attempt expand the "Nanny State" on the backs of taxpayers. At present, there are some 300 so-called sanctuary cities and towns in the United States with Louisville Kentucky, a mid-size city on the Ohio River, becoming the latest to join its ranks. Best estimated put the number of illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. at 11.3 million. The majority of these individuals live in California, Nevada, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois, while other states, including Louisiana, Alabama, Kansas, Georgia, and South Carolina have seen a significant rise in population.

Prior to 2015, the majority of illegal immigrants were from Latin America, with a majority of those being from Mexico. However, an April 2017 Pew Survey indicates that may be changing. Pew's report shows that the number of illegal Mexicans has dropped from a high of 6.4 million in 2009 to 5.6 million as of 2016. So, who is making of the difference? According to the poll, most of the new arrivals are from Asia, Haiti, and Central America. Nevertheless, there hasn't been a significant drop in the overall population of illegal immigration despite the drop of Mexicans crossing the border illegally. This is mainly due to efforts to bringing extended family members into the country to join those already here.

As for employment, Pew's poll indicates that illegal immigrants account for 8 million individuals; mostly employed in low paying positions such as hotel/motel housekeeping, the construction industry, childcare and custodial. The poll also notes that, for the first time, the majority of illegals living in the U.S. have been here for at least a decade, which brings us back to "Sanctuary Cities". It should come as no surprise that the population of illegal immigrants entering "Sanctuary Cities" has increased, and continues to do so. Sanctuary cities and towns tend to provide a wide array of services which helps them find jobs, medical care, housing, educational for themselves or children, and perhaps most important of all, ways to evade law enforcement and circumvent government red tape. However, with the influx of illegal immigrants, also comes the criminal element. As with the turn of the 20th Century, immigrants arriving from mostly poor and patricidal countries such as Italy, Poland, and Russia eventually brought with them the criminal gangs from the Old World, which would adapt and reorganized for the same reasons as before----power, money, and prestige.

Crime in Sanctuary cities usually go unreported. Most of the crimes are petty act of vandalism, panhandling, drunk and disorderly conduct, harassment, and general low level crimes. In most cases, the police let the individual off with a warning (assuming they can be found and identified), while other are briefly held and released. ICE (short for Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the federal agency charged with arresting and deporting those here illegally, are not notified as per the overarching policy of being a Sanctuary City.

Take this case in point. San Francisco has long been a Sanctuary City, and with it a policy of not reporting the arrest or detention of illegal immigrants and of not cooperating with ICE agents. In July of 2015 Kathryn Steinle, a 32 years old, was walking along the city's famous Pier 39, near Fisherman's Wharf with her father, when she was attacked and murdered by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet of mostly petty crimes. However, of note, Mr. Lopez had been deported five times previously until finding "sanctuary" from authorities in San Francisco. Just a few months previous, Mr. Lopez was arrested on drug charges. The charges were (inexplicably) dropped, and despite ICE having learned of his arrest and making a formal request to be turned over to them, Mr. Lopez was released just prior to the arrival of ICE agents. The reason? San Francisco's policy of non-cooperation with federal authorities due to their "sanctuary" status. Had they cooperated, Ms. Steinle would likely still be alive. According to the Center for immigration Studies, of the estimated 8,100 illegal aliens arrest for a crime and subsequently released, 1900 were rearrested within a 9 month period on charges totaling 7500 charges according to a 2014 study.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, that illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for committing over 13% of all crime in the U.S. The Justice Department reports that for the same period, 19% or 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors were for violent crimes committed by illegal aliens. 22% or 13,300 were for felony drug charges. The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75% of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug violations were illegal immigrants. Want more? How about this. The FBI reported that from 2005 to 2008 there were 67,642 murders committed in the U.S., and from 2003 until 2009 there were 115,717 murders. The General Accounting Office indicates that 25,064 of these were committed by an illegal immigrant.

In California alone, which has a prison population of 130,000, 2400 of the inmates are illegal immigrates who had been convicted of murder. Additionally, for every 100,000 illegal immigrants, 92 are imprisoned for a violent crime. Does that sound like a low number to you? Compare it to this. For every 100,000 legal immigrant and citizen, only 74 are convicted for any crime. In Arizona, this number is 64 per 100,000 compared to 54 citizen and legal immigrant. In New York, the number is three times higher. For every 100,000, 169 illegal immigrants are imprisoned compared to 48 legal immigrant and citizen. The numbers are similar across the board and show that despite comprising just 3.8% of the overall population, illegal immigrants are responsible for the majority of violent and drug related crimes regardless of the "sanctuary" status where the crime was committed.

But this isn't the worse it. Not by a long shot. As I stated above, illegal activity by gangs typically follows the migration patterns of their identifying group (ethnic, religious, tribal, etc). During the turn of the 20th Century, and especially during Prohibition, criminal gangs became headline news. Previously relegated to the back page local newspapers, the likes of Al Capone and "The Outfit", "Dutch" Schultz, the Purple Gang, Dion O'Banion and his North Side Gang, "Legs" Diamond. Owney Madden, the Harlem Gang, Murder Incorporated, "Bugsy" Siegel and Frank Costello captivated the public's imagination. The majority of these criminal groups were mostly ethnic, Sicilian/Italian, Jewish, Irish, Black, or German. The gangs today are no different. Some of Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Columbian, black, or Bosnian. Today's gangs however, are far more ruthless. While the gangs of the past seem to have a moral compass, at least when it came to "civilians", today's gangs have little regard for human life, and even less of personal property.

The top ranked gangs are often far above the capabilities of local law enforcement. In many cases, they nearly exceed government forces in places like Mexico or Latin America. Here in the U.S. it usually takes the training and resources of federal agencies to gain an handle on the situation, which presents a problem for sanctuary towns and cities who, on one hand, thumb their noses are federal laws, and on the other hand hold it wide open for federal money needed to equip or train police officers or pay for the formation of special units and any overtime. Quite the pickle should Washington opt to play the same game as cock-sure mayors or other local officials, not to mention the inevitable backlash from citizens.

So, who are these gangs? According to federal law enforcement agencies, the most lethal is MS 13, which has about 10,000 members currently in the U.S.; possibly more. MS 13 was found in Salvadorian community in Los Angeles in the 1980s and operate out 40 cities (and yes, most of those are sanctuary cities). Barrio 18 (aka The 18th Street Gang or M 18) is another highly dangerous gang. According to the FBI, M 18 has "tens of thousands" members operating throughout the U.S. which, as with MS 13, includes sanctuary cities. They are active in prostitution, drug trafficking of all types, murder for hire, kidnapping, and extortion.

Barrio Azteca has several thousand member who operate primarily in the South, but also is believed to have operations in Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, and along the Eastern Seaboard. This gang is affiliated with the powerful Juarez Drug Cartel out of Mexico. They are involved with trafficking cocaine in its various forms as well as murder for hire, especially within the federal prison system and so-called "high profile" killings. The Trinitarios originated in New York City back in the late 1980s. The gang is mostly make up of individuals from the Dominican Republic. In addition to NYC, they gang operates in New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina. In addition to specializing in murder for hire, the gang is highly involved in oxycodone, crack cocaine, marijuana, and cocaine.

Chicago has its small mini-gangs (sometimes referred to "splinter" gangs which broke off larger, more powerful gangs like Gangster Disciples and the Hit Squad in the 1980s). These gangs do it all, from drug trafficking, petty crime, murder, prostitution, extortion; you name it. These gangs, which are made up mostly of juveniles (their average age is 14) are responsible for Chicago's massive murder count. An interesting aside, most of these gangs operate out of Al Capone's old South Side. Two other, more recognizable, gangs are the Crips and Bloods. The Crips were originally formed and operate out Los Angeles. This gang is a little different from the other mentioned. They are involved in bank robberies, armored car heists, store robberies, carjacking, armed assault, burglaries and rapes. Their arch rival, the Bloods, started back in the late 1960s and is one of the oldest gangs listed. The Bloods are involved in pretty every form of crime from drugs to murder and armed robbery. Like many of the other gangs, the Bloods and Crips have chapters scattered across the U.S. It should be pointed out that as much as the Crips and Blood dislike each other, they have something else in common besides their criminal activity. Both gangs are utterly despised by the Hispanic gangs already mentioned.

So, this is another plus being a sanctuary city will bring its residents, increased crime and violence, along with turf wars which have no regard life. City governments find themselves constantly trying to play catch-up with the addition costs illegal immigration brings to so-called "sanctuary" cities, just in terms of basic services. The result, thanks to higher taxes, is often local residents moving out as illegal immigrants move in. Local police, no matter how tough they think they are, struggle daily in matching the firepower of these gangs which follow the migration of immigrants, both legal and especially illegal. Meanwhile crime of all sorts increase as the gangs move in. These same gangs have no qualms about shooting cops. We'll cover more of the "bonuses" of being a sanctuary city in later issue.


5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.


Map Showing How Many 'Sanctuary Cities' Are Sheltering Illegal Immigrants in the US---And Where They Are

The Truth About crime, illegal immigrants, and sanctuary cities


USDJ: History of Street Gangs in the United States

10 Of The Most Lethal Gangs In America

Border Run to Nowhere: Children Being Dumped on the US Border

President Obama calls it a "humanitarian crisis". Others are calling it a travesty of monumental proportions or disaster in the making. What am I referring to? I am referring to the hordes of children crossing our southern border, mostly unaccompanied and all of them illegally. According to sources, approximately 60,000 have been picked up by US Authorities; 47,000 in the previous eight months. However, some 90,000 are expected to cross the border by the end of year. So, just who are these kids; where are they coming from; and why are they coming?

Most of those crossing the border, approximately 90%, are from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, although a few are coming from Mexico. 83% of the 60,000 are 14 and under. 77% of them are male. Some are as young as 4 years of age and there's been reports a children no older than nine months old. The crossings represent a 92% increase over last year. What's prompting the mass exodus from Central America, however, is not quite as clear. Why are their parents abandoning them?

Some are alleging that the surge is the result of smugglers posing as "agencies". Radio and TV commercials are airing in Central America, stating that because of Obama's amnesty for children of illegal immigrants not born in the US, any unaccompanied children coming to America will be eligible for amnesty, or at least they won't be deported. These "agencies" are nothing more than fronts for smugglers, are offering to help get the children to America before their "eligibly" runs out...for a substantial fee of course. Apparently there are isn't any truth in advertising in Latin America either.

There are some claiming that religious and organizations such the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigration and Refuge Service, and US Chamber of Commerce, all known for their pro-amnesty stances, have been encouraging the surge of illegals, and pushing a "kids welcome" message. Whether true of not, there is no question that many religious and business associations have been promoting amnesty by making numerous false claims about the future of US immigration policy and offering to transport, shelter, and help them to find jobs. The religious groups simply don't believe our immigration laws apply to them, and routinely ignore them, citing "religious sanctuary". Of course, the smugglers are offering the same services, though the jobs are generally in sweat shops working, farm fields, and living in inhumane conditions. Lastly, even the governments where these illegal immigrants are coming have been promoting their own "run for border" projects. Pamphlets have available at certain government offices explaining the ins and outs of crossing the border and what to do if caught.

Apologists for amnesty claim the "real" reason for the dramatic upturn, especially for the children, is due to an increase in activity and violence by the drug cartels, a lack of economic opportunities, corrupt governments, along with additional military and police abuse of the poor. While there are certainly a lack of opportunities, largely the result of the failure to develop a middle class due to centuries old collusion between large land owners, church authorities, and big business, that really hasn't changed much. The collusion has been willfully enforced and indeed, engrained into society in order to keep the masses poor, largely ignorant, and beholden to the rich elite. The drug cartels, as powerful as they are, have mostly left the people alone. Many of the peasants work for the drug cartels in one fashion or another to help support their families. As for the government, the military, and the police, corruption is basically a way of life. Once again, nothing new here.

So what's the leader of a declining world superpower to do? Well, how about bribery for starters? Vice President Biden, in one his rare sighting, headed to Central America for a economic trade conference. Added to the agenda, was a discussion about ending these false "amnesty for kids" claims and to get their governments onboard. To help "persuade" them, the Obama Administration will be handling out $100 million dollars to these countries to take back their children. As for the older kids, it shouldn't be much of a problem getting them back to the families, however, the younger children will present a much tougher task.

In addition, the Obama Administration will be setting aside $161.5 million dollars this year for the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) for "the region's most pressing security and governance challenges". The plan also includes an increase in US aid. Honduras gets $18.5 million, while Guatemala will be receiving $40 million and El Salvador will be getting $25 million; all for internal social programs like youth crime prevention and gang prevention (as if we don't have underfunded programs here dealing with the same issues). It's good to be king. Better to be an extortionist of a king. Better for both if it's not their money.

Meanwhile, US authorities are scrambling to find ways to deal with the masses of these willful orphans; many of whom have nothing but the clothes of their back. The majority are currently being held in various government facilities along the border area, with some now being transferred to other locations deeper in the US for processing. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently taken over the matter from the Office of Refugee Settlement. Thus far, this has costs taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars more the previously budgeted $2.28 billion dollars. The US already has in the neighborhood of 12 million illegal residents now living in the here.

The Obama Administration has issued $2 million dollars in grants to cover the costs for up to 100 attorneys and paralegals to represent these children in immigration courts set up in 29 cities including San Antonio, Miami, Tucson, and New York City. However, movement of these children out of the border areas will likely be touted in Central America as "proof" that the children are being processed to stay in the US rather, in fact, being processed for their return.

According to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report of 2013 to Congress, there are 610,000 homeless individuals living in the United States. Of these, approximately 213,344 are completely without any form of shelter; one forth of these are children. That's 1 in 45 that is or will be homeless. The largest food charity agency in America, Feeding America, states that 49 million individuals in this country doesn't get adequate nutrition. Of these, 15.9 million children are living in situations where food is sometimes unavailable. The influx of these children, most unable to speak or understand English and having little knowledge of possible relatives (if any at all), puts them a even greater risk.

Illegal immigration is already costing US taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars while staining our national safety net for legitimate citizens to the breaking point. If the federal government had acted over a decade ago when the American People overwhelmingly and consistently demanded the southern border be secured; that additional funds be allotted to protect the border (including stationing US reserve troops); prohibit taxpayer services to those here illegally; major fines for those hiring illegal immigrants, including suspending their business licenses or closing them down for repeat offences; and finally, for a serious and comprehensive immigration plan, this would not be happening. Meanwhile, while Biden bribes the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to take back their children: Obama spits and sputters; and Congress continues it pitiful performance, can we at least get the consulates throughout Latin America to do their own radio and television spots urging these desperate parents to hold on to their children? After all, that would be the humanitarian thing to do wouldn't it?


US to open new immigrant family detention center
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/263986271.html


White House to spend millions to curb undocumented children crossing border
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/politics/us-central-american-immigration/


Illegal Immigrants Treated Better Than Homeless In US
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/17/Illegal-Immigrants-Treated-Better-Than-Homeless-in-US


Humphries: Exclusive interview with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpiao
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/humphries-exclusive-inteview-arizona-sheriff-joe-a/

Privacy: Do We Still Have It?

Don Sterling was busted when his girlfriend allegedly went public with a recording of a rant against her for bringing blacks to his games (he's owner of the LA Clippers, at least for the moment). The comments were made in what was supposed to be a private conversation in his home, which now raises the question----is there any privacy left? Can we assume that nothing we say or do at any time anywhere is private? We have long been accustomed to accepting what we say and do in public is, well, public and potentially can come back and bite us on the butt. But what about in the privacy of our own home? The second issue is whether Mr. Sterling or anyone else has the right to express their opinions regardless if it's politically or socially correct or not, so long as there is no threat made or implied. In short, can we reasonably expect to be protected by the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments? Is "free speech" or our right to expect privacy a thing of the past?

We've long accepted that whatever we did or said in public was likely to end up in the news or YouTube or some other social media site, but what about what we say or do in private? We know that Google, Yahoo and other web providers track us, as do stores (all in the name of improving and individualizing customer service), so does the government. Once we could expect reasonable protect under the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments, but since 9/11, those rights have largely been circumvented in the name of national security. Today, we're all now considered potential terrorists by those whose job is to protect us.

There is no privacy at work nor should one expect there to be since the Bill of Rights doesn't apply there (it only protects individuals from the federal government). Our employers have a right to see and hear everything we do during business hours, and many are now asserting that they have a right to know everything about the private us too, including our personal habits, health condition, diet, hobbies, and even memberships. We are increasingly viewed as to the "value" we add to the company just like any other asset. And when we start becoming a liability, we're terminated. Banks look at us not as individuals, but as credit risks. They too look at our "data portfolio" just as insurance companies do in determining our "cost risk" and potential impact on their bottom line based not just on our incomes and payment histories, but where we live, our medical histories, our buying habits and so forth. Soon we'll be evaluated as to our potential "value" to the company or society before a medical procedure is approved. It seems our "own time" isn't our own any more.

We have drones in sky, watching us like cyber vultures out of a Sci-Fi novel. I can see the day when insurance companies or employers start doing flyovers to see if we're really hurt when we fill a worker's compensation claim or when we call in sick. Maybe our car or cell phone monitors will alert HR as to whether we really went to the doctor that day, and then they can check the insurance cloud to see what doctor we saw and what prescriptions were written for us. And with all this increase on technology, we're finding that not our cell phone and cars, but our Smartphone, Ipad, and who knows what else is monitoring everything we do. In place of a heaven watching us, we now have the data cloud, and it knows if we being bad or good for goodness sake! For me, another image comes to mine, such as "HAL" from the movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey" or perhaps the super computer "Colossus" in the movie "The Forbin Project".

We're consistently be asking for our opinions through surveys and polls, as well as indirectly through monitoring and our sites visited and our searches. Have you noticed that as soon as you've searched for a product, that product or similar ones start appearing through ads and emails? All this is designed to increase the data file on us---individually and collectively. I recently read an article where new homes are being equipped with monitoring devises; they sense who's there, our wants and our preferences. It turns our lights on and off, fixes our coffee, regulates the temperature, gives us a verbal update on traffic, weather, and the news. Heck, I recently read a story about development of sex robots (called sexbots) in Japan which records and stores our likes and dislikes! Seriously. Come on, whatever happened to a good old fashion hookers? Are they becoming an obsolete profession? Surgeries can be done remotely through robotics and there is even monitoring robots who visit patients. Is there nothing sacred from technology? Of course, be it medical, financial, employment, or even personal, all data is stored. To be evaluated for "the net time".

Express an opinion and soon it will no doubt be recorded somewhere. As it is now, the closest most of us will ever get to immortality is to put something on the internet, and you can bet it will find its way into some database somewhere for who knows what purpose. It seems we have finally created the perfect beast, and it is us.

Exploring the Constitution: Privacy
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Legal Information Institute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy