Govt. Tyranny: Part Deux

Earlier, I posted a piece about the govt. using extortion tactics against farmers.  Now, we see the govt. up to the same tricks against public libraries:

DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books ‘Inaccessible’ to the Blind

( – The U.S. Justice Department says it has reached a settlement with the Sacramento (California) Public Library over a trial program the library was conducting that let patrons borrow Barnes and Noble NOOK e-book readers.

That’s sad, but what’s sadder still is there are people who will defend this sort of lawlessness in the name of “fairness” and “social justice.”  Well then, FINE!  Let’s make it fair; let’s send the federal govt. after your cars next.  After all, they’re technology and the blind don’t have access tot hem, either.  Well, make that “don’t have access yet.”  After we make you pay for these for the blind, THEN you can buy yourself a car:

Self-Driving Cars Approved by California Legislature

When will this sheer, utter stupidity stop?  When we make Greece look rich and the gulag like a bastion of rights and liberty?


17 thoughts on “Govt. Tyranny: Part Deux

  1. The DOJ and the California Legislature are wasting time and resources on non-issues instead of concentrating on pressing issues.

    • Tex, you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? Here’s your chance to get some of that class-action moolah. File a suit on behalf of the Californians who are both blind and deaf.
      I wonder what the cost of a Braille E-reader would be? It’s worth it, whatever the price, because no one wants to see a street full of angry deaf/blind people, signing their outrage, stumbling over the curbs, bumping into one another. Well, almost no one.

  2. I propose all senior citizens join this class-action suit. Due to our failing eyesight those E books aren’t worth a damn to us and the government is making it increasingly difficult to get our driver’s license renewed. I want someone to buy me one of those self-driving cars.

  3. I truly believe our government (and government employees) are loosing their collective minds.


    Museum of New Hampshire History Apologizes To Abby Duffy, Blind Girl, For Taking Her Cane

    And this;

    Hunter Spanjer, 3-Year-Old Deaf Boy, Told By Preschool To Change Way He Signs His Name (VIDEO)

  4. I didn’t read the one about the cane, FC, I am still trying to process the second story. A three-year old’s fingers only look like a gun to someone on acid. hmmmm…..

    • Agreed, g. If the dad had just informed the woman that she was violating the disabilities act and breaking the law by taking the cane, maybe it would have turned out differently. Of course, the employee might have called the police and the dad could have been arrested and taken to jail for civil disobedience or some such crap. You never know today. Disagree with a TSA agent and end up strip searched and “detained” in a windowless interrogation room for 2 or 3 hours. Send your deaf 3 year old to pre-school and end up in front of the schoolboard having them TELL you your deaf child’s actions mimic a gun and he must change his name or be kicked out. Just plain dumb sh&t, g.

    • Greg,

      In the dad’s defense, we have been breeding citizens who do what they are told for generations now. Sometime I will tell you about a famous sociology experiment where they discovered nearly 1/3 of all people will kill another human as long as they believe someone in a position of authority is telling them they have to do it. They may have tears running down their cheeks, but they will STILL kill them. It was a fascinating experiment — and horrifying in its implications.

        • We are being programmed to fear the government, and by extension, the police or “authorities”. There is no common sense being applied by the authorities, or by many of them at any rate. It has come to the point that there is a law for everything and you can violate these laws without having any knowledge of doing so. The authorities have no compassion or usually any desire to help you understand the violation. They are instructed to write tickets and make arrests, all in the name of increased revenue. You can stand up for your right (or in this case, the little girl’s right to carry the cane), but we never know which side a law enforcement offier is going to come down on.

          A friend of mine bought a motorcycle for her boyfriend. She paid for it and it was titled in his name with her as the lien holder. There was a written contract specifying the conditions of the loan. He did not uphold his responsibility to repay the loan and paid -0- to her. She repossessed the motorcycle. He came to get the motorcycle and got loud and abusive. She called the local police department. They ordered her to turn the bike over to him despite her standing there showing them the title. She attempted to contact the chief of police (whom we both know personally) and he refused to talk to her stating, through his secretary, it was “a civil matter”. She retained an attorney who wrote the chief and advised him to get the bike back. The bike had been taken outside the city and the denied any jurisdiction. She finally got an order from the county judge and the county sheriff went with the repo guy and got the bike back. Cost her over $500 because of a city PD officer who overstepped his authority. I saw the chief of police later and asked him about it. He got snappy with me and we haven’t spoken since.

          I don’t trust ’em (police) anymore folks. Beware when calling and asking for help

          • I really hate hearing stories like that FC, because the only solution to the problems we have with an unfeeling federal govt. is more localized control. And if They become unresponsive, then we will have vigilantism and revenge murders, McCoy-Hatfiield stuff.

            • Agreed. But the said thing about the Hatfields and McCoys is the Hatfield did wrong, but did wrong because they had good reason to believe justice would NOT have been served had the other State been allowed to handle the original killing.

              Point being exactly what Greg said: when you cannot trust the authorities, more wrongs will follow “in the name of justice” and it will end up being that NO JUSTICE will be done at all.

          • Like I said: rule of men, not of law. This is — by definition — despotism at best, if not flat out tyranny.

            Remember, those laws are written for a reason: so they KNOW they can ALWAYS find something to charge you with at any given time. It is a weapon they can use to control those who oppose them — nothing more.

    • Yep. Now, had that child died because he wasn’t allowed to use his inhaler, do you think the teacher or school would have accepted responsibility? HINT: the likely answer is no. What’s more, presidents suggests the family wouldn’t have been allowed to sue, either. You see, things like that have actually happened already and the teacher and school were protected because they were “govt.”

      We have forgotten the proper role and authority of govt. power in a constitutional republic. Now, who thinks that happened by accident?

  5. Unfortunately, there are prosecutors now teaching law enforcement officers to charge citizens with crimes when they don’t have the evidence, as long as they have a good faith belief the crime was committed.

    Anarchy will blossom….

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.