Leave Or We'll Drag You Out

Business, Though Not as Usual, Starts Stirring in New Orleans

Why do we need to force residents out of their homes if business is starting to stir in New Orleans? Who's going operate those businesses?

Note the predicted influx of contractors. They, like the public servants and the volunteer workers already there, are immune to the "toxic" water and won't be in the way. The journalists who've arrived to save us all by creating an endless stream of tear jerking documentaries are certainly immune from the vilest of venom and disease.

We need the residents back in New Orleans as soon as possible before their city is taken over by outsiders.

By the way, in speaking with one particular refugee family this morning, I heard again that in many cases, such as their own, the problem is not damage to their home but lack of employment near their home until commerce is restored. They, like a lot of other folks I've met, are just needing a little help to tide them over until things get going again. Of course, many others have no home or possessions left save those they brought with them or those in fiancial accounts. Some don't have anything except the help their getting and their own God given talents and motitvation. They're going to make it!

The best thing we can do is start moving people back home where there are no significant problems. They'll get busy doing constructive things to restore their communities and will generate an economy on that alone. That will create more opportunities for others to start coming back as well.

The worst thing we can do is hold them in large congregations doing nothing. Now, in those places, there's a real risk of disease rapidly spreading.

It strikes me strangly that we know how to help third world nations learn and do these things yet in our own country we feel helpless without the government telling us what's best "for our own good".

 

Duplicate posting deleted.

 

They're a real "threat" to rescue and recovery operations. There's a whole lot more of these type "bad guys" still in New Orleans that must be removed "for their own good". Some of them even have guns! We can't have that! Citizens with guns is simply not acceptable especially when there's a possibility some really bad guys might be around. Only the government can have guns. They will protect us. It's easier for them that way and they can be safer. Besides, they know what's best for everyone and will decide. The government has a "state of emergency" now and must use every bit of that power possible to protect everyone from themselves.

For a serious comment: It absolutely amazes me that there's not complete "outrage" from citizens all over the country over this forced evacuation and confiscation of citizen's weapons. Either people just don't care, don't understand it, don't think it can happen in their community, or actually believe it's okay.

 

You're correct, poncho, it is all of the above. It is a shame.

 

Troops Won't Force Evacuations

It's good that federal troops will not be used to force evacuations although, to the best of my knowledge, that wasn't being considered to begin with. LTC Honore doesn't make policy but he sure does articulate it very well. Remember, he's the one that was seen and heard reminding his troops, as well as local police, that they were there to help the citizens - not fight them as in a war - and that they shouldn't point their weapons at them.

How, if the Governor would only be concerned enough about supporting those who've stayed, the state troops could also be prevented for joining in that effort.

The Mayor, I'm afraid, is "delirious" with his new found power and now, that the crisis of the impending storm has passed and the subsequent free reign of violence is over, he is able to subdue those residents "in the way" of rescue and recovery "for their own good".

The Mayor, by the way, is still missing about 300 of his city police officers. Where are they? Where were they? I do expect some have met with personal misfortune but I've got a strange feeling a lot of them are in refugee centers or, maybe, even amoung the "holdouts" still in the city. We have no way to know for sure but it will be interesting when, and if, that is revealed to us.

Of course, there will be no shortage of media in the area to document every bit of money making news. They even demand space on the rescue boats. They are also immune to the "toxic" water like all other the thousands of non-residents arriving in New Orleans. They're not "in the way" like some residents might be. The courts would probably protect their right to be present while ignoring the basic right to be armed or to defend one's self and property or to make decisions for one's self in the midst of this "state of emergency".

Perhaps these reporters, in the public interest of course, will even film one or two of those "holdouts" who defy the city's order as they're taken away like criminals by police who should be used to help them protect their property. Some have sworn to defend their rights to the death. I sincerely hope that does not become necessary.

 

Police won't force holdouts' removal

This is good at least from the standpoint that the order won't be enforced albeit not rescinded. Perhaps the Mayor realized they were going to have a serious fight on their hands from people wanting to make decisions for themselves and not bothering anyone else by doing so. It wouldn't be very good if residents and law enforcement officers exchanged violence on top of all the hardship already endured.

Those residents that were previously intimidated into leaving, by the obvious display of authority and potential use of force, should be brought back home if that's what they want. They also shouldn't be refused available water and food because of their decision to stay.

Where are the rest of the New Orleans police?

It's not over yet! The next step is get the government to recognize and fully respect the right of citizens to be armed if they so desire and to free to use those arms to defend themselves, their families, or their property from harm, damage, or theft.

This whole business was a stupid unjustified action by the Mayor.

All citizens should take careful note of these events and judge them as clear insight into what can be expected for local, county, state, and, maybe, even federal officials in future emergency situations. We should actively push to make certain that laws granting emergency power to such officials limit that power to those acts that are truly in the interest of "common good" and truly necessary.

 

I am not outraged. Growing up in Florida it was sheer madness to stay during an impending hurricane. More often than not, we came home to a few downed trees and no power. Minor inconveniences compared to sticking around protecting my fridge full of food or something equally replaceable.

When Andrew hit, we were all missing stuff. We learned the actual meaning of Matthew 6:21. </font>[/QUOTE]We all need to be able to make our choice about what to do based upon what we believe is best for us. I can certainly respect a decision to evacuate when faced with an impending natural disaster. I can also abolutely respect a decision not to do so. It depends upon the individual and what risk they wish to take.

We've given our government broad power during a state of emergency to, basically, do what needs to be done. This is a good thing when it's needed, to the extent it's needed, and so long as it is not misused. During such limited periods some civil liberty must be put aside. The original focus was on dealing with war and insurrection.

Nothing about this power of government should be used to do more than what's absolutely necessary and all of it should be done only when it's truly needed for the "common good" and limited to specific actions to that end.

Forcing people to make "good" decisions for themselves is not the proper role of government. Government is not responsible to protect us from our own self.

We need to keep it that way.

 

They understand the risks are willing to take them just like the thousands of people who will be in the area working for the government agencies, the volunteer organizations, and the contractors hired to do the clean up work.

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's our choice to take the risks we want and it's our right to protect our property even if its flooded, burned, fallen down, or worthless.

Only when what we do causes harm to another does our government, on behalf of other citizens, have a right to intercede and force us to do something we don't want to do. </font>[/QUOTE]That may be the reason for the forced evacuation. Granted, it should have been done much earlier when more lives could have been saved.

But if those people aren't forced out they could eventually harm other citizens. They could get very sick...diseases could be spread, etc. I also think government is there to protect people from themselves. That was a reason I believe, that God instituted it. They enforce laws, therefore they serve a role in protecting sinful people from themselves...sometimes. </font>[/QUOTE]There's a greater chance that all the people being brought in will be the source of harm to others than those that want to stay in thier own communities.

Government exists primarly to provide a framework of justice so we don't have to take it into our own hands and to provide for the common defense of our nation against our enemies.

Government doesn't exist to care for or provide for us or to make decisions for us about what's best for us.

A person who decides to defend themselves, their familes, or their property and take the risk of doing so is certainly not acting in a sinful manner.

The government, specifically in the case of New Orleans, should be more concerned with helping persons accomplish that goal whom are willing, able, and have elected to do so.

 

The Mayor of New Orleans might do better to round up his missing 300 police officers. They could have been helpful in the initial hours and days after the passing of the storm when people were on their own to fend for themselves. He should be proud that many resisdents in the City were able to fend for themselves. Americans are good at doing that.

 

Ask yourselves if you want your local police to confiscate your weapons especially at the very times you may need them most to defend yourself, your family, or your property.

Officials often use every opportunity possible to infringe upon this basic right of Americans including misue of this "state of emergency" to confiscate weapons.

The emergency at hand is not a war or an insurrection. The only person that should have their weapons confiscated are those arrested for criminal actitivty. They are the ones who pose a threat to public order.

 

Beware, friends, because you can be at risk from your own local government as much as you can be from the criminals among us! All it takes is one "delirious" Mayor and the police - your police - will, whether they agree or not, do his bidding. This, friends, is not the "liberty" I served my country to defend.

 

As I've previously stated, I have tremendous respect for and frequently support my brothers and sisters in the both the military and law enforcement professions having served in them myself. They are, overall, very dedicated servants of the nation who give far more than they receive.

I do have serious concerns about the militarization of civilian law enforcement; the disdain among many departments of government towards the lawful ownership, possession, and use of weapons by all citizens; the continued expansion of government control into aspects of individual life through power that was never granted to them by the people; the misuse of legitimate power in the name of a "state of emergency" or other critical issue; and the general tendency to regulate those law abiding citizens whom are compliant while not dealing aggressively and effectively with those who are truly engaged in criminal misconduct.

People have increasingly come to accept, believe, and even demand that our government - especially the federal government - solve all our problems and protect us from our own selves. In so doing we have created a huge dependency upon government and we are surrendering our rights to decide for ourselves what is best for us. We have created a monster that thrives by collecting and redistributing our money according to needs determined by others in a grand benefits for votes scheme. We have too many bureaucracies that are concerned with self preservation by expansion of their domains.

We disparately need to rethink our view of what government should do and how it should go about it going back to the beginnings of our great nation to understand more clearly what was done and why.

The suspension of any civil liberty is something we should always take very seriously and which we should always question and, more often than not, object. There are times when such action is appropriate for the government to take for the "common good" and our Constitution addressed, at least in one specific situation, that such was permissible.

Other legislation and executive orders have greatly expanded the "power" to suspend civil liberties far beyond what was originally intended.

The use of emergency powers should be confined to those specific things which are absolutely necessary for the specific situation. A mere state of emergency should not be misused to execute other actions no matter how "desirable" some elements of society might consider them. Actions of individuals that do not substantially bring harm to others are not the business of government.

Arguments can be made about the wisdom of remaining in your home during a pending natural disaster or following one. Arguments can be presented that doing so might bring harm to one's self. Arguments can be presented that future rescue might become necessary. Such things however have nothing to do with the "common good" or "public safety". What one does or doesn't do for themselves is their own responsibility. A possible future necessity for rescue does not harm others albeit it might inconvenience some sent to rescue them. Inconvenience to government is not the same as substantial harm to "public safety". Safety of government servants is not, in itself, a complete justification for restricting the civil liberty of all citizens.

The government is not responsible for, charged with, nor authorized to force people to do what's best for themselves. If we believe otherwise we will never stop telling each other what to do because we can certainly always find someone who knows best what others need to do. Natural disasters, individual tragedies, etc. do not alter the underlying liberty we, the people, demanded, fought to attain, continue to fight to preserve, and wrote into our Constitution as a documented reminder to any government servants who would dare try to deprive us of these liberties.

It is interesting how much public concern there is over the "rights" of criminals and terrorists verses the nearly complete lack of concern over the true rights of law abiding citizens.