I just couldn’t seem to shake the story about a Kentucky couple that was mandated to wear ankle bracelets after they refused to sign documents limiting their travel after one of them tested positive for Coronavirus.
For that infraction against the state’s Department of Health, Elizabeth Linscott, along with her husband, Isaiah, were mandated by law enforcement to wear monitoring ankle bracelets that literally beeped and notified authorities if they were more than 200 feet from their home.
At first, I thought the story was written by the satirical website The Onion. I didn’t think this could actually happen in America. Folks, we have allowed Big Brother to go unchecked and I will tell you on my behalf that there is no way on God’s green earth that I will allow law enforcement, the Health Department or anyone else to monitor me by force or put me under house arrest because of COVID-19.
I will do my part to help mitigate the spread of the virus. I’ve already been tested and it was negative, thank God. But remember this test is not always accurate.
I wear a mask and I abide by the rules but something is drastically wrong when the government overreaches its authority and steps on the principles of freedom that our Constitution grants us.
Neither Linscott or her husband had any symptoms, according to local news reports. They took the test because they were planning to visit her parents in Michigan. But then came up positive. At that point Linscott said the Hardin County Health Department asked her to sign documents that she and her husband would self-quarantine. She told them she wouldn’t sign the document because of the way it was worded and then went home.
She told a local news station that she was concerned that if she had “to go to the ER, if I have to go to the hospital, I’m not going to wait to get the approval to go.” The documents mandated that she call the health department before leaving her home at any time in the two weeks.
According to KABC-TV, after she left the hospital she received a text message informing her that her failure to sign the document and cooperate had escalated and law enforcement would be involved.
Then the unthinkable happened. I say the unthinkable because there is no law mandating tests or requiring Americans to carry around an ‘I’m COVID-19 free’ card. Plus, how can anyone prove they don’t have Covi-19 because you can take the test, then go out and contract the virus at any point.
The actions taken in Kentucky are completely ludicrous and violate essential freedoms. We have to be very careful about what happened here because it can happen anywhere.
But that didn’t matter because later that week after she tested, her husband was confronted at the door by eight government and law enforcement officials demanding that they either sign or go under house arrest with ankle bracelets.
“I open up the door, and there’s like eight different people, five different cars, and I’m like ‘what the heck’s going on?’ This guy’s in a suit with a mask. It’s the health department guy, and they have three papers for us. For me, her and my daughter,” Isaiah Linscott said.
“We didn’t rob a store. We didn’t steal something. We didn’t hit and run. We didn’t do anything wrong,” Linscott told a local station.
The couple said they were fitted with ankle monitors that would go off and alert the police if they strayed more than 200 feet from their home.
Linscott stressed that although she never refused to self-quarantine, “that’s exactly what the director of the public health department told the judge.”
“I’m like, ‘that’s not the case at all. I never said that,” she said.
The Linscotts plan to hire an attorney. Whoever they hire should do it pro-bono. It should be a lawyer with expertise in civil liberties.
America cannot afford to lose her liberty. We shouldn’t assume that our freedom is guaranteed – we shouldn’t be asleep at the helm and we should not allow fear to gut our nation’s principles.
You may like
WSJ: Corporate Dirty Pool in Washington’s Senate Race
The Wall Street Journal’s, Kimberly A. Strassel wrote a piece identifying how the Democrats are so worried about Washington Senator Patty Murray’s re-election “that Seattle’s corporate heavyweights are playing dirty pool on her behalf.”
Murray, a leftwing progressive, has faced little competition while in office; until now. Tiffany Smiley, a Republican nurse and entrepreneur “is pummeling Ms. Murray from every direction and laying out her own detailed reform agenda” adds the WSJ.
A RealClearPolitics average has Ms. Murray winning by 8 points. Another poll has Smiley within 2 points. Regardless, It’s close enough that “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently transferred $500,000 of his own campaign cash to Ms. Murray’s campaign.”
Money from Schumer isn’t the only liberal panic dough. “Starbucks, the Seattle Times and the Seattle Seahawks—are actively attempting to sabotage the Smiley campaign, albeit in a distinctly underhanded fashion” writes the WSJ. “Their targets are two effective Smiley campaign ads.”
At the center of the fight are two of Smiley’s ads: “Game Day” and “Cup of Coffee.”
In “Game Day” the Republican is in a kitchen preparing to watch a football game, hitting Ms. Murray and Democrats for the spiraling cost of food. In “Cup of Coffee,” she stands in front of a derelict building. Barely visible at the top, and seen backward, is the store’s faded Starbucks sign. Ms. Smiley hits Ms. Murray for rising crime, while the ad flashes two Seattle Times headlines, one of which reads: “Starbucks to Close 5 Seattle Stores Over Safety Concerns.”
“Game Day” hit the airwaves Sept 1. Five days later, according to documents I obtained, the Smiley campaign received a terse email from the Seahawks claiming a trademark violation. The ad briefly shows Ms. Smiley’s husband, Scotty—a retired U.S. Army Ranger who was blinded by shrapnel in Iraq—expressing alarm that “even beer” prices are rising. You only see his shoulders above a tall couch—and if you get a magnifying glass you might make out a letter or two from the word “Seahawks.” The letter insisted the Smiley campaign “immediately cease” its “unauthorized commercial use.” Nothing like your local sports franchise dumping cease-and-desist orders on wounded veterans.
“Cup of Coffee” went live on Sept. 20. The next day, the Seattle Times sent an email to the “Jane Smiley” campaign—apparently without running it past its fact-checking desk—accusing it of “unauthorized use of The Seattle Times logo and two headlines” in violation of the paper’s “copyright and trademark.” It demanded the campaign remove any references to the paper not only in its own ad, but in an NBC News article about the ad’s launch.
Two days later, Starbucks sent a certified letter saying the campaign was appropriating its intellectual property, and complaining it might “create an unfounded association in the minds of consumers between Starbucks and your campaign.” It insisted the campaign either pull the ad or alter it to strip both the (barely visible, backward) sign and the Seattle Times headline referencing Starbucks.
One such letter may be the product of an overzealous lawyer, but three in a row looks like more than a coincidence. One might even wonder if some Murray staffer was putting bugs in Seattle business leaders’ ears. And while corporate political-action committees routinely play politics by making donations, it’s something else for individual companies to go to bat for a candidate via behind-the-scenes threats based on tenuous legal claims. These letters were bound to cost the Smiley campaign money and headaches and might have pushed it off the airwaves.
The campaign didn’t roll over. It made a painless accommodation to the “Game Day” ad, blurring the jersey colors to obscure anything distinct. In a legal letter sent Thursday to Starbucks, the campaign rebutted the company’s infringement claims, running through political speech protections and noting that no reasonable person would ever think a factual ad about shuttered Starbucks stores amounted to a coffee-chain endorsement. It suggested Starbucks focus on its own problems, like its recent union woes.
The Seattle Times also received a letter refuting its claims, but it got something in addition. The Smiley campaign on Thursday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint, charging the paper with providing the Murray campaign a prohibited in-kind contribution. It turns out that Ms. Murray has also used a Seattle Times headline in her ads. Her “First 2016 Ad” sports the newspaper’s logo under the headline: “Patty Murray’s and Paul Ryan’s Teamwork Is a Model for Congress.” It seems the Times has a different legal standard for candidates it endorses.
As the FEC complaint notes, the Smiley campaign would have to spend an estimated $5,000 to remove and update the ad—“costs that Patty Murray does not have to accrue.” It cites FEC regulations that provide “if a corporation makes its resources available for free, it must do so for all candidates.”
Don’t expect the Seattle corporate set to do anything on behalf of Ms. Smiley soon. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask that they do their politicking straight—and out in the open.
You may like
Nation3 days ago
MD nuclear scientist, wife, face life in prison after pleading guilty in nuclear secrets case
Immigration4 days ago
IG Audit shows nonprofit wasted $17 million taxpayer dollars on hotels to not house illegal foreign nationals
War on Drugs3 days ago
‘Mass poisoning:’ Officials seize 15,000 fentanyl pills disguised as candy
Immigration5 days ago
Texas has raised over $55 million from private donations to secure border, build a wall