Game of Drones

PSYOPS and More Laws

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has assured us that having dozens of unexplained drones flying over the East Coast (particularly New Jersey), Florida, and California is no cause for alarm. His reassurances are self-contradictory; he states that even though we don’t know what these drones are or why they’re here, they’re perfectly harmless.

No cause for alarm.

Then he said several more stupid things. Maryokas said that you can buy drones at the convenience store. Really? I had no idea I could get a drone the size of an SUV at the convenience store. I had no idea WaWa even sold drones (for my Texas-based readers, WaWa is the New Jersey equivalent of Buckee’s). Mayorkas also said we have no authority to shoot down or even interfere with these drones. Basically, the United States is weak and defenseless. And he said there really aren’t that many drones, maybe a couple, it’s all very normal, and some of them aren’t drones at all, they’re planes.

You know, Mayorkas is also the guy who tells us the border is secure and there are only maybe, what, eight illegal aliens in the United States. When something bad and obvious is happening and the government tells you everything is fine that’s a big hint that we’re dealing with a PSYOP.

PSYOP

PSYOPS are real. The term is pronounced sigh-opp and it stands for psychological operation. PSYOPs have been part and parcel of the American military activities for generations. The United States is very good at them. The idea behind any PSYOP is that the government or an agency of the government creates some sort of event intended to generate an emotion (fear and panic are common ones) or distract attention. The actual PSYOP event happens but it is not real; it is orchestrated, choreographed, planned. The purpose is that event triggers an emotional response in people (making them easier to manipulate) or captivates their attention so they do not notice something terrible is happening.

PSYOPS come in three colors: the Black PSYOP is one that seems to be occurring quite apart from the government. You have no clue that the government has their greasy fingers in play. The White PSYOP is known to be coming from the government. The Gray PSYOP is in-between, where everything is ambiguous and nobody knows nuffin.

You are here.

The purpose of this PSYOP is to manipulate people into doing something they would not normally do, agreeing to restrictions they would not normally accept, or allowing the passage of restrictive laws and regulations in the interest of public safety. When people are terrified, they are easier to control and can be manipulated into accepting unreasonable demands. Or maybe this PSYOP is pure distraction, to let Biden leave the White House before we have time to count the silverware.

• For example, right now, the Pentagon has about $4T in assets, but it can only account for 37% of that money. Almost two-thirds of the boatloads of money we give to them (63%) are simply missing. Poof! Now that would be a bad thing to notice.

• Or how about if we noticed that 268 of the 534 members of Congress had an average net worth of over $1M (Democrats are slightly higher with an average of $1.04M compared to Republicans at $1.00M). So while 50% of Congress has a million or more bucks in their back pocket, in the real world, as of 2024, only about 7% of the general American population has that kind of cheddar. How do Congress people get so rich?

• Or maybe the Biden regime just wants us to not notice their many and egregious failings: the open border, human trafficking, spiking drug overdose deaths, a corrupt healthcare system, pardoning a record number of hardcore criminals, the D.C. pipe bomb, the D.C. gulag, homelessness, insider trading in Congress, a weaponized justice system, failing public school system, collapsing public health integrity… the list is long.

• Maybe we aren’t supposed to notice the two assassination attempts on Trump. The list goes on and on…

Just this morning, I heard a mainstream media outlet talking to Alejandro Mayorkas, and he tipped his hand. He was going on and on about how we know nothing about the drones at all. He sounded like the Sgt. Schulz character in Hogan’s Heroes: “I know nothing!” But then he said it. Mayorkas squinted his little weasel-like eyes and mentioned that they were very interested in starting to propose some new “drone legislation.” I don’t know if he meant the Biden regime or Democrats or whether this was another bipartisan type of Patriot Act to get Americans to offer up their rights to Big Government. (Bipartisanship isn’t dead—it just only comes out when both sides want to hurt the American people..) Mayorkas said he wants to help get some new laws in place.

New drone laws.

Here we go.

Drone Laws

Chuck Schumer (D, NY) is proposing that taxpayer money be dedicated to a drone detection system in New York and New Jersey. He has also said it would be a good idea to “bolster” laws on drones. There aren’t that many laws on the books about drones and those that do exist are as convoluted and incomprehensible as the tax code.

As of this moment, that legislation is not pending before Congress so I don’t know what Chuck means exactly. I do know that any time Schumer and other Democrats want to protect the American people, hold on to your wallet and get ready to fight for your fundamental rights.

• The newest drone law (that “flew under the radar” for most of us) was passed in September 2023. It requires drones that weigh more than 250 g (approximately half a pound) to have a Remote ID tag if they are to fly in the USA. That’s kind of like the drone version of a license plate

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) runs a DroneZone website where foreigners have to register their drones if they plan on flying drones in the United States. It’s an extraordinarily unfriendly website and all in English, so you know foreigners will find it easy to comply

• About the closest thing we have to Constitutional protection against drones chasing us around is the 4th Amendment and it was not crafted with the idea of protecting us from aerial surveillance by a corrupt government

• A lot of old laws just fly out the window with drones. For instance, right now, if law enforcement wants to use a drone to surveil your property, a search warrant is not currently required. But a warrant is needed from them to come onto your property in human physical form. So drones might turn out to be a handy work-around for those pesky search warrants

Some of the legal wrangling is about airspace. Do you own the airspace above your property? And if so, for how high? There is an old doctrine that landowners possessed the rights “to the sky” above their property. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in 1946 ruled in the case of United States vs. Causby that if anything enters the space above your land, it should count as trespassing, or even “an invasion.” However, Causby also established that the old idea of a landowner’s rights extending “to the sky” were hyperbolic. You don’t own rights to everything above your property into outer space, for example. But how much air above your property belongs to you?

This is where we get the concept of “public navigable airspace” because SCOTUS would allow flights above the property; the idea is that the public owns the rights to all of the space a certain height above the land. I have seen Causby interpreted to mean property owners have rights up to about 83 feet above the ground. At 84 feet, you’re into “public navigable airspace.” That term, “public navigable airspace,” comes up a lot in talk about drone laws.

In the 1980s, a confusing SCOTUS case called California v. Ciraolo tried to parse out how high aerial surveillance had to be to be legal. It was an early precursor to our current discussions on what exactly is “public navigable airspace.” This case was about aerial surveillance detecting a man growing marijuana (then illegal) on his property. The aerial surveillance had no search warrant. The case at first convicted the pot farmer (meaning aerial surveillance was legal) but then it was overturned. The ultimate 1986 finding of California v. Ciraolo was that it was legal to use the naked eye to look at private property to see if marijuana was growing there, but aerially obtained images were not legal.

You can see how complicated these cases get.

I’m guessing the government wants much expansive rules on aerial surveillance (allowing the government to restrict the rights of individuals more). Maybe people shouldn’t even be allowed to own drones at all. And maybe the government should be able to use drones whenever it wants against private individuals on their own property. This PSYOP could do it for them if we all fall asleep.

I say this is a PSYOP because Mayorkas is basically making a tour of mainstream media outlets, stating helplessly that we are not allowed to do anything against this drone invasion, we are at their mercy. Then he says they’re harmless, but he looks distraught. He has gently hinted that we must regulate these harmless drones out of existence! See how out of control things get when the government is not making laws? If mainstream media had its own sound track, this is where they’d cue the violins.

But when the regulations start, they’re going to favor the use of drones by the government and limit the use of drones by everyone else.

Stay alert. It may be that we are being played. But it’s not like we haven’t had a lot of practice at having the government lie to us!

These must be our key issues moving forward as Democrats try to ram through drone “protections” in Congress soon.

• What are the property rights of citizens with respect to aerial surveillance? Does law enforcement need a warrant to fly over your home and take pictures?

• How much airspace above a property does a property owner control?

• Can a property owner “exclude” (shoot down) drones in that space? Under what conditions?

• Can we set limits on how much time the government or a government agency may surveil one specific individual or household? “Persistent surveillance” is a term describing government harassment of a person by having drones follow them around for months or years. (The fact that there is a legal term for this means it’s already being done!)

• How can we be sure that aerial data are protected and kept private? If the government has legally obtained surveillance data of my home, can it share those images? With whom? Under what conditions?

• How long can aerial surveillance data be stored? Who checks on this? Can I ask law enforcement to share with me the images they take of my own property?

• Can police or law enforcement retrieve surveillance data from my property if those images are old? How old? Past 30 days? Past 90 days? After a year? Five years has been floated around as a proposal!

• Can sites on social media publish drone footage? Under what conditions? In the United Kingdom, there are allegedly social media sites that post footage of private properties

The government will not offer any explanations as to these drones other than to assure us they are too stupid to know what to do. (That’s a clue this is a PSYOP—normally people resist entering into situations or stating admissions that make them look stupid.) Mayorkas and the Biden regime think that we’ll all just panic and demand that Big Daddy Government will make a lot of strict new laws are put in place so we are protected.

I am not 100% sure this is what they’re up to, but it is the only explanation that makes sense to me.