Boston Terrorist Search Shows Abuse of American’s Rights
Apr 22, 2013 Political
[note]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ~ Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution[/NOTE]
As one terrorist lay dead in Boston the other, his younger brother, was on the loose in Watertown Massachusetts. The police from many local, state and federal agencies descended on the town to find the accomplice to the deadly Boston Marathon Bombing. During the search the rights of the people were violated and very few objected or took a stand to prevent the intrusion of government into their lives.
Parts of Boston were locked down. Businesses were told not to open and residents were told to stay inside their homes. There is no indication that any order, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law, was implemented. People were told to stay put and they did. Was martial law declared? Why were people not allowed to move freely about town and go about their lives?
Then the police conducted a house to house search for the terror suspect. The police are well within their duties to knock on doors and ask if there is a problem or if people have seen the suspect. They are free to ask people if it is OK for them to come inside and look around.
But people are free to say no. Unfortunately, it appears as if people were not really given the chance. The police were outside with firearms pointed at doors and people were asked if it was OK to look around. No one can give free consent when faced with armed people. It amounts to coercion.
There are reports that at least one household told police that they did not consent to a search. Those folks were marched out of their house while the police conducted a search of the premises. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Without a validly executed warrant the police have no right to enter someone’s home (barring a few limited exigent circumstances).
Forcing people from their homes at gunpoint (or even not at gunpoint) in order to search that home after the occupant has denied consent is a violation of the Constitution and those who did this should be held to account for what they did.
[note]Article XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws. ~Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution[/note]
The police did a great job hunting down the bad guy and this is in no way an indictment of their work in that regard BUT there is no excuse for violating the rights of citizens in order to catch a bad guy no matter how dangerous he is.
Our rights are enshrined and protected by the US Constitution (and as shown above, by the Massachusetts Constitution) to prevent these things from happening. To dismiss this as some extraordinary circumstance allows government to define or invent all kinds of circumstances in which they can ignore our rights.
And since people in Boston did not push back the police now know they can get away with further erosion of the people’s rights.
It is a sad time in America when the government violates rights. It is even sadder that people allow it to happen.
Does it bother anyone that the government can shut down an American city and infringe on the rights of Americans to find one terrorist but refused to send help to Americans in Benghazi where it would have been appropriate to secure the place and help Americans?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boston, constitution, fourth amendment, infringe, lies
Will Obama Push To Ban Muslims?
Apr 19, 2013 Political, Second Amendment, Terrorism
After every act of terror that involves radical Islamists we are reminded by the left not to rush to judgment and that we cannot condemn an entire religion or its followers for the acts of a few. I agree that people should be judged individually. I also know that when a large group of those people or their individual governments support their acts then it is OK to paint them with a broad brush.
Unfortunately, the very people who tell us not to judge all Muslims by the acts of a few are the same people who condemn all gun owners for the acts of a few people with guns who do bad things. The reality is that most people who do bad things with guns have already broken countless laws to do so and usually do not own the guns legally. This fact escapes the gun grabbers as they paint all gun owners, law abiding citizens who exercise a constitutionally protected right, with a broad brush.
After the Newtown shooting, where a gunman who used guns he stole to murder a number of people (mostly children,) Barack Obama wasted no time condemning the act and then vowing to pass tougher gun laws. These laws would only affect law abiding gun owners as they are the only ones who would follow them. The guns that would be banned and the hoops people would have to jump through would only infringe on the people who obey the law. The people who do bad things will still get guns, won’t worry about the gun being on some approved list, and would not go through a background check.
That did not stop Obama and his anti gun zealots from vowing to pass tough gun laws. Some states did just that and ended up only harming those who did no wrong. In fact, some people were then targeted to have their guns confiscated. This all happened to people who did no wrong.
Now we have a terrorist attack that happened in Boston during the Boston Marathon. While we were cautioned not to rush to judgment Obama’s stenographers in the media wasted no time blaming the right wing, gun owners, rednecks, people who hate taxes, white people, and any other group they could paint as a right wing entity. I did not hear Obama asking them not to rush to judgment.
It turns out the bombers are followers of Islam. That should come as no shock as most of the acts of terror are committed by followers of that religion (notice I said most – added for liberals who have trouble with comprehension). The Muslims involved in 9/11 murdered more people than the gunman in Newtown. Hell, they murdered more than the recent mass shootings combined. George Bush did not say we should ban Muslims; he just went after those who intended to do us harm.
Since Barack Obama sees fit to go after all gun owners for the acts of a few deranged people I want to know if he will now ban Muslims.
You see, he was quick on the trigger after Newtown but slow and cautious in his response to the Boston bombing. Unlike his call to action on tougher gun control after Newtown, he was vague and asked us not to rush to judgment. He did not even use the word terror in his first address.
It is now abundantly clear that those who did this are Muslims. Will B. Hussein Obama now apply the same standard he did with regard to Newtown and ask Congress to ban Muslims from the United States?
In this country when a person drives drunk we go after that person not alcohol or cars. When a person stabs a bunch of people we go after the person using the knife, not the knife. When a gun is involved things get murky because the liberals go after the guns of all citizens.
Well Muslims have murdered more Americans than gun wielding morons in mass shootings.
If Obama is to apply the same standard then he must go after Muslims and work with Congress to get them banned.
The mantra from the left is; if we only save one child…
Well, banning Muslims would do just that (so would outlawing abortion).
This might not be a popular position but neither is gun control and the fact that it is not popular has not stopped Obama and the rest of the anti gun crowd from working to disarm us. Hell, they even lie about support.
I can’t say for sure but I bet more Americans support a Muslim ban than a gun ban.
I don’t support either (I believe in going after those involved in bad stuff) but if I had to choose I know America would be a lot safer with armed citizens than it would with Muslims (especially if it was disarmed).
Obama will probably not ban Muslims. What the they do is from the same textbook his buddy Bill Ayers uses.
John Jay has an interesting post up
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boston, disarmed, Muslims, newtown, Obama, Second Amendment, Terrorism
Is This Really Good News?
May 8, 2012 Political
The month of April showed a surplus of money at the federal government for the first time in three years. Big Deal!
April is the month where all our taxes are due for the last year. By April 15th we have to pay what we owe to the federal government. The April Tax Day receipts usually bring more money to the government. The only difference between this year and the last three is that this year the taxes paid resulted in us having more money than we spent.
This is an election year and right now we do not have all the Obama spending plans being pushed through like they were over the last three years. And even with this surplus for the month the nation is set to exceed a trillion dollars in deficit for the year. This trillion dollar a year deficit (really more than a trillion) is an Obama pattern that has not been broken even with the surplus.
Our government spends too much money. It is involved in too many things that it has no business being involved in and it has become the nanny state providing for everyone. We spend more on welfare programs than any other budget items and the government continues to take on things that cost taxpayers heavily.
Our government has been on nanny state overdrive since Obama became our “Dear Leader” and if he is reelected he will continue to spend like there is no tomorrow.
And if Obama is at the helm it is likely there will be no tomorrow.
As an aside, there is a story out of Boston that schools will be banning bake sales. Obesity is a problem and the smarter than you school officials think that selling baked goods (and other fundraiser junk like pizzas and candy) is bad for people. Leave it to government to prevent folks from being self sufficient.
Anyway, the school system brains claim that they are concerned about the health of the children (it is always about the children) and that children deserve a chance at a good, long healthy life (as if gubmint is the only one that can make that possible).
I think what they are really saying is that the debt of the government belongs to our children and grandchildren. We need them to be healthy and live long lives so they can pay the bills our government is racking up.
Next month we will be back on the deficit train though I would not be surprised to see the books cooked here as they are with unemployment.
Democrats need to get their messiah reelected.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: ake sales, boston, deficit, lies, Obama, taxes, trillions
Boston Firefighter Stabbed; No Gringo Here
Dec 7, 2007 General, Immigration
A Boston firefighter , who went out for takeout food, was attacked by a group of Hispanic males and stabbed twice in his chest. The firefighter, whose name was not released, went to a take out restaurant when a group of Hispanics started harassing him. He tried to avoid confrontation by telling them he only wanted a sandwich. There response was “we don’t want any gringo here.”
The firefighter, trying to avoid confrontation, got in his car and left but the men followed him. He went tot he local fire station (the one he works at) and they jumped him when he got out of his car. He was stabbed twice in the chest and was saved when he rang the bell to the station causing the men to flee. Fortunately, his fellow workers were not on a call and were able to render aid.
The kicker is, the police are not classifying this as a hate crime. The firefighter is white and the attackers Hispanic but somehow this does not fit the definition of a hate crime. Those who read this blog know how I feel about the stupidity of having a “hate” crime but if we have them the laws should apply equally.
Imagine if the victim had been Hispanic or black and had been attacked and stabbed by a group of white men. CASA, the NAACP and the race baiters would be out in full force and the police would not think twice about classifying it as a hate crime. However, since the victim is white they refuse to use that classification.
I would not be surprised to find out that the Hispanic thugs are here ILLEGALLY. Of course, if they are they would be the kind of people sanctuary laws protect so they will report crimes. Hell, if they ever get caught the governor will probably give them driver’s licenses.
I am not holding my breath waiting for them to report their own crimes.
I wonder what the response time for the fire department will be the next time a structure in the Hispanic part of town catches fire?
Source:
Fire Rescue
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, CommonSenseAmerica, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: attack, boston, firefighter, hispanics, sanctuary