Protect Your Cell Phone From The Police
Mar 8, 2012 Political
A court has decided that the police have the right to look through your cell phone without a warrant if they have arrested you for something. This comes from a case where a man was arrested for making drug deals and the police officer who looked through his phone for numbers he contacted.
The court claimed that the officer could basically deny the person his rights because information on the phone could be remotely erased by someone else with access to a computer and the phone. The need to gather data before it is gone is more important that the need to uphold our rights, at least according to this court.
What will they do next? Will they be allowed to go through your computer because you might erase the hard drive before they get a warrant? Will they be allowed to bust into your home and look around because you might destroy evidence or burn your house down before they get a warrant?
The idea that police officers will only look at information pertinent to the case is laughable. They will look through contacts to see who a person communicates with and they will look through emails to see what a person is talking about. They will look at everything and then use the information for things that have nothing to do with the case at hand.
The Baltimore police already violate people’s rights. When they arrest someone with a cell phone they take the SIM cards from them. The only reason to do so would be to put them in a reader and see what is on them. A drug dealer would have lots if interesting information on those cards. That is no reason to ignore the rights of the phone’s owners.
Protect your phone and its data. Many of us think our information is safe but this court has determined that this is not the case. Protect your phones by putting a password in place. The court might allow the cop to look at the information on your phone but you cannot be compelled to tell them the password. You have the right to remain silent.
And if a cop EVER asks if he can search your phone, say NO!
It is also important to set the phone to wipe the data after so many failed attempts at the password. Most phones do not have elaborate password schemes so it would only be a matter of time before any password is cracked. By setting the phone to wipe after so many failed attempts you can force the police to wipe your phone for you.
We are at the crossroads of falling into a police state sanctioned by rogue courts.
Protect yourself from those who care not about you or your rights.
Too many patriots died to protect your rights. The least you can do is carry that practice on.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: cell phone, constitution, illegal search, police, rights
Obama, The Alleged Constitutional Law Professor
Jan 23, 2012 Political
The left fawns over Barack Obama. He, according to them, is the smartest prez ever, worldly, experienced, and a new kind of politician. He was, you know, a Constitutional Law Professor and he knows that document. We need to listen to King Hussein because he will bring us back to the Constitution.
Obama spoke to commemorate the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in Roe v Wade, the decision that gave us federally recognized abortions and removed the decision on whether to allow them or not from the states. The decision violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that anything not in the Constitution (or prohibited by it) belongs to the states or to the people.
If you search the Constitution you will not find anything about abortion. There is nothing in there that allows the federal government to decide on abortions. Therefore, the issue belongs to the states or to the people.
But the SCOTUS decided on it anyway and we have been stuck with a flawed decision ever since.
Obama said that the 39th anniversary of Roe is a chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right to abortion.” There is no fundamental Constitutional right to an abortion because it is not enumerated in the document. Allowing an abortion or not is something that should have been left to the states but that would overshadow Obama’s murderous position on the subject.
Obama also said that abortions allow our daughters the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. Really now? Murdering your unborn child gives you this? I guess it should come as no surprise since Obama thinks pregnancy is a punishment.
What amazes me is that the alleged expert on the Constitution is all too happy to run around touting a nonexistent right while he completely opposes a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Barack Obama opposes gun ownership. He is a big proponent of gun control and he was even involved in a scheme to gin up phony gun problems in order to push for tougher gun laws (Fast and Furious). Obama does not believe that gun ownership is an individual right even though the SCOTUS has affirmed that which is written in the Constitution. Obama covertly works to impose tougher gun laws in violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a document of convenience for liberals and Obama is no exception.
Interestingly, Obama made this claim:
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.” [emphasis mine] CNSNEWS
How come that broader principle does not extend to not having to buy health insurance if you do not want it? That is a choice, that is a private issue and yet Obama is not on the side of allowing us to decide for ourselves. He will force this on us. Why is it that Obama favors gun control and wants to remove the private matter of whether to own a firearm?
Obama and his liberal/progressive/Socialist party have no problem getting involved in our private family matters each and every day. We have an intrusive government and Obama is fine with that. He has no problem being involved in private matters, just not abortion.
Obama thinks that pregnancy is a burden on women and that abortion allows our daughter to have the same opportunities as our sons.
Don’t you wish his mother had felt that way?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, lies, Obama, roe v wade, socialists
More From The Unlawful Regime
Jan 16, 2012 Political
It is no secret that Barack Obama has little regard for the Constitution. He thinks it puts up to many barriers to redistributive change (taking from one to give to another). He believes that there should not only be a level playing field (everyone has the same chance) but that outcomes should be equal. This is one of the things Socialists like and they particularly like the part where they live like kings while the rest of the population lives in poverty.
So there is little regard for the Constitution, no surprise there. Democrats do not like the thing because it makes it harder for them to run roughshod over us.
Eric Holder, the lawless Attorney General, made a speech today discussing voting rights. He was with the head of the NAACP in South Carolina where the US has blocked voter laws. Yes, the US has blocked ID laws because Democrats think it will discriminate against voters (OK, they think Democrat voters or they would not care). They might have a point, illegals are voting in our elections. This is the Democrat voting base so yes, laws would discriminate against them but not in a bad way. They are not allowed to vote.
This is what laws are for and this is one of the reasons states are getting tougher. They are doing it because the system is broken and is wide open for fraud despite what the morons in DC say. The regime knows that it is in deep stuff and that it needs every vote it can get, legal or otherwise, in order to win. Voter laws that improve the integrity of the system are a barrier that the regime does not like. Then again, integrity is not a strong point of these people (and by these people I mean Democrats).
To Democrats the Constitution is a document of convenience. If it suits their purpose they will use it and if it does not they will ignore it.
Eric Holder does not even know the thing. He filed suit in a federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law but the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when any state is a party.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…
From an article in Canada Free Press. Bold as appears in the article.
This regime is lawless and will do whatever it can get away with in order to push its agenda of making America a Socialist nation. Many Americans are too blind or too deluded to see this but those who lived under an oppressive government can see what is going on. Russian immigrants are not thrilled with Democrats and are flocking to the GOP.
The states need to push back against the tyranny of the federal government. States need to enact whatever voting laws they desire and take the feds to court if they interfere. Arizona needs to continue with its immigration laws and ignore the court that decided against the state because that court and its judge had no Constitutional authority to act.
It is time for the states to take control and to put the federal government and the Obama regime in their place.
Related:
The Examiner
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, holder, illegal aliens, lawless, lis, naacp, Obama, voter id
What About That Pesky Constitution Confuses Obama?
Jan 6, 2012 Political
King Barack Hussein* made a few appointments by declaring that the Senate was effectively in recess so he had the authority to do so. His mouthpieces claim that the White House Legal Council has reviewed the issue and said it was OK for King Hussein to make the appointments. Interestingly, the Department of Justice is the agency that normally reviews items of Constitutionality. I imagine that Hussein figured that his Council could say it was OK and then after the fact he could persuade his buddy Holder to write a favorable opinion.
The rule of law. Hussein said the Senate was effectively in recess for weeks so he could make the appointment because the Constitution says so. If Hussein wants to be technical, let us do so. My well worn pocket Constitution, Article II, Section 2, last paragraph reads:
The President shall have the power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [emphasis mine]
So let us assume, for a moment, that Hussein is correct about the Senate being in recess. Technically, the vacancies DID NOT HAPPEN during the alleged recess. The Constitution is clear in that the President may fill a vacancy that occurs while the Senate is in recess. These vacancies have been present for quite some time and DID NOT occur during the recess Hussein claims exists.
Therefore, he had no authority to begin with regarding making the appointments. This will likely go to court and it would be great if a ruling came down expressing exactly what the Constitution states and thereby prevent Congress and presidents from playing games regarding appointments. If the vacancy did not occur during a recess the president cannot fill it, period.
Let us suppose that a court does not rule this way (and some past rulings might run counter to it). Referring to my trusty Constitution, I see this under Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The US Senate has a website that spells out what a pro forma session is and how it relates to the last paragraph of Section 5. That section reads:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
And the Senate site explains it this way:
This section was included to prevent either chamber from blocking legislation through its refusal to meet. Each chamber takes very seriously its independence of the other body. To avoid having to ask the other chamber for permission to adjourn, the Senate and House simply conduct pro forma (as a matter of form) sessions to meet the three-day constitutional requirement. No business is conducted at these sessions, which generally last for less than one minute.
Additionally, the Senate explains that pro forma sessions occur, last a few minutes, and no business is conducted:
Pro Forma Session: A pro forma session is a brief meeting (sometimes lasting only seconds) in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.
There is no doubt that pro forma sessions are part of business and are recognized as such. It is also evident that they are held so that one chamber does not have to ask the other to adjourn which means they have NOT adjourned. The methods for recess in the Senate are as follows:
In the Senate, the Chair has no inherent authority to declare recesses. Recesses are accomplished only (1) by the full body giving unanimous consent to hold recesses “subject to the call of the Chair,” or (2) by adopting a motion to recess, offered by any Senator from the floor. Wiki Answers
The best I can figure from reading the Congressional Record for the month of December (you have to search with the month parameters), the Senate did not motion for a recess and has been adjourning every three days. I also note that some of the Senators who held the sessions were Democrats. It is possible the Senate adjourned three days at a time because the House was still in session debating the tax cut extension and the Senate did not want to ask permission to adjourn (under the Constitution) so it held pro forma sessions and most Senators left town. Since they never adjourned a quorum to motion for a recess they have been in pro forma sessions every three days. It is interesting to note that the Senate did this because it was unlikely the House would have granted permission to adjourn. It wanted to remain and hash out the tax cut bill. The Senate passed its version and did not want to stay so it used pro forma sessions to avoid having to ask. The leadership of the Senate (Democrats mind you) is responsible for the Senate not being in recess. Don’t expect to see this on the liberal media. They have to blame it all on Republicans.
There is not doubt that these kinds of sessions are the practice of the House and Senate as part of their procedures (procedures they are Constitutionally authorized to enact) so I cannot see how King Hussein is able to do a recess appointment. He does not get to decide if they are in recess or not, they do.
So it looks like Hussein has bombed on several issues of the Constitution. Wasn’t he allegedly a Constitutional law professor?
Of course I am no lawyer and this will have to be settled in the courts. No matter how it all turns out things are going to get uglier than they already are, if that is even possible.
I believe, as do many who have looked at this, that King Hussein has overstepped his authority and has usurped the Constitution.
NPR has an interesting article about it
*If he is going to act like a dictator I will address him as one.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: adjourn, constitution, king barack hussein, lies, recess appointment, Senate
Post Office To Charge More For Less
Dec 6, 2011 Political
The United States Postal Service is a bloated government agency that is charged with delivering our mail efficiently. It charges for the service so the money it gets to operate is not supposed to come from the taxpayer. The establishment of the Post Office is a Constitutional requirement but there is no Constitutional requirement for that service to be run by the government.
Government does NOTHING efficiently and money is never a concern because government begs, borrows, or steals the money it gets and since it makes the laws, it can beg, borrow, or steal as much as it wants without the fear of being jailed.
The Post Office is a prime example of government inefficiency. It has grown, and grown, and grown, over the years while offering extravagant benefits to the people who work for it. The Postal Service has tens of thousands more employees than it needs but can’t seem to downsize appropriately.
In addition, those tens of thousands of employees retire and receive very generous benefits. Those benefits are a huge part of the Postal Service’s fiscal problems because the Service is required to pay into the benefit fund up front and the cost has risen to more than the Service can afford.
This has not stopped the Service from keeping employees on or from closing facilities over the years regardless of the dire circumstances. It seems to live in a vacuum ignoring the reality of its fiscal circumstances in hopes that some Congressman will bail it out.
The Postal Service claims it is finally doing something because it is facing bankruptcy. Some sorting facilities will be closed and the cost of a First Class letter will rise to 45 cents (up one cent) starting January. I doubt the increase will have an immediate impact because the Postal Service sells what it calls forever stamps. Purchase them at the current price and you can use them forever regardless of what the actual rate is. People will be buying a lot of forever stamps this month. In addition, the Service will have reduced service in that letters will take longer to arrive. Yes, we will pay more for decreased service.
There are several problems with what the Postal Service is doing. The biggest is that it is retaining its employees. No one who works at the closing facilities will be released, they will just be reassigned. The amount of mail has decreased year after year but they can’t seem to downsize the workforce.
Another problem is that the Postal Service is a branch of government. It is, by its very nature, inefficient. There is little regard given for costs or to fiscal responsibility (until they start talking about reducing pensions) and there is no concern for efficiency. One only needs to go to a Post Office this time of the year to see one clerk at the counter with a line around the block. It is not like they don’t have enough people to man the place, they just don’t do so. It is almost as if they do it on purpose to fool the public into believing they need more help (or to punish us)…
The government is responsible for the Post Office. This cannot change as it is a Constitutional requirement. However, serious consideration should be given to making the Postal Service a private entity that can work efficiently and for profit. The government would still have legal and oversight authority but a private company would work to deliver our mail. It could earn a certain profit and all other money would go to the federal coffers. If several companies were allowed to carry out postal functions they could compete for our business and provide better service.
Don’t look for this to happen any time soon (if at all).
Perhaps it is time to go postal on the Postal Service…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bankrupt, constitution, disaster, government, pensions, post office. inefficient