Rights? What Rights?
May 29, 2009 Political
Oh boy- where to begin? With Nancy Pelosi and China? With Liberals in general? With the apparently rapidly spreading ignorance of not only english, but definitions of these english words? Perhaps we should begin with the proper definition of the word “rights”.
Right(s)- In politics, implying preservation of existing, established order or of restoring former institutions.
I have to say, I was never aware that ecology of our planet was a right- an obligation, perhaps- but not a “right”.
Responsible caretaking of this planet was first mentioned in the Bible (yes, I know that just the mention that ecology was not the exclusive purview of Liberals just drives them NUTS), and done properly, is not only necessary, but desirable in the grand scheme of things, but to call this “green” ridiculousness a “right” is hyping on a scale that makes a fisherman’s stories sound real.
Nancy Pelosi has gone to China, not to chide them on their Human Rights record ( of which they could justifiably be chided indeed), but to inform them of the NEW right that they might not have been aware of (like those other, pesky rights they already ignore). This new one is a responsible path to a greener world, not the democracy thingie, not the “holding Tibet as a slave state” thingie either, despite the pictures she has of her and the Dalai Lama on her web site.
And for all of you who might think that she might be giving away state secrets by showing the Chinese the new ways to use plastic on one’s face, I am fairly sure they already know that one, although perhaps they use melamine- after all, as we have found out, the Chinese believe melamine is a food group.
The botox, well that might engender some interest, although I am fairly sure they already have “inscrutable” down to an art by now, although they might be just a little unsettled at not being able to see emotion on Pelosi’s face. The fact that she, or anyone from the States, could have the unmitigated gall to lecture them on their country’s behavior when ours is in such disarray, just has to leave them speechless. After all, their cars already get better mileage than ours, even though they use a different set of standards.
The average fuel economy of family vehicles in China is already higher than in the United States, mainly because cars in China tend to be considerably smaller than those in the United States — and are getting even smaller because of recent tax changes.
Cars with small fuel-sipping engines are now subject to a 1 percent sales tax, while sports cars and sport utility vehicles with the largest engines are subject to a 40 percent sales tax. Stricter fuel economy standards have won support from four interest groups within the Chinese government, said a Chinese government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.
n.y.times.com
As they say,their cars are smaller, but the main reason for this miserly usage of oil and gas is fear, because while they had been self- sufficient up ’til 1995, now they import 3/5 of all their oil, and they must do this on seas that are patrolled by the U.S. Navy. Their navy is not as modern nor is it as large, so their xenophobic paranoia tends to kick in with regard to their energy needs. This doesn’t apply to the coal- fired reactors, for their supply of coal is vast, even though they tend to kill plenty of their citizens doing so.
Still, to have Nancy Pelosi even attempt to lecture them on responsible ethics, green or otherwise, is the height of hypocrisy, and behind their outwardly inscrutable faces, you can bet the farm that they are laughing their butts off.
Since Barama has been elected, we, as a nation, have no street cred in this world. Is there a single instance of ANYTHING that Barama has gotten done in the international arena? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?
Sending Pelosi might have been effective at scaring their children on Halloween (if they celebrated Halloween), but she, and her message are non- starters. The Chinese will not take her seriously, although for politeness’ sake, they will nod and grin, and soon as she is gone, it will be business as usual.
And they can have a good laugh at her newest “right”.
[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: Add new tag, china, ecology, Pelosi, rights
Court Decides Cops Need No Warrant To Place GPS Trackers
May 11, 2009 Political
A Wisconsin Court ruled that the police did not need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on anyone’s vehicle. The case involved a man who was accused of stalking a person and the police obtained a warrant and placed a GPS on his car. They were able to determine that he was in fact stalking. So far, so good because they got a warrant.
The stalker, Michael Sveum, went to court to argue that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that police were able to track him in the privacy of his home (his car was parked in a garage). The court ruled that the tracker was not a search or seizure so Sveum’s rights were not violated. They did have a warrant for the tracker. So far, still so good.
Then the court ruled that a warrant was not necessary to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle even if the person who owns the car is not under suspicion of anything. In essence, if the cops want to track you they can even if they have no reason. The court ruled that the tracker does not provide any more information than the police could obtain by observing a person.
Does this mean they no longer require warrants to tap a phone? The tap does not provide any more information than the cops could have obtained if they were there listening.
The police should have some probable cause to follow a person and this includes putting trackers on cars. If there is no probable cause then they should not be allowed to place tracking devices on vehicles. This is why warrants are necessary. The warrants ensure that the police have a valid reason for tracking people (or listening in on them). There are laws that cover surveillance where a warrant is not needed but, in general, GPS trackers would not fall into that category.
This ruling is moronic and it opens the process to great abuse. Police officers could use trackers to track a person for profit (as in following some guy for a wife who thinks he is cheating). The police could put trackers on cars and then wait until they are parked at bars. They could then send police officers to follow the car when it leaves and invent probable cause to pull the person over and see if he has been drinking.
The process is in place to ensure the rights of the people. The guy in this case had no ground to stand on because the police had a warrant but the ruling now gives police officers greater access to the public and provides a greater possibility of abuse.
If I ever found a tracker on my car I would take it off and put it on a freight train heading across the country.
It is a sad day in America when a court decides that the police can tamper with private property whenever they want.
I wonder what will happen when a cop is placing one of these in the middle of the night and gets shot as a suspected car thief…
Could happen.*
*This was edited to remove words that conveyed a different thought than intended.
[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: cops, gps tracker, rights, warrant, wisconsin
First Amendment, Annulled
Apr 21, 2009 Political
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s a fairly powerful first amendment to the Constitution- I can see why they led with what is probably the most powerful statement on what is PROHIBITED to the government in terms of action, but in the coming weeks, you will see the Barama government try an end- around on this amendment, as they attempt to re institute the “fairness doctrine”, a term for an action that is anything but fair. Oh, they will relabel the doctrine, but the result will be the same.
This is an attempt to silence talk radio, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as well as countless others, most of whom are conservative, and therein lies the crux of the problem as the Uberlibs see it. They are embarrassed that liberal talk radio fails every time. Take the Ultra- Leftist radio network Air America for example- programs hosted by Al Franken and Janene Garofalo were so bad , that the whole radio network failed, went bankrupt not once, but twice, and would have failed faster if it wasn’t for Uberlib George Soros, a fairly rich man with more money than sense. He kept the station afloat financially, desperately hoping that the ranting babies on air might gain traction.
Well. that experiment failed, and by and large uberlib radio always will fail, because they have no redeemable message to speak of.
So now they turn to government interference in the free market, by instituting what they call “localization”, meaning a contrasting viewpoint must be presented, with an equal amount of time, FREE OF CHARGE, to “rebut” any viewpoint that the radio has paid for. This interferes with the free market, because if the people wanted another viewpoint, they would pay for it.
Radio knows what pays, and they would broadcast 24/7 whale sounds if they thought there would be a profit on it. There isn’t, so they won’t. That is how the free market works, when it doesn’t have government’s heavy hand messing with it.
And now, newspapers are finding out that leftist thought doesn’t sell, and many are going out of business. So, what do these failing business models do? Why, ask for a bailout, bless their little hearts. Now, if they get the bailouts, they will be government controlled. Does ANYONE think a government controlled press is a good thing? I am pretty darn sure that this “abridges the freedom of the press”. It certainly casts doubt on the impartiality of the press that takes the money.
And now we come to the crux of the mater, the crown jewel in “Government control”- the Internet. Does the thought of controlling the Internet send a “thrill up YOUR leg?” It will happen, mark my words, in the name of “protecting our children”, or some such feel- good theme, and ironically, the ACLU and some other allegedly freedom- loving “rights” advocates, will be slow to realize that they have backed a tyrant, a Type A controlling government that will not hesitate to control them if they get out of line.
Control of the internet would absolutely stifle liberty and freedom as we know it, because freedom of speech is the freedom to say that a government is not doing its job, a freedom to criticize, and if the government can control what information is shared, then it might not control the hearts, but it begins to control the minds. This is NOT a good thing, I find it ironic that the Fascistic controls that many on the left thought would happen on President Bush’s watch, are happening now, under King Barama the First.
These controls and changes are happening slowly, though- that is how you slide things by people, draw their attention away from them with little stuff, while you slip the big stuff in as their attention is distracted. It’s all misdirection, and Barama is the magician.
This is not the only Amendment to the Constitution that is in trouble, it is just literally the First one, because after this one, abridging or eliminating the others would be easier.
The First Amendment is the Keystone Amendment, the one without which, all the others stand on shifting ground.
Without free speech, bad ideas begin to sound good, and lies can and will proliferate, because there is no dissenting viewpoint allowed. And bad ideas, as we are seeing now, could be the death of our country.
This would be the end of the world, because, contrary to what Uberlibs believe, it is the United States that holds the world together. With a weakened U.S., there would surely be a World War, but this time there will be nukes.
If that is the endgame of this administration,they have made a good start.
[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: Congress, fairness doctrine, first amendment, Obama, rights
Obama Opposes First And Second Amendment
Sep 28, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama is against the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution and he denying the use of one to silence information about the other. Barack Obama has held anti gun views throughout his political career. He favors bans on handgun sales, bans on most hunting ammunition and bans on many of the rifles and shotguns we use to participate in sport. Make no mistake about it, despite the nuances and lies of the campaign, Obama has a history of opposing gun ownership. His support of the Heller decision runs counter to his claims of supporting the DC gun ban. Obama will say anything now that he realizes that he needs the gun clingers to win this election.
So, in order to win Obama will trample on our rights. It has been previously reported that the Obama campaign has been working with law enforcement in Missouri in order to harass people who say things about Obama that are considered to be a lie. This is illegal and reflects the kind of tactics one would expect from a Communist leader, not someone who wants to be the leader of a FREE country. The Obama campaign is taking its suppression of rights two steps farther.
Obama’s lawyers have sent letters to broadcast stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania criticizing them for airing an NRA ad that they claim is full of lies (but is demonstrably full of true statements) and covertly threaten the broadcast license of the stations if they continue to air the ad. The Obama campaign is threatening the First Amendment right of the stations as well as the NRA (and therefore its members) in order to suppress Obama’s threat to the Second Amendment. The ad (embedded in this post and placed in my sidebar) demonstrates Obama’s threat to the Second Amendment and Obama does not want those who bitterly cling to their guns to see it. I encourage all bloggers who support the Second Amendment to put the video up on their blogs, Obama and his lawyers be damned.
Yes Barry, this is a reason not to vote for you. You found that out and are trying to use thuggery to suppress the people but it won’t work.
These thuggish acts are right out of the Chicago politics playbook and portray an ominous future in an Obama administration where people’s Second Amendment rights would be under attack as would those who dare to write or say anything about the “Dear Leader, Obama.” I doubt however, that the rogue leaders of the world would pay much attention to a letter from Obama’s lawyers expressing dissatisfaction over words used to describe the Dear Leader.
Barack Obama and his thugs are liars, they are miscreants who use strong armed tactics to run roughshod over people who disagree with them. Well screw them. We will not allow them to take away any of the rights enumerated in our Constitution. I took an oath to protect this country against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Obama is a domestic enemy of our Constitution (who keeps company with domestic terrorists in this country) and we must stop him at all costs. The first method is by opposition to him and his lawyers and their demands, peacefully at first and then escalating to whatever level is necessary to stop the assault.
The second way is to ensure that this Communist is not elected to the presidency of this country. If that becomes a reality our rights will be under further assault.
And we will not allow that to happen no matter what we need to do to stop it.
For a guy who claims not to be a Muslim he sure acts like them when it comes to people saying or writing things he does not like.
Sic semper tyrannis
Others:
The Volokh Conspiracy (corrects Fact Check’s errors) | The Bitch Girls | Instapundit | Snowflakes in Hell
Tags: communism, first amendment, Obama, rights, Second Amendment, suppression of voters, thugs
The Right to an Attorney
Jul 2, 2008 Macs law
I have been thinking about this for some time now. It all started when I wanted to file several lawsuits for government involvement in causing cancer. You see, the several states in the Union, including the state of Maryland, filed suit against tobacco companies claiming that their products caused cancer and that this was an increased burden on the Medicare system because a lot of money is spent on people with tobacco related illnesses and therefore is taken away from people who have an illness not related to substance abuse. The states won and Big Tobacco was forced to pay billions of dollars, most of which, by the way, went to the lawyers. The states got a cut but not nearly as much as the lawyers got. So here is where I come in. I wanted to sue Maryland for contributing to the problem.
Maryland allows tobacco products to be sold here and they charge a lot of taxes on those products. I figured that if Big Tobacco was responsible (under the law) and had to pay the states then the state was just as responsible and had to pay me. Then I decided I would sue Florida because they advertise as the Sunshine State and encourage people to visit there and sit in the sun. We all know that over exposure to the sun causes skin cancer (some exposure is necessary for Vitamin D absorption) so I figured Florida was getting people sick and to make matters worse they send those people back to their home states so that the home state gets stuck with the bills. This looked like a win-win for me. How could they deny that either state was complicit in the sickness and how could states defend against something that they already sued for and won?
The problem was, I have no attorney. I called around and the hourly rates these guys charge is off the scale. They get more in an hour than some people make all week and there was no way I could afford them. So then I thought, well everyone has a right to an attorney and I called the court to ask how to get one. They told me that I was only entitled in a criminal case in which I was the defendant and that civil cases (which is what my lawsuits would be) are not covered by the Sixth Amendment.
This got me thinking even more because now I began to realize that all the lawsuits that are filed each year cost average people a lot of money. I always heard about people who lost houses and their life savings but I figured they were morons who did not exercise their right to an attorney. I had a friend named Mac who ended up in this kind of a jam and lost everything, house, wife, kids, retirement, all of it because his kid left a skateboard on the sidewalk and some old woman fell over it. Her son was a lawyer and Mac never got one (now I know why). Mac drank himself into a coma at the age of 32 and he never regained consciousness. One day his liver failed and we lost him for good, July 4th 1993. I decided to look into the lawyer issue and I found out that:
- Legal fees are more than 2% of our GDP
- A lawsuit is filed an average of every 2 seconds in the US
- The average person is more likely to end up in court than the hospital
- More than half of the Senate are lawyers
These might not seem like a big deal to most people but the Democrats running for office are saying we need nationalized health care when what we really need is nationalized legal services. We are pretty much covered in criminal cases but we need help with the civil ones. I think it is time that we had nationalized legal services so that each person would have a lawyer when one is needed. I am sure that it will be tough for the politicians to get this through because many of them are lawyers and they have lawyer buddies that get rich by filing lawsuits. Look how many times the ACLU gets its way because it threatens to sue and their target backs down because they cannot afford the legal fees. This is not fair. They say there are 40 million uninsured people in the US (it is more like 15 or 20 but I will use their numbers) but there are over 300 million people here and most have no attorney.
We need to have equal footing in the court system so we can fight off Big Law. Big Law is responsible for huge pay outs for spilled coffee, huge pay outs for using electrical equipment in the water and all kinds of stuff. People and businesses are sued for all kinds of things by Big Law lawyers who get rich at the expense of people who could not afford attorneys. It is time to stand up to Big Law people like John Edwards so that those of us on this side of the two Americas can get fair representation just like the rich people do. It isn’t fair that rich people can afford lawyers and the average guy cannot.
The government needs to start charging rich people a legal fee tax and all settlements in civil court should have 10% removed to go to the nationalized legal service fund. We need to get some of the money from the excessive pay outs of civil suits and use it for the downtrodden. How is a person supposed to raise a family if he needs a lawyer in a civil case and he has to spend his life savings or go to court on his own?
I am serious about this and apparently so are some others. I am trying to find the websites but there are a few places that are pushing for nationalized legal services so that all Americans will have legal representation under the law. One place that I heard about is Justice for Justice or Justice in Justice or something like that. If anyone has heard of them and has a url I would appreciate you sending it to me.
We all deserve a lawyer and we should get that lawyer for free.
Tags: attorney, lawsuits, nationalized legal services, rights, unfair