Constitution Death Pool

There must be an election coming up

2006-09-19T09:38:00.000-05:00

The ~~Coward~~ Republican Party is starting to issue the empty platitudes about needing to secure the border.

Sorry, Mr. Frist. Your 11th hour electioneering won't work on people who have actually been paying attention to the Senate's actions - or lack thereof.

Ohio: No conviction? No problem!

2006-09-06T10:56:00.000-05:00

The state of Ohio has just passed legislation that allows prosecutors, the state attorney-general, or even private citizens to put other citizens on the state’s sex offender registry – all without the need for a costly trial.

While I think that sex offenders, especially child molesters, are vile creatures, I firmly believe in the right of due process, something which is denied to the accused in this first-of-its-kind “civil registry”. I am supremely confident that other states will enact measures similar to this one.

I’ve been saying for the last few years that “sex offenses” would be the new Scarlet Letter. I guess that time is now here.

Aboooooouuuutt FACE!

2006-08-03T12:37:00.000-05:00

Last month, The U.S. Senate voted to deny funding to build a 350-mile fence along the U.S./Mexico border. Yesterday, in an abrupt reversal, the Senate voted to approve funding for the fence.

Could it be that our elected ~~criminals~~ officials are finally getting the message that the citizens want border security? One can only hope.

Senate votes for border fence, votes against funding

2006-07-19T12:44:00.001-05:00

Four months ago, in a move that surprised everyone, the Senate voted to build a fence along the U.S./Mexico border in an apparent effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the U.S.

Last week, in a move that surprised absolutely no one, that same Senate voted 71-29 to deny funding for the construction of the previously mentioned fence.

This kinda puts the government’s priorities into perspective, doesn’t it. The Republicrats running the show are more interested in regulating the private lives of citizens than it is in doing its Constitutionally mandated job of protecting those citizens.

FMA shot down in the House

2006-07-19T09:31:00.000-05:00

The Federal Theocratic We-Control-Your-Life Amendment was shot down in the House, falling short of the 2/3 majority needed to pass in the House. The bill was also shot down in the Senate last week.

My opinion about government intervention in personal relationships has been well documented on my own blog. I go on the record once again saying that the government has absolutely no business dictating what two consenting, non-related adults do in their relationship.

Yet, religious nuts are positively apoplectic that their most recent attempt to force their outdated superstitious beliefs on us unwashed heathens has failed. Yeah, I hate linking to Newsmax, which, in my opinion is about as credible as the National Enquirer or the New York Times, but I want to show the nutcases as they exist in their own environment.

Dobson and his ilk, however, are merely a symptom of a much larger problem, and that problem is that a significant percentage of the population feels the need to force their own beliefs down everyone else's throat. This occurs in both major parties, which is why I see no real difference between the two.

Proponents of this theocratic amendment fail to realize the history and the intent of the Contitution. The Constitution was designed to impose limits on the government and to prevent the government from becoming an all-powerful, all intrusive entity. It was not, despite what is taught at the nations' brainwashing centers (collectively known as "churches"), a vehicle for controlling the actions of the citizenry. Such an effort was done in the past (the 18th Amendment), but that was such as disaster it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. I find it interesting to point out that religious nuts were behind that fiasco, as well.

It's often been said those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. All you need to do is look at a newspaper these days to see the truth in that statement.

Happy Independence Day

2006-07-04T09:55:00.000-05:00

I wanted to take a moment to wish everyone a Happy Independence Day. The way things are going in the US with the Republicrats in Washington doing everything possile to erode freedom and independence in this nation, there probably won’t be too many Independence Days left. It will soon be replaced by Nanny State Day.

Enjoy your independence while it lasts.

So it begins

2006-06-06T12:55:00.000-05:00

Eviction proceedings have begun in New London, CT.

To the residents on New London who are having their homes stolen “to promote the common good” (read: “generate tax revenue”), I have these words:

Article [II.]
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Another Amendment Out The Window...

2006-06-05T14:42:00.000-05:00

Thanks to our esteemed Supreme Court, police now have a free pass to enter your home without a search warrent if you are suspected of DUI.

Via cbs13.com...

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.

Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.

In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."

This shouldn't suprise anyone really. SCOTUS has been routinely pissing away our Constitutional rights in the name of "temprance" since 1983.

What really galls me about this is the double standard when it comes to preserving evidence. When you blow into that little machine and it spits out an arbitrary number such as .08 or .21 which is supposed to mean you are drunk -- regardless of bodyweight, tolerance, or the inconvenient fact that you haven't had anything stronger to drink than a glass of milk -- the breath sample is expelled from the machine into the outside air, preventing any further examination of that evidence. No one convicted of DUI based on a breathylizer reading is convicted on the actual evidence but a report that the evidence once existed. I'm no lawyer but that strikes me not only as hearsay but hearsay from a machine!

By the way, most breathylizer machine manufacturers do offer a kit to allow the machine to preserve the breath sample. It's very inexpensive but very few law enforcement agencies, if any, have actually ordered it for use in the field.

But the same flimsy bit of "evidence", which is discarded at the scene and not available during a trial is now justification for police to enter a home without a warrant.

The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening.

The door was open and a woman said the car's driver was asleep. Moments later, Thompson walked by the officers and they entered the house and arrested him. The neighbor confirmed it was the person she suspected of driving intoxicated and throwing an empty vodka bottle out the car door.

Thompson's blood-alcohol level was 0.21, almost three times the legal limit for driving. He was convicted and handed a three-year suspended sentence. He appealed.

A state court of appeal tossed the conviction, saying Thompson's constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court reversed, saying the lower court misapplied search-and-seizure precedent.

So even if this guy's BAC (not his actual BAC but a machine generated claim of what his BAC was) was appropriate to prove that he was drunk, that's all it proves. The guy was drunk in his own home. The only evidence that he was driving under the influence was the neighbor's complaint. That too is hearsay. This case shouldn't have even gone to a grand jury, much less the Supreme Court.

I think it's pretty clear what this flagrant violation of constitutional rights, which, but for one dissenter, has been fully enabled by the Supreme Court, means. It means that at any time, and with the flimsiest of justification, the police can enter your home illegaly, arrest you, and effectivly convict you for drinking in your own home.

The hatchet-wielders are winning, people!

And in case I didn't mention it before, never, EVER, take the breathylizer test if you are pulled over. It's better to let them take you to jail and lose your license for six months or whatever than to be coerced into incriminating yourself. Although from the look of this case, the courts will soon be able to convict you no matter what and it won't matter.

Laws are for Thee, Not for Me.

2006-06-01T11:56:00.000-05:00

I'm not a big fan of the New York Times. The paper's behavior lately, along with the behavior of many of it's alleged "reporters", has brought its credibility into question. In this case, however, the Times sheds light on our Congresscritters attempting to cover their asses regarding the much-lamented Jefferson raid.

Here we have a Congressmen who was videotaped by the FBI as he was taking bribes. Using this information, the FBI secured and executed a legal warrant to search Jefferson's home and offices. Naturally, the Congresscritters are up in arms about how the raid violated non-existent Constitutional protections.

In response to the execution of the warrant, Congress is threatening to subpeona U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before a committee to explain why the warrant was carried out. There's even talk of impeaching him for this.

To further prove that our "leaders" feel the laws of the land should not apply to them, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is proposing legislation to prevent the legal warranted search of the homes and offices of Congresscritters. This sounds suspiciously like Congress is trying to remove the Constitutional "checks and balances" on the Legislative branch.

The only thing missing here is a Congressional Marie Antoinette claiming "Let them eat cake."

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush

2006-05-28T20:28:00.000-05:00

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone and Just Citizens.

Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institude examine the constitutional record of George W. Bush. The full text can be found here in .pdf format. Everyone who thinks Bush is upholding his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States needs to read this critical paper.

Because what Bush has done, according to Healy and Lynch, is to continuously seek to increase federal power and push the limits the Constitution places on governmental authority. After having examined the actions of the Bush administration for five years, Healy and Lynch conclude:

President Bush’s constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

The study shows that the President has consistently failed to protect the First Amendment right to free speech, free thought and free expression. He signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform travesty -- acknowledged it was unconstitutional, that it restricted free speech for individuals, but signed it anyway! This appalling limit on free speech the law makes it a felony for a nonprofit group like the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club to broadcast an ad within 60 days of an election that criticizes an elected official by name.

Now do you understand why I call this act "The Incumbent Protection Act?" After all, if you can't criticize an incumbent candidate's paltry record on an issue right before an election without being prosecuted for it, you are giving an incumbent a huge edge in the election, especially given the American public's gnat-like attention span and willful apathy.

And we won't even go into those "free speech zones." I can understand the need to ensure the safety of our elected officials, but to put them purposefully out of the way -- behind busses, construction zones and far out of sight -- suggests more than just a desire to protect the President.

Bush and his administration have overstepped their boundaries and pushed the limits of executive power. Healy and Lynch claim Bush's view of executive power amounts to the view that, "in time of war, the president is the law, and no treaty, no statute, no coordinate branch of the U.S. government can stand in the president’s way when, by his lights, he is acting to preserve national security. That is apparent in a series of startling claims the administration has made in official documents and public papers, which include the following:"

• presidential power to ignore federal statutes governing treatment of enemy prisoners—as well as other federal laws that impinge on practices the president believes to be useful in fighting the war on terror;
• unilateral executive authority over questions of war and peace; and
• the power to designate American citizens “enemy combatants” and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror—in other words, perhaps forever.

Apparently, those powers also include torture, imprisonment, eavesdropping, expanded arrest powers and unconstitutional and unreasonable search and seizure. All these police-state tactics are brought to you by the War on Terror and in the name of "national security."

There are other blatant constitutional violations listed in this paper, although Healy and Lynch do note a couple of bright spots in Bush's presidency:

Early on in the president’s first term, Attorney General John Ashcroft made clear that it was the Bush administration’s position that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to bear arms. In two federal cases, the Bush administration argued in formal court papers that the "Second Amendment... protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia... to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or... firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." That was a significant, if symbolic, victory for those who believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, that “the right of the people” means an individual, personal right, just as it does in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. The president has also appointed a number of federal judges who appear to take constitutional limits seriously and may be expected to look skeptically at broad claims of legislative power. However, whether the same judges will look skeptically at broad claims of executive power remains very much in doubt.

All well and good. But frankly, without substantive action, this is all just talk. And Bush's blatant disrespect for the Bill of Rights, his promise to sign the "assault" weapons ban if its renewal was passed by Congress, support for taxpayer-funded trigger locks, support for bans on certain types of ammunition and age limits to gun ownership makes his former Attorney General's admission that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms sound pretty hollow.

You ever wonder why this nation is crumbling?

2006-05-26T08:38:00.000-05:00

Here's one good reason: American Idol outvotes the president

A prematurely grey soul singer from Alabama who was once likened to a drunken dad at a wedding triumphed in the American Idol finale, which drew more votes than have ever been cast for a president in a US election.

That's right. Ever.

We have forgotten our roots. Our schools don't bother teaching our kids our history. They're too busy teaching them how to be sensitive to other people's feelings, instead of giving them the tools to become self-reliant, informed adults. They're too busy teaching to standardized tests demanded by politicians whose only goal is to gain power at the expense of those they represent.

The average American doesn't know who the Vice President is, and doesn't care. They don't understand the Constitution. They don't understand the fundamental principles on which this nation was built. They're too busy screeching for a new law every time things don't go their way. They're too busy being offended and demanding that the law protect their nonexistent right not to be. They're too busy relying on the government for everything from education to protecting their property to defining what is moral and what isn't, while patently ignoring the fact that those whom they elected, for the most part, wouldn't know morality if it bit them on the fourth point of contact.

Is it any wonder most Americans know more about a television cartoon than they do about the First Amendment? After all, government officials haven't a clue either.

We hear Americans bitch and moan about how dissatisfied they are with this Congress and with this administration. And yet, we have a 97 percent incumbency rate in this country! Every two years, the same uninformed, apathetic losers who vote the corrupt, the ignorant and the tyrannical into their offices in the first place and whine about the loss of our rights and the decline of our nation, go to the polls again and vote for the same people!

Is it time to just quit? I wonder.

Above the law?

2006-05-25T08:31:00.000-05:00

I cross posted this at Just Citizens with a great followup blog from Brad and at Liberty Zone.

That's what our elected Representatives appear to believe themselves to be...

...Above the law.

As you may well have read here, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana is the subject of a federal bribery investigation. The FBI raided Jefferson's Capitol Hill office a few nights ago and took documents pertaining to their investigation.

Jefferson was caught on tape accepting bribes. Hidden money was found in his freezer, and two staffers implicated him in wrongdoing. Nonetheless, instead of vocally condemning these alleged actions, Congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle are screaming that the FBI violated the Constitution by carrying out this raid!!!

That's right, readers. Worse yet... they're demanding the FBI return documents taken in the raid of Jefferson's office.

"The Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.

Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas -- while admitting that what Jefferson has allegedly done is reprehensible -- claimed on Fox News that... well... you know... Article 1, Section 5 and 6 of the Constitution "talks about privilege and some of the things it does place, you know, some privileges there. The procedure is important."

Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution states, in part:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Hmmm. Would taking $100,000 in bribes as a public official be considered a felony? Just wondering.

Additionally, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano -- and I concur -- the paragraph was placed in there to prevent the President from interfering with a vote he didn't want to happen. It says NOTHING about members of Congress being above the law. Nothing.

Napolitano also added in a Fox News interview that the Constitution says that each House will be the judge of its own members, meaning it can sensor a member or kick a member out for violating ethics. "It does not say they're not subject to the criminal laws, and only the house to which they belong will address criminal activity. Congressman Jefferson is subject to the same laws we're all subject to."

Exactly. Members of Congress are rushing to the defense of their own, citing NOT laws, but historical precedent, as cause for their demand that the FBI return evidence they seized.

Is the procedure more important than the rule of law, Congressman Gohmert? Is historical procedure more important than justice? Than forcing a criminal to face the consequences of his actions? Apparently, Rep. Gohmert thinks so!

First, they tried screaming about the FBI's alleged violation of the "separation of powers" principle. Only one problem with that: when the Founders wanted to ensure a balance of power among the three branches of our government, they certainly NEVER intended to make members of Congress exempt from criminal prosecution.

Then, they tried to claim that the search, which followed an 89-page warrant to the letter, violated a provision in the Constitution that was meant to protect members of the legislative branch against strong-arming by the executive in order to influence a vote!

Neither excuse flies with this blog. Nor should it fly with any rational mind. Congress is not above the law. Article 1, Section 6 does not make them exempt - especially not if they allegedly committed a felony! Their insistence on rallying behind this obvious criminal leads me to believe there are personal interests at stake here.

Gotta send a shout out to Senator David Vitter, one of the few Louisiana politicians with any integrity, apparently.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter, in letter obtained by Bayoubuzz.com, rejected any defense of Bill Jefferson--or condemnation of the raids--by members of his own party. Addressing the note to leaders of the U.S. Senate GOP caucus, Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell, Vitter states, "I write to disagree in the strongest possible terms with the statements of some Congressional leaders which suggest that the court-approved search warrant which allowed the FBI to search a Congressional office is an abuse of power, something illegal or unconstitutional because of separation of powers. I urge you not to make such arguments or propose any policy that would bar or require notice for such court-approved search warrants in the future."

"In offering these views," Vitter continues, "I make no judgment whatsoever on the ongoing Jefferson investigation; that is for the justice system to sort out. And I agree with the practical, common sense rule that such searches of Congressional offices should be used sparingly and after very careful, apolitical review by both the prosecutors involved and an appropriate judge. But no location should be off limits and no one should be above the law."

The Louisiana Senator continued in the document to point out that the separation of powers arguments coming from Congress, in his view, had little basis in law.

There are plenty of issues in Vitter's voting record that give me heartburn. But he's dead on with this one! No one is above the law. No one.

And especially not someone who is elected and receives his salary from hard-working taxpayers.

Congressional corruption

2006-05-24T09:49:00.000-05:00

Cross posted at Liberty Zone and Just Citizens.

Apparently, William Jefferson (D-La.)who is under investigation for bribery said Monday he would not resign, even though he was videotaped accepting $100,000 from an informant last year.

Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, who has not been charged, called an FBI search of his Capitol office “an outrageous intrusion,” telling reporters: “There are two sides to every story. There are certainly two sides to this story.”

At the risk of sounding sarcastic and acrimonious, I'd like to really hear what kind of absurd reason Jefferson can possibly come up with for being caught on tape accepting a bribe and stashing the cash in a freezer. Was it too hot in his taxpayer funded digs? Did the air conditioner not work? Was he afraid the money, which he was going to use to help small, starving children in Africa get food and medicine, would get sweaty or burst into flames?

And we must remember, it's not like this is a wild goose chase that involved shoddy detective work and resulted in retaliatory persecution of an innocent man! According to Wikipedia, Jefferson has been under investigation by the FBI for suspected corruption since March of 2005; since that time, he's been named in two guilty pleas of associates.

On August 3, 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office that they found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers!

This is the same guy who -- in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- allegedly used National Guard troops to check on his New Orleans property and rescue his junk from his barely flooded house, while other -- not so privileged New Orleans residents -- were busy trying to save their own LIVES!

On Sept. 2 — five days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast — Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans and is a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was allowed through the military blockades set up around the city to reach the Superdome, where thousands of evacuees had been taken.

Military sources tells ABC News that Jefferson, an eight-term Democratic congressman, asked the National Guard that night to take him on a tour of the flooded portions of his congressional district. A five-ton military truck and a half dozen military police were dispatched.

Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News that during the tour, Jefferson asked that the truck take him to his home on Marengo Street, in the affluent uptown neighborhood in his congressional district. According to Schneider, this was not part of Jefferson's initial request.

Jefferson defended the expedition, saying he set out to see how residents were coping at the Superdome and in his neighborhood. He also insisted that he did not ask the National Guard to transport him.

Yeah, he set out to see how his constituents were doing and figured, "Hey! Since I'm here at my house, I might as well load my stuff onto the truck... since it's here and all..."

Now, whom do you think I'm going to believe - an obviously corrupt politician who was caught on tape taking a bribe, or members of the Louisiana National Guard who confirm he misused their resources for personal gain?

Additionally, according to a report released by another organization called CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)

...federal agents are investigating whether Rep. Jefferson illegally pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars of investors' money from business transactions. According to sources who spoke with The Washington Post, a high-tech company that was starting up in northern Virginia agreed to cooperate with the FBI and conversations with Rep. Jefferson were secretly recorded. Rep. Jefferson allegedly agreed to invest in the start-up company and use his congressional influence to bring in business.

But I digress...

The real shocker to me is that this obviously corrupt politician is claiming the search of his Congressional office to be "an outrageous intrusion into separation of powers between the executive branch and the congressional branch, and no one has seen this in all the time of the life of the Congress."

That's right. Notice he's not commenting on whether or not he accepted a bribe. He's not confirming or denying any wrongdoing on his part. But he's outraged that somehow the FBI's search of his Capitol Hill office violates the separation of powers between the executive and congressional branches!

SAY WHAT?

The Founding Fathers of this nation imposed the political doctrine we know as "separation of powers" to keep any one branch of the government from getting too powerful and ruling with an iron fist, so to speak. Further, be aware that the phrase "separation of powers" never appears in the actual text of the Constitution. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.

Yes, the concept is implied in the governmental structure created by the Founders -- three separate branches vested with certain powers, with the ability to check one another's power. Congress may make the law, but the President can veto it. The Court can judge the law to be unconstitutional, but Congress can sign a constitutional amendment. However, nowhere in the Constitution or in historical writings do I see a law enforcement investigation of an allegedly corrupt politician falling under the concept of "checks and balances" or "separation of powers," for that matter.

What's worse is that Jefferson's fellow politicians are lining up to protect one of their own!

House Speaker Dennis Hastert questioned whether the raid of the congressman’s office, believed the first in history, overstepped constitutional limitations on executive powers.

“Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years,” the Illinois Republican said in a statement.

Notice that partisanship doesn't play a role in Hastert's defense of his obviously corrupt colleague. His argument centers on the fact that the FBI has apparently never raided the office of a sitting Congressman before. Well, there's a good reason to ignore the wrongdoing -- apparently this has never been done before! Well, I'm sure there was a time when fingerprinting had never been used! I'm also sure there was a time DNA evidence wasn't even on our radar screens, and yet both techniques have been used time and time again to solve crimes in the present -- and even clear those innocents, who had previously been judged guilty!

So because there is no historical precedence for the FBI ever having searched a Capitol Hill office of a suspected corrupt politician, the evidence of wrongdoing should be ignored? Is that the way our elected representatives want justice to work in this nation?

There was no "intrusion" of the separation of powers. The principle doesn't imply that a law enforcement agency under one branch cannot investigate criminal wrongdoing by members of another branch! It ensures that ultimate power cannot be held by one person or governmental entity! And anyone who reads this nation's founding documents is aware of this fact!

Meanwhile, Jefferson's colleagues are lining up behind him, trying to save his sorry hide -- not by proclaiming his innocence, but by trotting out the excuse that there was no historical precedent for the search of Jefferson's office!

Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is hopping mad! Not at the Congressman's alleged corruption, but because the law enforcement authorities did their jobs!

"There is no excuse for the FBI for the first time in history searching a congressional office and apparently doing so in total [dis]regard of due process as it relates to the legislative branch," former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., wrote Sunday night in an e-mail to several members and aides obtained by CongressDaily. Gingrich was particularly critical of what he described as the executive branch trampling constitutional lines of authority.

Disregard for due process? They had a warrant, Newt! They had attorneys oversee the search to ensure it was done properly! Obviously there was a judge somewhere that thought the thousands found in Jefferson's freezer warranted further searches!

Gingrich continued:

"The protection of the legislative branch from the executive branch's policing powers is a fundamental principle which goes all the way back to the English Civil War," he added, describing the incident as "the most blatant violation of the constitutional separation of powers in my lifetime."

Oh really, Newt? Please show us where in the Constitution it says that criminals, who just happen to be politicians, are exempt from criminal investigations by a law enforcement agency that just happens to be part of the executive branch! I'll give you a clue: IT'S NOWHERE IN THERE!

Begging the question

2006-05-23T12:00:00.000-05:00

I'm going to sidestep the normal focus of this blog for a moment. Instead of posting a Constitutional issue, I'm going to ask a question that is of significance to U.S. veterans, then follow it up with important information.

After reading this article, I had to ask myself: What was this guy doing with the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of 26.5 million veterans on his laptop?

I strongly advise vets to notify credit agencies of potential fraud. Here are some numbers. You’ll only need to call one, and the others will be notified as well.

TransUnion
Fraud Victim Assistance Department
Phone: 800-680-7289
Fax: 714-447-6034
P.O. Box 6790
Fullerton, CA 92634-6790

Equifax
Consumer Fraud Division
Phone: 800-525-6285 or: 404-885-8000
Fax: 770-375-2821
P.O. Box 740241
Atlanta, GA 30374-0241

Experian
Experian’s National Consumer Assistance
Phone: 888-397-3742
P.O. Box 2104
Allen, TX 75013

Time for a civics lesson

2006-05-17T10:40:00.000-05:00

Cross posted at JUST CITIZENS and Liberty Zone.

I got this from my friend CV, who grabbed it from Wonkette.

Can someone tell us what's missing here? This is a flash card from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, by the way.

Is it any wonder that the vast majority of Americans have no clue what the Bill of Rights says or protects, when their own government agencies don't either?

Mexico to US: Defending Your Border is Illegal

2006-05-17T10:31:00.000-05:00

In a real head scratching statement Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said "If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates,"

Did I read that right? Is it the official position of the Government of Mexico that the United States of America would be committing human rights violations, would be breaking her own laws, if she tries and protect her southern border?

Where is the sanity in the world today? How is it even possible that someone could take this seriously?

Warrant? Freedom? Yeah. Right

2006-05-16T08:49:00.000-05:00

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being "tracked."

"Think of it more as backtracking," said a senior federal official.

But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

"The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

Interesting debate

2006-05-15T08:47:00.000-05:00

On Saturday morning Brad and I got into an interesting telephone discussion about the nature of our nation and how the 9-11 attacks affected who and what we are today. While we both agree that the terrorist attacks had a profound effect on America, we disagree about the nature of those effects.

I contend that what we are seeing today is a fundamental shift in the actual psychological makeup of this nation.

This country was founded and based on the fundamental principles of human rights -- life, liberty and property. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights strive to limit government power and protect those fundamental rights from infringement by those whom we put in power. The nation's collective psychology stems from the principles on which the Founders created this nation. These fundamental freedoms are what we treasure. They are what we value -- as a nation; as a whole.

I believe that the September 11 attacks changed that collective psychology. We are now, more than ever, willing to trade away our freedoms for what we believe to be a little "security."

A recent ABC news / Washington Post poll found that 63 percent of Americans support the NSA phone tracking program.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 64 percent of Americans believe the NSA should be allowed to intercept phonecalls between terrorism suspects living in other countries and people living in the US.

A TNS poll reveals that 54 percent of respondents think wiretapping telephone calls and e-mails without court approval is an acceptable way to investigate terrorism.

Americans are largely willing to accept abuses by the TSA and don't seem to have a problem with "no-fly" lists and airlines that are willing to give up passenger data to the TSA without so much as a thought to the privacy of their customers.

I don't think this is simply a reaction of fear to the worst terrorist attacks on our land. I think this is a fundamental shift in how we exist and how we view the very nature of our nation.

Brad says -- and rightfully so -- that history is cyclical... that we have been through similar reactionary measures in times of war. He's correct there as well. We've been through the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 and the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, as well as the Trading with the Enemy Act.

However, he believes the shift is not a fundamental shift in our nation's psychological makeup, but more the result of reactionary fear and decades of revisionist history in the nation's schools, which barely teach the truth about American history any longer.

Only time will tell which one of us is right.

What do you, the reader, think?

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

2006-05-11T08:32:00.000-05:00

Cross posted at Liberty Zone.

It's certainly unsurprising. Nor does it bother me personally -- as in "Ooooh, I've got something to hide from the gooberment!" No. Nothing like that. It just amazes me that we have come so far on the path to a police state, and no one is blinking an eye.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

But of course, it's all in the name of the War on Terror!

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, the same one whom President Bush tapped to head the CIA, was in charge of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. Hmmmm. Given his limited understanding -- or willful ignorance of -- the Constitution, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

On freedom of religion

2006-05-10T08:17:00.000-05:00

Cross posted at JUST CITIZENS.

This story comes to you from South Carolina.

The owners of a Spartanburg apartment complex have asked residents to stop a Bible study held in a common area.

The owners of Heritage Court said the study violates the Fair Housing Act. The apartments are privately owned by One Management of Raleigh, N.C., but many residents have their rent subsidized by federal vouchers.

"It's not our rule. It's Fair Housing law, which says you cannot discriminate against religion," One Management Vice President Jenny Petri said. "It's unfortunate, but we are required to comply to Fair Housing laws. We hope that the residents can continue doing what they're doing within their own apartment."

But the owners may be misinterpreting the law, said William Dudley Gregorie, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's field office director for South Carolina.

The Bible studies are likely OK as long as permission was also given to any other religious group who wanted to use the area, Gregorie said. "In other words, if you let one, you have to let all," he said.

There is nothing in this world that ignites the passions of Americans more than religion. It seems every faith is feeling persecution, and those who have none, and feel they've been persecuted in the past, are striking back and forcing the pendulum to the other extreme.

The Bill of Rights -- and specifically the First Amendment -- protects the freedom of religion. That is to say -- it specifically says that the government cannot impose a certain religion on the populace, nor can it violate the rights of Americans to practice their faith. It seems pretty simple, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government cannot force you to worship a certain way, and it cannot prevent you from worshipping in your own way.

Then, why is it that the apparent simplicity of these words has been twisted on numerous different ways?

Yes, the owners of the apartment complex in the above story own a private enterprise. It just so happens, however, that they accept tenants, who pay for their rent in taxpayer money - government vouchers - OUR money. If the owners barred residents from paying rent in government cash, they could demand whatever they wanted in the common areas of their own property. But since they choose to accept taxpayer dollars as part of their profits, what gives them the right to:

1 - prohibit residents from exercising their Christian faith?

2 - prohibit other residents from exercising other kinds of faiths, including Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Wicca, Buddhism and others?

It is, after all, property partially paid for and maintained with federal dollars.

The First Amendment seeks to ensure that no government ever attempts to impose a theocracy in this nation by forcing its citizens to worship a certain way, and it seeks to ensure that goverment, by the same token, cannot prohibit someone from worshipping a certain way.

Does that mean that a kid or a group of kids can't say a prayer in school? No. It means that a teacher or adiministrator cannot FORCE a kid or group of kids to say a prayer to Jesus, Allah, Yaweh, Hecate or any other deity in school.

Does this mean that a group of folks can't hold a prayer meeting in a public park? No. It means that no government has the authority to prohibit them from doing so, or to prohibit other faiths from doing so as well.

Freedom is freedom. It's the same for everyone. That's what the Founders strove to protect.

Open Letter

2006-05-10T00:39:00.000-05:00

Dear Mr. President / Senator Hutchinson / Senator Cornyn

I pay close attention to current events happening in the United States, and I must shake my head in dismay at what I see. I see a Republican president, and a Republican controlled legislature giving lip service to so-called “national security” issues, then turning around and doing the exact opposite of what they are advocating.

As a strong supporter of the long-overdue war against terrorism, I can only watch in utter disbelief as the same people who advocate strong national security continue to allow the U.S. borders to remain unattended. Normally, I would argue that the Border Patrol is under-manned and under-funded, but that argument vanished in a puff of smoke when I read the news today.

The Border Patrol is providing Mexico with information as to the location of the Minutemen who are patrolling the Arizona border? Did I read this right? Are representatives of the U.S. Government aiding and abetting in the violation of our own borders?

If this is true, then I am sure an investigation into this matter will be conducted with the utmost expediency. Right? I, for one, will not be holding my breath. I, along with many other voters, have lost all faith in the federal government to fulfill its Constitutional duty to defend this nation against foreign invasion. I am not referring to solely the illegal immigration problem, but also the very high possibility that terrorists could infiltrate the U.S. and smuggle in devastating weaponry.

Some of us voters held our noses as we voted for Republican candidates as we hoped the border situation would improve. So far, we remain distinctly unimpressed. Unless this very important national security matter is addressed immediately, I can assure you that, on November 7th, I will not be voting for anyone in the Republican Party.

Perhaps being relegated once again to a minority party status will remind Republican politicians as to who exactly elected them and as to why they were elected into office.

Sincerely,
(me)

Since When...?

2006-05-09T15:51:00.000-05:00

This pretty much speaks for itself (via abc11tv.com, North Carolina ABC affiliate)

(05/08/06 -- APEX) - Wake County school officials have suspended a boy for having sex during school hours.

Ryan Biggar, 16, and his 17-year-old girlfriend had permission to leave Middle Creek High School for an off-campus program. When their event was canceled for the day, they were caught having sex in the girl's home.
It violated school rules, and officials say those rules apply no matter where you are during school hours.

But the Biggar's family is filing a lawsuit against the school system, saying his suspension for the rest of the school year is unconstitutional. He says he had no notice that private, consensual, off-campus sexual activity could subject him to school suspension.

Some students told Eyewitness News that the rules are unclear.

"I think he shouldn't get suspended because he was at his house. What he does at his house should stay at his house," said senior Jajuan Blanton.

A mother disagrees.

"Restrictions say you're on school time, then you are on school time whether you're at lunch or not," said Mary Ann Buesing.

Wake County school spokesman Michael Evans says that having sex during school hours breaks the rules - - even in a private home.

"Whereever you are during school hours. It's a privilege to leave campus for lunch and you sign a form to that effect, as do your parents," Evans said. "So it was with full consent and knowledge that they participate under these rules and if they chose to break them then disciplinary action will come into play."

Court documents include a copy of the lunch permit application, which states that students exercising off-campus lunch privileges are subject to the rules of student conduct, as applicable to the regular school day. Biggar and one of his parents had signed the application.

Biggar is appealing his suspension. A hearing is set for May 15. It is unclear if his girlfriend was suspended, since she is not suing anyone and school records are not public.

Since when does a school have the authority to dictate what goes on in a private home. There is absolutely no excuse for this. No argument or justificiation, no matter how tenuous (and the school's position here is indeed tenuous) can justify this.

And I'm not even hearing this mother's argument about "school time." If, after the event was cancelled the students were still on school time then they should have still been under school supervision. That is, they should have been taken back to class for the rest of the day. The fact that the school did not do this means that the school has effectivly released them and they were not "on school time."

Of course the students may well have ducked out on their own, taking advantage of the fact that their teachers already had them listed as attending the school function that was cancelled and might not miss them. If that's the case then the school would be well within it's rights to punish them for truancy. However, if they were truant then that would mean that they were still outside of school custoday. Because they chose to leave the scope of school custody in violation of the rules does not change the fact that they were still outside of school custody.

And no matter what, the school's authority does not extend to the inside of someone's private residence ever!

If Mrs. Buesing wants to surrender her rights as a citizen and a mother to school administration, I guess that's her business. Hopefully the rest of the parents with kids in this school have more sense but I'm not holding my breath.

President Bush's new CIA Pick has no clue on Fourth Amendment

2006-05-08T09:38:00.000-05:00

Cross posted on JUST CITIZENS.

I have serious issues with the possible nomination of Michael Hayden to the head post at the CIA. It's not because I fear the military having control over a civilian agency, which as Brad showed in his entry is a complete pranoid crock that has some uninformed Congressleeches wetting their panties.

My concern - as a member of the military and someone who has sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States - is the General's apparent disregard and ignorance of what the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution says.

For the record, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states:

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.

For the record, a recent dialogue between General Hayden and Knight Ridder's Jonathan Landay shows he's either ignorant about what the Fourth says, or just doesn't give a damn.

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. ... I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place [of] probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

A couple of things here:

1 - The "unreasonable search and seizure" is just ONE of the things the Fourth protects us against. It also protects us and our possessions against search warrants that are arbitrarily issued for no good reason. It specifically says that no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause, and specifying what the police are searching for and where.

2 - The "reasonableness" principle applies to search and seizure itself, not to authorization from the court to perform the search and seizure in the first place. For that, you need a valid warrant that shall not be issued unless there is PROBABLE CAUSE. The Warrant was intended to be a protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

So, no, I do not believe for a minute that the General was responding to a "lawful" order. Did he know it? He certainly was quick to qualify his reply with the fact that he's not a lawyer, nor did he wish to become one. All I know is that his grasp on what the Fourth says seems to be tenuous at best.

Bush says he would like to close Guantanamo

2006-05-08T08:39:00.000-05:00

Was it public outcry or was it a bout of conscience that prompted this decision?

BERLIN (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay -- a step urged by several U.S. allies -- but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on how suspects held there might be tried.

"Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial," Bush said in comments to German television to be broadcast on Sunday night. The interview was recorded last week.

Human-rights groups have accused the United States of mistreating Guantanamo detainees through cruel interrogation methods, a charge denied by the U.S. government.

They also criticize the indefinite detention of suspects captured since the military prison was opened in 2002 at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, as part of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.

Bush was asked by the German public television station ARD how the United States could restore its human-rights image following reports of prisoner abuse.

"Our top court must still rule on whether they should go before a civil or military court," he said.

"They will get their day in court. One can't say that of the people that they killed. They didn't give these people the opportunity for a fair trial."

The quotes were translated by Reuters from a German transcript.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on whether military tribunals of foreign terrorist suspects can proceed.

Bush's comments were a reiteration of long-standing U.S. policy, Frederick Jones, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in Washington.

"The United States has no intention of permanently detaining individuals, that is not our goal. We want to see all these individuals brought to justice," he said, whether in their home countries or in the United States.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, has dismissed calls for the prison to be closed.

"Every once and a while someone pops up and gets some press for saying 'Oh let's close Guantanamo Bay.' Well, if someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it," Rumsfeld said in a February speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The United States has 480 detainees at Guantanamo and has freed or handed over to their home governments a total of 272. The Pentagon has said it has no interest in holding anyone longer than necessary but that it has been unable to arrange for some to return to their home countries.

The Pentagon says the detainees come from 40 countries and the West Bank, with the largest number from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In a report last week for the U.N. Committee against Torture, Amnesty International said torture and inhumane treatment were "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers, including Guantanamo Bay.

The United States defended its treatment of foreign terrorism suspects in a hearing before the committee in Geneva on Friday, saying it backed a ban on torture.

City to consider taking land from Wal-Mart; Prime bay property could be seized by eminent domain

2006-05-08T08:33:00.000-05:00

Interesting eminent domain twist...

The Hercules City Council will consider whether to use eminent domain to wrest a 17-acre property from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. after the nation's largest retailer rejected a city offer to buy the site with views of San Pablo Bay, city officials said Thursday.

The council asked that a "resolution of necessity'' be brought to it for discussion, City Manager Mike Sakamoto said. The matter has been put on the council's May 23 agenda. Efforts to reach council members about Thursday's announcement were unsuccessful.

Wal-Mart bought the property overlooking central Hercules in November after another developer received city approvals for a neighborhood shopping center.

In February, city planners recommended denying Wal-Mart's proposal for a big-box store on its property, saying the plan was not in keeping with what had been approved for the location, which commands a view of one of the Bay Area's most vaunted New Urbanist communities, with pedestrian-oriented streets and large open-space set-asides, as well as sweeping views of the bay.

The company withdrew its application before it went to the city Planning Commission. In response, the City Council voted to make an offer for the land for an undisclosed amount of money.

On March 31, however, Wal-Mart submitted a new application that it said substantially conforms to city requirements. The same day the company submitted its revised proposal, Councilwoman Charleen Raines was hardly welcoming, although she said she had not read it.

"What the council has said is that we want to buy the property,'' she said, describing the tussle with Wal-Mart as a "David and Goliath'' struggle. "At this point, we're concerned about moving ahead on this property. It's been hanging over us for a long time.''

Wal-Mart's new proposal, which is still hotly opposed by some residents, calls for a general retail and grocery store, as well as a pedestrian plaza, two outdoor dining areas and other small shops and general merchandise stores, including a pharmacy.

"We're disappointed that the city is really playing politics with the future of Hercules rather than looking at the big picture,'' company spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said.

"Many residents of the city who we've talked to are frustrated and anxious for this much-needed retail project to move forward.''

Judges challenge Internet wiretap rules

2006-05-05T15:52:00.000-05:00

A U.S. appeals panel sharply challenged the Bush administration Friday over new rules making it easier for police and the FBI to wiretap Internet phone calls. A judge said the government’s courtroom arguments were “gobbledygook.”

The skepticism expressed so openly toward the administration’s case encouraged civil liberties and education groups that argued that the U.S. is improperly applying telephone-era rules to a new generation of Internet services.

“Your argument makes no sense,” U.S. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards told the lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission, Jacob Lewis. “When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I’m not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!”

At another point in the hearing, Edwards told the FCC’s lawyer that his arguments were “gobbledygook” and “nonsense.”

The court’s decision was expected within several months.

In an unrelated case last year affecting digital television, two of the same three judges determined the FCC had significantly exceeded its authority and threw out new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices in new video devices. Lewis was also the losing lawyer in that case, and Edwards also was impassioned then in his criticisms of the FCC.

In the current case, Edwards appeared especially skeptical over the FCC’s decision to require that providers of Internet phone service and broadband services must ensure their equipment can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

The new rules go into effect in May 2007.

The 1994 law was originally aimed at ensuring court-ordered wiretaps could be placed on wireless phones.

The Justice Department, which has lobbied aggressively on the subject, warned in court papers that failure to expand the wiretap requirements to the fast-growing Internet phone industry “could effectively provide a surveillance safe haven for criminals and terrorists who make use of new communications services.”

Critics said the new FCC rules are too broad and inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it passed the 1994 surveillance law, which excluded categories of companies described as information services.

The FCC asserted that providers of high-speed Internet services should be covered under the 1994 law because their voice-transmission services can be considered separately from information services. “Congress intended to cover services (in the 1994 law) that were functionally equivalent” to traditional telephones, Lewis said during the hearing in U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

“There’s nothing to suggest that in the statute,” Edwards replied. “Stating that doesn’t make it so.”

The panel appeared more inclined to support the FCC’s argument that Internet-phone services — which allow users to dial and receive calls from traditional phone numbers — may be covered under the 1994 law and required to accommodate court-ordered wiretaps. The technology, popularized by Holmdel, N.J.-based Vonage Holdings Corp., is known as “voice over Internet protocol,” or VOIP.

“Voice-over is a very different thing,” U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle said. He said it offered “precisely the same” functions as traditional telephone lines.

Edwards told the lawyer for the civil liberties groups, Matthew Brill, that on his challenge that VOIP services aren’t covered under the surveillance law, “I didn’t think you have it.”
Education groups had challenged the FCC rules because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks.

The third judge on the panel, Janice Rogers Brown, did not comment or ask any questions during the arguments.

FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes

2006-05-05T13:20:00.000-05:00

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

This makes me so angry, I literally want to beat someone to a pulp. The Federal Communications Commission (one of the biggest and most tyrannical wastes of time and money in the US) voted unanimously to levy wiretapping taxes on companies, municipalities and universities.

Yes, you read that correctly. WIRETAPPING TAXES.

Broadband providers and Internet phone companies will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled Wednesday.

So not only will your Internet providers likely pass this atrocity on to you, the consumer, in the form of higher fees, but you will wind up paying the Feds more of your hard-earned money so they could monitor your Internet habits if you happen to stumble across www.hotbabesdoingoneanother.com!

"The first obligation is...the safety of the people," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "This commission supports efforts to protect the public safety and homeland security of the United States and its people."

And it's all being done in the name of the War on Terror! Don't you feel safer now?

The Failure of Imminent Domain

2006-05-01T10:06:00.000-05:00

A small business owner in Seattle gets to keep her family business after it was seized under imminent domain.  The coffee house which is located across from the Space Needle, will be sold back to the Lee family for $650,000.  The city forced the Lee family to sell it to them for $580,000.  The city will make a tidy little $70,000 profit from the venture.  The reason for the forced sell was that the Seattle Monorail Project wanted to put a new line in the area, turning the Lee’s business into a park outside of the station.

State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a nonvoting SMP board member, called the sale "a very positive move," and Chairwoman Beth Goldberg agreed.  The Lees' $70,000 loss represents part of a $14.4 million "profit" from 31 lots sold to date, which are fetching more than the $56.3 million it cost taxpayers to buy them.

The Lee’s figures they will end up losing $120,000; the $70,000, plus the cost of lawyers and real-estate experts over the past two years.

This is another example of how Imminent Domain is being illegally used to make money for cities.   Americans need to stand up, and find lawmakers that will fight for the people and not for their jobs.

TABC Backs Down

2006-04-13T14:41:00.000-05:00

...For now at least.

(4/13/06 - DALLAS, TX) - The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday it has suspended a crackdown on public intoxication after a public outcry over the program that sends undercover officers into drinking establishments.

Public outcry indeed. Review their funding and watch them try and backpedal. Sure they'll use ambiguous and noncommittal language such as "just to give us time to sift through all the information we've received and pull together all the information and determine the best way to proceed." But let's face it. TABC shot themselves in the foot and now they are hoping the story will quetly go away while the wound heals. Meanwhile the men of MADD, who in my opinion most likely put a fire under TABC to begin with, get to sit back and watch while TABC takes the heat. Lots of luck, guys.

Looks like the at least one bar has sued as well.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is being sued by Dallas Night Club.

The club`s suit alleges that the state agency unfairly targeting the club and not using a consistent standard to decide if club goers are legally drunk.

About time someone stated the obvious.

But wether it's public outcry or the threat of being hit financially, it seems that TABC has gotten the message. They need to run home with their tail between their legs and stop harrassing law-abiding people for drinking at the behest of an obsolete bunch of nanny-staters such as ~~Men~~ Mothers Against ~~Drinking~~ Drunk Driving.

That message is, as Twisted Sister put it back in the day, "We're not gonna take it!"

But is that message being heard loudly and clearly enough in this country? Doesn't look like it.

At the same time the stories about TABC are running, there's also this spiffy new way to ~~invade our privacy~~ test for cocaine. Also, scientists are working on ways to ~~incriminate~~ test for substances using saliva.

A saliva sample for narcotics testing can often give a more accurate representation of what’s really going in the body than urine, Cone said. Some drugs, like cocaine, can appear in the saliva long before they show up in urine, and a saliva sample is less susceptible to tampering than the "go off by yourself and put some in a cup" method.

Collecting saliva is painless, less invasive and easier.

So in other words they want to make it easier for police to invade our privacy before we have a chance to talk to an attorney if suspected of being intoxicated. I wonder if that saliva sample would be any more discoverable in a court of law than the urine or breath sample. I certainly don't expect it to be any more accurate.

I'm sorry but no one has the right to take my saliva any more than they have the right to take my breath, blood, or urine. And if an officer tries, I will refuse to incrimine myself just as enthusiasticly as I would if that officer tried to take a breathylizer test without due process.

Here's an interesting bit. The Alcoholic Beverage Control system of North Carolina has banned gossip in their stores.

The Alcoholic Beverage Control system has banned gossiping and threatened to fire anyone who tells tales or spreads rumors.

Gene Webb, the system’s general manager, issued the order in February, making employees sign a statement that says, “Take care of the business in your individual store; do not try to get involved in the business of another store or employee.”

He declined to elaborate on what prompted the gag order.

“It’s really a problem with one or two employees,” he said Tuesday.

From the sound of it, this policy is simply in response to an in-house problem with some of their employees. But the reason I point this out is because it is a good reflection of the mindset of these agencies. If this is how North Carolina's alcohol regulatory agency handles it'w own employees, by enacting a heavy-handed and sweeping policy to handle one or two bad employees, how well do you think they are going to respect consumer rights? Moreover, how can anyone set policy on something like "gossip"? It's an intangiable concept that can't be regulated. That just goes to show you where the neoprohibitionist mindset is at. They want to conrol the uncontrollable.

So I'd say the answer is no, the message that the public isn't going to stand for this kind of crap in not being heard. It's time to speak up. It's time to shout and demand instead of politely request. After all, we're living in a country where someone can't even display this nation's flag without harrassment by authority.

Uh, Excuse Me?

2006-03-22T14:18:00.000-06:00

As my father used to say, wrong answer!

Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy

Comedian Weighs In On Public Intoxication Arrests

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

Dallas comedian Steve Harvey agreed with the Texas residents who said the arrests infringed on individual rights.

"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.

Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication. Harvey and other North Texans called the measure extreme.

"That seems to be an extreme case," one man said. "You are self-contained, in the hotel, you're not going in the streets, it seems a little ridiculous."

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.

"Freedom of drinking should always be allowed, and it is only American to let a guy get drunk where he wants to get drunk," Harvey said.

First, I have this to say to any peace officer who participated in these raids or others like it: Hang up your badge and resign now! You have broken your oath to defend the Constitution. You have disgraced the uniform of your department and you've broken the faith of the public and of your fellow officers. Even if you were under under orders, that's no excuse. No one in who wears any uniform in the Unites States is obligated to obey an unlawful order. And these arrests were not lawful by any stretch of the imagination.

Those people who you've arrested will automaticly be presumed guilty. They will be bullied into exhaustion by prosecuting attorney's looking to get convictions in order to keep TABC well funded and further their own careers. Even if they beat the charge, they will be deprived of due process and harrassed for years. Their license will be revoked (illegally of course). Their employement may be at risk and they will have to fight for their very freedom while you sleep safe in your beds and secure in your perceived sense of untouchability as police officers. Their lives will never be the same.

Ask yourselves, is it right ruining someone's life just for having a drink at a bar?

By participating in these "sweeps" you've betrayed every one of your colleagues who puts his or her life on the line to keep their jurisdiction safe. Ask yourself why you took an oath of service only to become the lapdog of TABC, MADD, and every other neoprohibitionist group in this country. Congratulations, you have now become the Bad Guy.

There are still too many good police officers literaly fighting a war everyday to protect the public for your participation in this program to be anything but unacceptable. You officers that took part in these raids do a disservice to those good officers and you sully the memory of those officers who have paid the ultimate price for public safety. You disgust me!

Second, The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) needs to go away. It is a completely unnecessary organization that does absolutely no service to the citizens of the State of Texas. TABC is nothing more than the strong arm for an extremely vocal minority who wants to deprive the majority of basic rights. It's completely at odds with the very concept of "public service."

I remember when I first got out of the Navy. I wasn't driving so instead of getting a state ID, I just kept using my military reserve "pink ID", which is valid ID in all US States and Territories as well as a valid passport. Well TABC had just gone around raiding bars, clubs, and liqour stores all over Houston in a "crackdown" (that very term makes my blood boil!) on underage drinking. Then after they scared the hell out of everybody in the service industry, went around "training" people in the industry that only a Texas driver's license or DPS ID was valid ID at all. Needless to say that for about three months I got into it with every bouncer and liquor store clerk I came across. Most of the time the phrase "Geneva Convention of 1970" used in the proper tone of voice shut them up pretty quickly. Although one time at a club I had a TABC guy who was actually at a club on some sort of inspection start yelling at me about it. He and the bouncer had backed me into a corner and were saying it was fake and threatened to destroy my military ID card on the spot (he'd already cut up another guy's driver's licence, saying it was fake). It was at that point the the Houston Police Officer working the door stepped over and informed him that if he did that he'd be arrested for destruction of government property and would likely do time in a federal prison for it.

Sometimes, we take our victories where we can.

But the point is that TABC is nothing more than a consortium of bullies. And when they get out of line, they are subject to the law just like everyone else. In that incident, the officer did the right thing. In Irving last week, the officers did not do the right thing.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

And just what message is that? That people who drink have no rights? That someone can be arrested when they haven't done anything more than having a drink at a bar, even though they haven't gotten behind the wheel and weren't going to? That one is guilty before one has even committed a crime? Or that the police, instead of being trusted to defend the Constitution, are now becoming that which people need to defend themselves against? Because through the actions of TABC and participating law enforcment, every one of those messages was sent loud and clear.

TABC is not even pretending:

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

That just says it all right there. If anyone really believes that TABC's overwhelming interest is in saving lives, then I've got some land for sale. And even if they were trying to save lives, that's still unnaceptable.

Benjamin Franklin said it best:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

If this sort of arbitrary harrassment continues, then it's inevitable that the public is going to send a message of it's own.

Gun rights leader needs your help

2006-03-03T22:22:00.000-06:00

I got this in an email from Nicki.

Folks, most of you know how decent, passionate, intelligent and dynamic Angel Shamaya is. He has committed himself to freedom, and I know of few people who are as dedicated to the cause of freedom as Angel. He is also a personal friend to many of us, and now he needs our help.

Today he was arrested, and he is currently in jail. Please read the link below and take a few minutes to write the judge on his behalf. I have National Drill this weekend, and I'm sending this from my hotel room. I won't be around much until Sunday night, but I'm counting on you guys to spread the news and help Angel through this. Please!

This link includes an address where to send your letters of reference. Please do so as quickly as you can!

Then, I urge you to pass this email to everyone you know. Post it on your websites and blogs, pass it on to fellow bloggers and help us ensure that this gets the widest possible dissemination. Yes, this is about freedom -- but right now, we need to ensure he is, first and foremost, released and that charges are dismissed, so please toe the line on this one. For Angel.

Thanks!

Nicki Fellenzer

Not A Good Sign

2006-03-02T15:52:00.000-06:00

From Yahoo News via Drudge:

It seems that the case of Everybody In Texas v. Perry is starting to get a bit dry as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg started nodding off during arguments.

The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session.

The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.

Now on the one hand, I've always thought the case was a crock to begin with. It strikes me as a massive temper tantrum on the part of Democrats who simply don't want to lose power, even legally. So I can understand completely that listening to arguments in this case would be about exciting watching a documentary on the mating habits of the Ethiopian White-Tailed Swallow. I'd be falling asleep myself, or just dreaming of a life on . And Ginsberg is 72 years old so I'm inclined to cut her a little slack.

After all, the Justices are only human.

But you know what? If I were an attorney making an argument in a landmark case, I'd be just a tad peeved if the justices can't stay awake for it. I won't go into the usual arguments about being held to a higher standard and all that. But if it were me, I'd be inclined to say something, particularly if I thought that hearing a particular argument might affect the final decision.

Is it appropriate to go up to the bench and wake up a Supreme Court Justice? Maybe they should just make them stand up in the back of the room like my company commanders had us do in boot camp.

1 in 1000 know the First Amendment

2006-03-01T09:48:00.000-06:00

In popular American culture, the moron is upheld as an example to which people should aspire. In fact, an entire section of American culture is emphatically dedicated to the glorification of the idiot.

Case in point, A large portion of Americans know more about The Simpsons than they do the First Amendment.

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

I find it utterly appaling to see that people know more about an imaginary family than they do the basic freedoms upon which America was founded. This is also a gross indictment of our public education system, which is allegedly charged with ensuring our young have at least a basic knowledge of our rights and responsibilities in our society.

Appalling though this situation may be, I can't honestly say I'm surprised. This is something I've seen coming for some time now. Unfortunately, as it stands now, it looks as though it's only going to get worse.

Big Brother, Where Art Thou

2006-02-17T11:35:00.000-06:00

Let's take a look at what Houston's Chief of Police would like to do:

Police chief wants surveillance cameras in Houston apartments

HOUSTON Houston's police chief is suggesting putting surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets and even private homes.

Chief Harold Hurtt today said it's another way of combatting crime amid a shortage of officers.

Houston is dealing with too many police retirements, too few recruits and a population increase of about 150-thousand hurricane refugees.

Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf coast in late August.

Rita hit southeast Texas about one month later.

The Houston City Council is considering a public safety tax to pay for more officers.

Scott Henson with the American Civil Liberties Union calls Hurtt's proposal to require surveillance cameras as part of some building permits -- "radical and extreme."

Houston Mayor Bill White hasn't talked with Hurtt about his idea, but sees it as more of a "brainstorm" than a "decision."

Many of us in Houston pretty much expect the local cops to be corrupt and inept. In fact, the phrase "corrupt Houston police" is much like "crooked politician" or "raving moonbat"; it's simply redundant.

Take this in conjunction with Nicki's post, which I reproduced earlier, and taking a look at the manner in which cops all over the nation are acting, it's becoming even clearer that many police organizations see themselves above the concerns of the paltry and irrelevant rights of us mere citizens.

~~Emperor~~ Mayor Bill White, best known by readers of this blog to be the orchestrator of the "Cars for Kickbacks" scheme known as SAFEClear, says this is only "brainstorming." I couldn't help but notice that every time ~~Emperor~~ Mayor White gets involved in brainstorming, those policies have a tendency to get passed into law without the ~~subjects~~ citizens ever being informed until the law has been passed.

It makes me wonder how long it will be until something like this gets passed, then how much longer until it's not shot down by the Supreme Court.

Update

HPD may add video cameras to its ranks

Feb. 16, 2006, 1:09PM
HPD may add video cameras to its ranks

Officer shortage leads city to look at surveillance of streets, malls — even some homes

By ALEXIS GRANT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Facing a shortage of police officers, Police Chief Harold Hurtt called Wednesday for a new type of patrol: surveillance cameras on downtown streets, apartment complexes and shopping malls — and in extreme situations, private homes.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.

His remarks came as the City Council approved a financial-incentive program to help the Houston Police Department recruit officers.

The department is struggling with a manpower shortage as well as a spike in violent crime. To supplement officers on patrol, HPD is considering installing five video cameras downtown, Hurtt said. He also suggested that new apartment complexes and malls be required, as part of the building-permit process, to provide security cameras.

And when asked whether the need for cameras extends to private homes, he said, "If they're putting a burden on the criminal justice system and cheating the other residents of Houston, yes."

He did not elaborate on how police would accomplish such surveillance or when it would be appropriate.

Source of funds
The downtown-camera project already has a group to fund it: the Houston Downtown Management District. Once the cameras are installed, the project would be carried out by HPD. Officers would monitor video feeds from a new storefront office planned for downtown.

"It's going to be a lot less expensive than having officers standing in those locations or responding to all those calls," said Hurtt, who wants to have the cameras up by the end of this year. "What we need is a combination of technology and human resources to deal with this issue."

The Downtown Management District, which works to improve the central business district using taxes paid by downtown property owners, has proposed five sites for cameras at intersections on and around Main. They are high-pedestrian-traffic, not high-crime, locations, said Bob Eury, executive director of the district.

Mayor must approve
"The goal is for people to feel safe," said Eury, who compared the cameras to those at shopping malls. "We're finding new ways to make it basically safer in reality and perception."

The program would cost tens of thousands of dollars, Eury said, declining to estimate more precisely since the project will be put out for bids.

The emphasis on new police and surveillance is part of the city's response to a recent spike in violent crime.

It was up 2.3 percent through November 2005, compared with the same period in 2004, though the overall crime rate was down 2.2 percent.

Mayor Bill White, who must approve the camera program for it to go into effect, said he had not yet discussed it with Hurtt.

"There's a legitimate right to privacy," White said. "On the other hand ... if there are some crime hot spots, then we want something where we don't have to have uniformed officers staring at a particular spot 24 hours a day."

The City Council's Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will consider the program Feb. 28.

Some privacy concerns
Some privacy advocates questioned whether apartment owners should be required to install cameras.

"It's radical and unheard-of," said Scott Henson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Texas Police Accountability Project.

But on city streets, it's a different story. Cities across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, already use surveillance cameras in public places. In London, where cameras are commonplace, the technology helped police solve last year's transit bombings.

Technology isn't the only tool HPD is using to fight crime. The understaffed department hopes to entice experienced officers nationwide to work in Houston by offering a $7,000 bonus and increased pay under a program approved Wednesday by City Council. By hiring 700 new officers every year for the next three years, Houston would have 2.8 officers for every 1,000 people, the national average, instead of the current 2.2 per 1,000 people, Hurtt said.

Under the incentive program, HPD officers who have less than five years' experience will also get a pay raise.

"I don't care what the laws or the Supreme Court say. WE are NOT going to have people running around, wearing guns..."

2006-02-16T20:29:00.000-06:00

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

Mark Edward Marchiafava did not break the law in Gonzales, La. on January 28, 2006. But nonetheless, he was handcuffed, arrested, and his firearm, which he was legally carrying in the open on his side was confiscated and not returned.

I don't know Mr. Marchiafava very well. We have had several email communications, but nothing more than that. We have not always agreed, and sometimes our discussions got heated. But what I do know is that Mr. Marchiafava's right to keep and bear arms and his property rights were violated by the Gonzales, La. police.

When I deployed with the National Guard to New Orleans in support of relief and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina, I remember a meeting on an abandoned tarmac (where we slept the night before inside our humvee) with the Louisiana JAG. We were informed, in no uncertain terms, that open carry was legal in Louisiana, that we were there to help enforce the laws of Louisiana, and the law stated the people had a right to keep and bear arms. He were told that unless we witnessed a crime being committed, under no circumstances were we to relieve people of their firearms if they were carrying them in the open.

The Army and Air National Guard understand this. I wonder how brainless the Gonzales cops have to be to not get this simple concept.

In Mr. Marchiafava's own words:

After meeting my youngest daughter, Christie, and my adopted daughter, Kelly, along with Kelly's 2 year old daughter, Isabella, Kelly drove us to Gonzales, La. to visit my oldest daughter, Michelle. Needing to pick up something, I asked Kelly to drive into Tanger Factory Outlet. She dropped me off in front of the store, I ran in and out in less than 2 minutes while Kelly circled the parking lot.

While waiting to check out, I noticed an older guy standing right outside, staring intently at me. I KNEW he was either an off duty cop or he had just CALLED the cops on me. Yes, I WAS openly carrying a gun, which is quite legal in Louisiana. The state constitution CLEARLY states so. It does, however, retain the right by the state to regulate concealed carry, something that doesn't come into play here.

Sure enough, as I was paying, a Gonzales police car came cruising by slowly. After exiting the store with my purchase, I got into Kelly's car and within seconds, the cop turned on his lights and blipped his siren. Kelly exited and the cop told her it was ME he wanted to talk to.

Carefully, I approached officer Rome, and he asked why I was wearing a gun. After telling him EVERY citizen had that right, he just stood there, speechless.

I asked if he was aware of that, but STILL there was no answer.

It took THREE further queries before he finally answered, "No, I didn't know that."

Seemingly satisfied, he handed my driver's license back to me, and I heard him tell headquarters to print him out a copy of my driver's license info. At that point, I knew "they" were about to do "something." I got back into Kelly's car, not wanting to alarm them.

Sure enough, as soon as we exited the center's parking lot, FOUR Gonzales cop cars swooped in and, in true TV cop fashion, with guns drawn and lots of loud shouting.

I slowly exited the car, hands away from my side. Yes, I was roughly handcuffed to the point of having red marks on both wrists 3 hours later. I was transported to Gonzales Police headquarters. There, Officer David Breaux was trying to figure out just what to charge me with. Since he was holding Louisiana revised statutes, title 14 (criminal code) in his hands, I suggested he read 14:95, "Illegal carrying of weapons," which he did.

I tried, in vain, to explain to him there is nothing in the entire book which prohibits anyone from openly carrying a weapon in Louisiana.

His response: "Tell it to the judge."

Another "officer," Billiot, transported me across the Mississippi river to the jail in Donaldsonville. On the ride over, I tried to explain to HIM what the law states and the rights of any citizen.

He said, and I quote, "I don't care what the laws or the Supreme Court say. WE are NOT going to have people running around, wearing guns, with women and children everywhere."

I was fingerprinted, photographed and released on a $200.00 bond. Yes, all this for a MISDEMEANOR and a $200.00 bond. I am still trying to retrieve my gun at this date.

Now, let's take a look at what the law says.

Louisiana state constitution
Article 1 sec. 11 Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

Louisiana Revised Statutes
Title 14 sec. 95
Illegal Carrying of Weapons
A. Illegal carrying of weapons is:
(1) The intentional concealing of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person, or
(2) the ownership, possession, custody, use of any firearm, or any other instrumentality customarily used as a dangerous weapon, at any time by an enemy alien, or
(3) the ownership, possession, custody or use of any tools, or dynamite, or nitroglycerine, or explosives, or other instrumentality customarily used by thieves or burglars at any time by any person with the intent to commit a crime ; or
(4) the manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use of any switchblade knife, spring knife or other knife or similar instrument or having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch or similar contrivance.
(5)(a) the intentional possession or use by any person of a dangerous weapon on a school campus during regular school hours or on a school bus. "School" means any elementary, secondary, high school, or vo-tech school in this state and "campus" means all facilities and property within the boundary of the school property. "School bus" means any motor bus being used to transport children to and from school or in connection with school activities.
(b) the provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply to:
(i) a peace officer as defined by RS:14:30(B) in the performance of his official duties.
(ii) a school official or employee acting during the normal course of his employment or a student acting under the direction of such school official or employee.
(iii) any person having the written permission of the principal or school board or engaged in competition or in marksmanship or safety instruction.

United States Code, title 42, chapter 21, subchapter I, sec. 1983
Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, priviliges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purpose of this section, any act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

UPDATE FEB. 6TH, 2006

District Attorney, Tony Falterman, obtained a copy of the arrest report and, after reading it, dismissed the charge. According to his assistant, Melissa, "Mr. Falterman has read the report and considers it complete BS."

A local reporter, Steve Ward with the Advocate, contacted chief of police Bill Landy concerning my arrest. According to Steve, the chief stated "We have a policy of arresting anyone carrying a gun without a permit. We don't care what Mr. Falterman says or does."

I attempted to retrieve my gun, only to find out the Gonzales police department has a "policy" of sending all seized weapons to the state police crime lab for ballistics testing.

So let's get this straight. A man broke no law. He is arrested. His property is confiscated. The prosecutor recognizes this case as complete crap. The police will not give back property, even though no crime was committed.

Check out the letter Mr. Marchiafava received from the prosecutor in the case below.

What kind of circus are they running down there in Gonzales?

Should you want to contact the fascist nazis on Mr. Marchiafava's behalf -- and on behalf of our constitutionally guaranteed rights -- please do so. The Gonzales Police Chief's name is Bill Landry. You can email him here: gonzpd@eatel.net

Or if you're feeling particularly angry about this, give him a call and demand to know why a man who has committed no crime has been relieved of his property by his tyrannical staff, and why his officers have no respect for the laws they have sworn to enforce. His number is: 225-647-2841

When will it end?

2006-02-05T16:54:00.000-06:00

LONG BRANCH, N.J. - The city wants Anna DeFaria's home, and if she doesn't sell willingly, officials are going to take it from the 80-year-old retired pre-school teacher.

In place of her "tiny slip of a bungalow" — and two dozen other weathered, working-class beachfront homes — city officials want private developers to build upscale townhouses.

Is this the work of a cruel government? Or the best hope for resurrecting an ocean resort town that is finally showing signs of reviving after decades of hard times?

Echoes of the debate are happening across the country, after a U.S. Supreme Court decision brought new attention to governments' ability to seize property through the tool of eminent domain. Some 40 states are re-examining their laws — with action in Congress, too — after the court's unpopular ruling.

"We thought this was going to be our home forever," said DeFaria, sitting in a kitchen cozy with photos of children and grandchildren, quotes from the Bible and a game of Scrabble that she plays against herself. "Now they want to take it away. It's unfair, it's criminal, it's unconstitutional."

Not according to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling last June that was greeted with widespread criticism, the court found that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project.

The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used eminent domain to build public projects such as roads, reservoirs and parks. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.

The high court, in its ruling, also noted that states are free to ban that practice — and legislators around the country are thinking about whether they should do just that.

New Jersey state Sen. Diane Allen, with bipartisan support, is pushing for a two-year ban on all eminent domain actions and for a bipartisan study group to re-examine its use in New Jersey.

"Right now government, I think, is using eminent domain to take people's private properties and hand it over to another owner," said Allen, a Republican. "It's really putting a hole in the American dream. Ownership of private property plays such a large role in that dream."

After the court ruling, four states passed laws reining in eminent domain. Roughly another 40 are considering legislation. In Congress, the House voted to deny federal funds to any project that used eminent domain to benefit a private development, and a federal study aims to examine how widely it is used.

The Washington-based Institute for Justice, a libertarian advocacy group that worked for homeowners in the New London case and in Long Branch, argues that state laws should be changed so property can only be seized for public uses like a park or a school — not urban redevelopment that benefits private developers.

Redevelopment usually depends on defining an area as "blighted" or a "slum," though definitions are vague, said Bert Gall, an attorney with the institute. Criteria can include a building's age, lack of compliance with building codes, even the size of a yard.

Abuses are widespread, Gall said, claiming that over a five-year period ending in 2002, more than 10,000 properties were threatened by eminent domain.

Municipal leaders across the country are pushing back, arguing that it's false to claim eminent domain is widely abused and warning that an emotional backlash to the court ruling is putting at risk an important tool that has helped turn around neighborhoods including Baltimore's Inner Harbor and New York's Times Square.

Elected officials have difficult decisions to make, and often must balance a community's needs with a few individuals, said Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities.

The plight of homeowners is hard to ignore, he said. "But at the same time ... there are hundreds if not a couple of thousand faces of people you don't see, of people of all levels of income who as a result of the economic development will get jobs," he added.

In Long Branch, there's no doubt the city needed to do something — a comeback wasn't happening on its own, Mayor Adam Schneider said.

"Most people wouldn't walk down those streets anymore. The worst neighborhood in our city was along our oceanfront. And that's been reversed," he said. Since the redevelopment effort began in earnest in 2002 after a decade of planning, new shops and homeowners have moved in, and new sidewalks have been installed — along with a new boardwalk, parks and an ice-skating rink, he said.

"What you do is you've improved your city, you've gotten rid of decrepit housing, you've created jobs," Schneider said. "It's easy to play it out as the city is cruel and government is stealing your property. I'm used to it. ... But this has reversed the decline that's been going on in Long Branch for more than 50 years."

Already, people are coming to new shops along the central waterfront, where the old pier burned down back in 1987. Rows and rows of new, sand-colored condominiums shadow DeFaria's one-story home when the afternoon sun sinks low.

DeFaria said she was offered $325,000 for the home she and her late husband bought in 1960 for $6,400. Where could anyone buy a waterfront view on the Jersey coast for that amount of money now?

But it's not the money, she said: $1 million wouldn't convince her. "They're taking my home away — not my house. My home. My life."

Oh, No! College Kids Are Still Drinking!

2006-01-31T14:47:00.000-06:00

University of Massachusetts, Amherst wants to make some new rules to curb college drinking.

UMass Imposes More Drinking Restrictions

Jan 31, 7:08 AM (ET)

AMHERST, Mass. (AP) - No more drinking games at the University of Massachusetts. The school is cracking down on alcohol abuse on the Amherst campus with a list of new rules that go into effect this semester.

Along with banning games meant to get players drunk as quickly as possible, the rules include prohibitions on taps and funnels and large gatherings where more than 10 people are in a dormitory room with alcohol.

There will also be fewer bottles of beer lined up on the dorm room walls. Students who are 21 or older will be allowed to keep no more than 12 bottles or cans of beer, two bottles of wine or one bottle of hard liquor.

"These changes represent our continued efforts to reduce underage and binge drinking," said Jo-Anne Vanin, dean of students.

I suppose someone sees this as sensible. I sure the hell don't.

Now one thing that surprises some people about me is my attitude about college drinking. One would naturally assume that such an outspoken and enthusiastic lover of fermented beverages such as myself would come out in favor of college drinking shennanigans, and in the end their right, but not for the reasons one might think.

I actually despise the way people drink in college. I really can't stand such dilletantishness as keg stands, beer bongs, and shotgunning. I mean that's some childish shit right there. Even when I was in college I hated that shit. And believe me, at a small, Baptist university where any drinking is frowned upon, that's about all the drinking you see, albeit a little more surreptitiously.

If you wanna get smashed, don't just dump 5% ABV American "sex in a canoe" beer down your throat with a hose. Instead, crack open a bottle of Bourbon or vodka and mix a proper drink. If you drink at all, it should be because you like to drink, not to prove your manhood or try to fit in or some shit. If you're feeling insecure about whether or not all the cool kids will like you, I'm here to tell you the booze ain't gonna help.

What it will do, however, is remove your inhibitions which are preventing you from doing the stupid shit you are likely to do because you've got something to prove. Contrary to what we've all been spoon-fed, alcohol does not make you do something you don't want to do. It simply lowers the inhibition. If someone is going to make an ass of themselves, the booze will simply remove the inhibition and it's only a matter of time. Even if they do get through it all unscathed, they'll blame the booze in a bad way and end up further propagating the prohibitionist paradigm more effectively.

"See kids," The reformed college "alcoholic" says, "alcohol is bad for you. It made me sleep with all those frat boys and get AIDS. It made me drink that flaming shot and get third degree burns all over my face. It made me jump across that bonfire and break my legs. It made me do all those kegstands because I wanted to impress my buddies and drive home and wrap my car around a telephone pole."

I mean just look at our President. There's a man who needs to come out of the drunkard closet if I ever saw one. But that's another rant, and as we say in the tech support monkey business, "outside of the scope of this document."

My fellow drunkards and I refer to that as Amateur Hour. You get these young kids that are too young to remember when the martini lunch was de rigeur among professional types, or when you could drive home after having a glass of wine with dinner and not have to worry about random checkpoints. These people don't have any cultural experience with drinking, so their drinking is amateurish and irresponsible. They end up hurting themselves and in some cases dying before they ever can learn how to drink properly.

I feel sorry for them. You have an entire subculture of people who are the victims of neoprohibition. They've been fed all the stock bullshit about how alcohol is nothing but bad, and that if you so much as have a beer, your life will spin out of control and you will become a raging alcoholic and be a failure at life. I guess that these people figure that since they are "breaking the rules" then they might as well give up all control.

That way you end up with DUI's, wrecked academic careers, and the occasional death from alcohol poisoning, "a promising youth cut down in his prime," as the cliche goes. These people are victims of neoprohibitionism and a nannying society which rules us all to death and makes criminals of the innocent.

In the wake of this, of course, the response is to make more rules. There's a sensible solution. [/sarcasm]

Now keep in mind that for most of these milquetoast neoprohibitionist harpies, the definition of binge drinking is at least two drinks a day. Ironicly, this is the same amount that most doctors recommend as a minimum to help prevent heart disease, lower blood pressure, and a whole other laundry list of things that doctors have recently determined that moderate alcohol intake is good for (and that sensible people have known that alcohol is good for since ancient times).

So with that mindset at work you have all these petty little regulations being implimented, which I'm sure will not even make a dent in the amount of binge drinking, either real or imagined, that goes on in college campuses. While the amateurish style of drinking does create problems, there are still plenty of folks going to college who don't have these problems. But screw it, let's just punish the whole lot for the sins of a few. And while we're at it, let's use the sins of those few as anectodal evidence to support more manufactured statistics and create more unnessesary rules.

Now I know some of you are reading this and going, what does this have to with Constitutional rights?

Well, I could argue that this subculture and these kinds of rules tie into a larger neoprohibitionist effort perpatrated by those who've been collectively undermining the Constitution since 1983. While that might be valid that's not why I chose to post this here.

What irks me specificly is that the University of Massachussets system is a public school which recieves funding from the State of Massachussets. As such they have to adhere to that annoying little document called the Constitution just like any public body. And if you live in the State of Massachussets, you're paying taxes for this shit.

You see there's this little amendment to the constitution, the 21st in fact, which specicicly repealed the 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol. Oh, bother, say the prohibitionists. Many argue that, failing the direct approach constitutionally, prohibitionists are passing lots of small laws that result in the end goal of prohibition anyway. But there's also the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now look at this bit from the article:

Along with banning games meant to get players drunk as quickly as possible, the rules include prohibitions on taps and funnels and large gatherings where more than 10 people are in a dormitory room with alcohol.

It seems to me like college students getting together for the purpose of drinking in a legal fashion constitutes peaceable assembly. Not only does the University policy violate the letter of the Constitution, I believe it violates the spirit of what the framers had in mind. Consider that in the time the Constitution was written, the drinking tradition was much stronger in this country. Every single one of the authors of our Government went out drinking at night. The idea that a hardworking, churchgoing, responsible American wouldn't drink would was ridiculous to them.

These college students who are drinking in their dorm rooms aren't there to engage in sedition or to incite violence, they're there to get their drink on. As long as it's legal (IE: everyone is over 21, etc.) There's no reason for that sort of rule.

Or more appropriatly, I should say there's not excuse for that rule.

Yes, GOP, I'm looking at you

2006-01-20T22:36:00.000-06:00

Once again, the ministrations of representatives of the so-called "party of small government" proves that it has abandoned the principles of Ronald Reagan.

Man awarded $1 for 105 acres Port condemned

By: DANA BURKE, Citizen Staff01/19/2006

For years, Seabrook residents have said building the Bayport container facility north of town would hurt property values.

They might be surprised at how much one man got for his tract of land - $1 for 105 acres.

Pasadena land owner Glenn Seureau, II, thinks he was robbed of his by the Port of Houston Authority. He plans to continue an uphill battle with the Port until he is paid fair market value for the land.

One civil court judge, on the other hand, seems to think $1 is compensation enough for Seureau's land, located just north of Seabrook.

Seureau fought for nearly three years to protect his property, in his family for more than 150 years, from the Port's power of eminent domain, only to lose his case in May of last year in the court of Harris County Civil Court Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull.

The judge ruled that having paid Seureau $1, the Port now owns the fee simple title to the property. Seureau was also ordered to give back the Port's previous payment of more than $1.9 million at 5.75 percent interest and pay the Port's court costs at the same interest rate.

Seureau has appealed the ruling, and he and his attorneys are currently in negotiations with the Port.

Port officials declined to comment on the case, but confirmed that they are working with Seureau to reach an agreement.

The conflict began in September 2002, when a special commission held a hearing regarding the Port's request to condemn Seureau's land. Seureau did not attend the hearing, and the commission ordered the Port to pay him approximately $1.9 million for the property.

The Port deposited the funds into the registry of the court, taking constructive possession of the land, but Seureau refused to take the money or relinquish the title to the property.

"I didn't think (the Port) had the right to take the property," he said, adding that the Port's need for the land seems to be based on private rather than public interests.

The Port plans to build a portion of the Houston Cruise Terminal on the property.

Seureau also believes $1.9 million is less than the market value for the land, which he had planned to develop with multi-family residences.

He was later advised by an attorney that he did not have the right to contest eminent domain and withdrew the $1.9 million to pay for further appeals regarding the market value of his land.

The Port brought Seureau to Bradshaw-Hull's court on May 16, 2005 to obtain the fee simple title that Seureau had withheld until that point.

On May 17, the judge excluded the testimony of both Seureau and his only expert witness, Louis Smith, saying that neither man could provide evidence that was relevant or reliable regarding the market value of Seureau's land.
According to court documents, the judge's final ruling was based on a lack of evidence to support Seureau's argument.

Seureau also made a motion to exclude the testimony of one of the Port's expert witnesses, Matthew Deal. The court denied that motion.

Seureau, who lives in his 180-year-old family home next door to the recently condemned property, said that although he is not familiar with the judge's intentions, he sees Bradshaw-Hull's ruling as a "punishment" for trying to challenge the Port.

"I was forced to settle for less than market value," he said.

Bradshaw-Hull declined to comment on the case since it is on appeal.

Judge Bradshaw-Hull is seeking reelection on the GOP platform.

Kelo in action

2006-01-16T08:26:00.000-06:00

Back when the US Supreme Court (thanks to Swinging Sandra O'Connor) decided in Kelo that government can seize private property from its current owner and transfer the property to another private party in the name of economic development, many of us predicted that abuses were sure to follow. Yours truly, for example, wrote a TCS column, in which I opined that:

After news of Napoleon's victory in the Battle of Austerlitz was conveyed to British Prime Minister William Pitt, Pitt pointed to a map of Europe and said: "Roll up the map; it will not be wanted these ten years." In light of the Supreme Courts decision to side with New London, we might just as well roll up the Takings Clause of the Bill of Rights, because we won't need it any longer.

Regrettably, confirmation of my concern comes from my own home town: In the sort of blatant move one associates with the Soviet kolkhoz process, Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks (our feckless ex-police chief) wants to the city to sell property seized to build a badly needed animal shelter funded by a city bond approved by the voters to a politically well-connected developer (Francisco Pinedo, president of Cisco Bros.) who has made campaign contributions to Parks and other top city officials. The LA Times reports:

The city's initial plan was to use the site for a new South Los Angeles animal shelter. The city paid $5.8 million to buy the property with money raised by a bond issue that voters approved to expand animal services. ...

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who is spearheading the plan and represents the area, says the public would benefit more if the land were used for a business. ...

The previous owners of the property, which includes three warehouse buildings, said the city has betrayed them. Their furniture-manufacturing firm had 20 years of success in South Los Angeles, said Scott Vaughan, a partner in Vaughan Benz, which has moved to near Chinatown. "It was thriving." "If they are not going to do what they claimed they were doing and put an animal shelter there," he said, "it was unnecessary to take our property." Vaughan Benz fought the city's decision to seize its property in court, and the partners said the time and money spent on that battle hurt their business.

This is the worst sort of abuse of the eminent domain process, in which a private property owner gets screwed of its land so that a wealthy and politically-connected developer can make money.

But the problem is compounded by the involvement of the voter-approved bond fund:

"I really do feel uncomfortable about it," said James W. Odom, a member of an oversight committee set up by the city to make sure it properly spends the money from its animal shelter bond issue. If the city decides to change the property's use, Odom said, he will fight to make sure the animal shelter bond money is paid back. ...

City sources ... said the income from the sale is unlikely to fully pay back the $8 million spent so far from the animal shelter bond, which includes the legal costs of acquiring the property through eminent domain and $1 million in already completed design work.

Put bluntly, this reeks of corruption. If the deal goes forward, there needs to be an investigation to determine whether Parks violated the law. Ironically, however, city attorney Rocky Delgadillo has gotten even more money in campaign contributions from developer Pinedo!

Is there ANYONE out there who could not have predicted that our property rights would eventually be at the mercy of those with enough dough to bribe corrupt politicians?

You Say You Want a Revolution? Well, Alright.

2006-01-05T15:11:00.000-06:00

If you look closely at the rights extended to us by the US Constitution, you will realize that several of them are not just rights, they are the duties of free peoples. This is because the very EXERCIZE of those specific rights helps us maintain them and all other rights. The first two amendments of the constitution stick out foremost in my mind -- by worshiping as we see fit, we are reminded that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator, not the whim of the state. It is by speaking freely that we keep the flame of freedom lit in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, and it is by assembling that we can communicate and coordinate any and all efforts to protect our freedom.

But the second amendment is even more essential, for an unarmed populace is powerless to do anything to protect itself or its freedoms except to call upon and trust in the good graces of the powerful. That is not a bet I care to place. You see, while I do not intend to downplay the usefulness of firearms as a way of securing food (hunting) or self-defense, I believe, as many of us on the right do, that the core purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us all from Tyranny -- and not just to arm the military to proterct us from foreign tyrrany, but to arm the populace against domestic tyrrany. The Founding Fathers had taken up arms in such a cause once, they intended to provide for the possibility of a repeat performance in the future.

I came to the above realization while pondering the recent brouhaha regarding the Christmas Cross that Lars Larson was planning. At least on poster at Portland IndyMedia made comments fantazizing about doing bodily harm to Lars. I supported Lars' decision not to go through with the cross raising, believing he had taken the moral high ground. But two things about the incident struck me: One was that I found it highly ironic that those on the Left (Let's be clear here, I'm not talking about liberals, I'm talking about THE LEFT -- people whose politics make Howard Dean seem centrist) would call Lars a Fascist and in the same breath threaten violence to silence him. But while I was bemused, I was not surprised.

The Left's fringe has become stronger, louder, and more openly embraced by the "Party" in general. And it's become apparent to anyone paying attention that the Left is becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of doing anything they must to further their views, including using violence and lawlessness. They also seem more than willing to do what they must to silence the expression of opinions contrary to their own. And while they might believe they are "Freedom Fighters", they are striving for a political and social order that is frighteningly oppressive in its tolerance of personal freedom. It seems more and more apparent that what the Left wants is Revolution, or at least Civil War. Case in point, note the tone taken by the reader "Unapologetic Liberal" in the comment thread of this post at Ace of Spades HQ.

But the left may be biting off more than they can chew.

This was the second impression I got from the Christmas Cross incident. As one conservative (I can't remember who or where) pointed out that this would be unwise, ever since a leftist idiot revealed Lars' home phone number at Michael Moore appearance and Lars began receiving death threats, Lars has had a CCW permit and actively exercizes his Second Amendment rights. While Lars decided to back down to prevent violence, if any of the PDX IM crowd really tried to do Lars bodily harm, I'm sure they would regret it -- if they lived.

There's a lesson about the Right to be learned by the left from that angle to the story, just as we are learning about them from their reaction. You see, while there is a fringe element to both sides of the political spectrum, it seems that in recent years, the Right has more and more marginalized its fringe, distancing ourselves from it, rejecting its extremes in a way that the Left has failed to react to their fringe. And while it's popular to cast the Right in the light of being the oppressors, we have for the most part shunned violence and domestic unrest as a means to our ends. We have tried to take the moral high ground, abide by the law, distance ourselves from unscrupulous allies and distinguish ourselves from unscrupulous adversaries.

But we can only be pushed so far. And if we find ourselves in a position where our own ability to push back is all that stands between us and being overrun by those who wish to oppress us, we will push back -- and our push is harder. We strive to uphold and respect the Rule of Law. But if you finally get what you want, if you achieve revolution in the streets and open conflict between us, remember this: We're the ones who believe in and exercize our right to bear arms as a means of protecting our other rights. Usually that means from the random criminal who would mug or rob or rape us or our families. Strategically that means from a tyrant who would invade our country from without. Theoretically, the Framers believed it could mean from a corrupt government that would usurp its authority from within. But make no mistakes. If you try to impose a Marxist order on us through violent overthrow of the Government, we are highly likely to decide that you are a greater threat to our freedom than the Government ever could dream of being.

And you won't like what happens when we take sides.

Good Collumn and Some Ranting About Neoprohibition

2005-12-19T19:13:00.000-06:00

JD Bruewer of limaohio.com has a rather nice bit about neo-prohitionist legislation.

Prohibition is political dead meat. Enter neo-prohibition, a lighter, more palatable dish.

Calls for prohibition elicit strong reaction from many sectors of the public, but who can object to protecting children and innocent drivers? Neo-prohibitionists use these causes to criminalize and stigmatize all alcohol-related activities.

How can you object to tougher drunken driving laws or restricting the sale of alcohol around children? What politician would come out in favor of drunken driving or jeopardizing children?

With this approach, neo-prohibitionists have pushed the implementation of extreme laws that limit the civil rights of citizens accused of using alcohol improperly, while proving ineffective at protecting the public.

In a October column on FoxNews.com, Radley Balko, who runs the Weblog www.TheAgitator.com, details how Mothers Against Drunk Driving has morphed into a neo-prohibitionist group and how the .08 blood alcohol limit law the group promoted has failed to curb drunk driving.

“When two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move doesn’t make much sense. It’s like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour,” Balko writes.

He points out that the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s review of drunken-driving data concluded, “The evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol.”

If you want to read Balko’s writings on the subject, or the GAO report on .08 blood-alcohol content laws, go to www.LimaNews.com/neo-prohibition.

My point is, if you’re against legalized alcohol, say it, fight against it and be clear in your intention.

Don’t confuse the issue by tying it to bad, feel-good legislation. Don’t harm legitimate efforts to protect the driving public and children by hijacking their causes to support your own.

If you are for legalized alcohol, stand up for the right to drink, don’t let the neo-prohibitionists strip away your rights.

So in other words, shit or get off the pot!

I, like the author, know which side I am on regarding this issue. Drinking is legal. It should have never been made illegal. Having been made illegal, the only correct thing to do was to repeal the Constitutional amendment that made it illegal, which was done. With prohibition, as wrong as it was, you see a good example of people working within the law to amend the constitution properly within the correct framework, more or less.

Unfortunately, any above the board legislation concerning alcohol ended with the repeal of prohibition, when it became clear that American public would not as a majority support a minority position such as prohibition. Since then the vocal minority in this country has used every underhanded tactic they could think of to keep people confused and sitting on the fence regarding this issue.

In other words, the Drys couldn't defeat the American drinking public with a frontal assault, so now they are going for the flank. They couldn't win by preaching. They couldn't win by violence (such as was perpatrated by Carrie Nation and the Anti-Saloon league). They couldn't win by the legal high ground of the US Constitution. So now they want to undermine that Constitution to get what they want.

Let me stress that again. Regardless of the motive, which itself isn't entirely clear, the people who want to prohibit the consumption of alcohol now choose to undermine the Constitution because they couldn't manipulate it to get whay they want. They don't want anyone to drink, and they will take away that right any way they can. And they don't care if the rights of due process, fair trial, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and even the basic right of a mother to care for her child are compromised, so long as they get what they want.

And it's working, because they've been slowly softening and shifting the public perception of drinking and drinking issues for decades. They will fail if the American public stops and thinks about what is going on. They will fail if Americans question their own opinions and even perception of the facts on this matter. Even if you don't drink, at least be aware of what's going on because you have as much to lose as any drinker.

Here are a couple of facts that everyone seems to have forgotten. It's not illegal to drink in the United States. It's not even illegal to drink and drive (although the neoprohibitionists have managed to confuse us on that issue enough to where even most police officers no longer understand this simple fact).

Think about that for a second. It's not illegal for you to drink and drive. It's illegal to be intoxicated while driving, as you endanger yourself and others. The definition of that intoxication has been (innapropriatley) set as having a BAC of .08 in most states. Also, it's a very good idea to not drink and drive, one which I continue to endorse even when it means I'm not going anyhwere for a while. But if you drink and drive, you have not broken the law unless you've had enough to bring your BAC up to .08 or higher.

If you had a glass of wine with dinner and drive home, you have not broken the law, even though you might get arrested for it. If you are sleeping it off in the back seat, you have not broken the law, even though you might get arrested for it. If you are sitting at a bar drinking while your car sit in that bar's parking lot, you have not broken the law, even though you might get arrested for it. If you call a cab because you've been drinkinand don't wish to endanger yourself and others by getting behind the wheel, yet before you get into the cab you go into your car to fetch some of your belongings, you have not brokent the law even though you might get arrested for it.

Neo-prohibitionists don't want you to be aware of these facts. Instead they want you to have a fuzzy, inarticulate perception about drinking. And while they are at it they want you to be so afraid of criminall persecution and prosecution that you will stop drinking altogether.

"Drinking is not a crime."

No Wonder We're Losing Our Rights

2005-12-01T15:00:00.000-06:00

We're being conditioned to give them up in school.

In Lowell, Mass., a girl is sent home for wearing camo.

FATIGUE FLAP: LHS student sent home for wearing camouflage outfit

By HILLARY CHABOT, Sun Staff
Lowell Sun

LOWELL -- Shilo Lewis just wanted to blend in with the crowd.

She'd seen camouflage clothing in fashion magazines, on the streets of the city, even in Lowell High School.

But a head-to-toe camouflage ensemble got the high-school junior sent home from school yesterday.

“They took one look at me and said, ‘You have to get picked up,' “ Lewis said about school officials.

Lewis, 16, was wearing a camouflage bandana holding her waist-length hair in a ponytail, a camouflage jacket over a camouflage T-shirt, and a pair of camouflage pants.

“I think she looks great,” said her mother, Bette Lewis, who bought her the outfit. “She always looks nice. She always matches everything.”

Lowell High Headmaster Bill Samaras said military gear is associated with some local gangs, and could disrupt students' safety and their learning environment.

“This has nothing to do with the military. We allow Reserve Officer Training Corps to wear military gear because they wear it in a respectful manner. It's the gang relation. If it's controversial or if it has gang associations, we won't have it,” Samaras said.

This bothers me on two fronts. First, I'm a Navy brat and I've been wearing my old man's dungaree cutoffs, field jackets, and old BDU's since I was about 12. I carried my schoolbooks in seabags, field packs and bags purchased overseas while the old man was on liberty. This was the style in the 80's as it is now, but even if it wasn't, I and my fellow brats would have done it anyway because it was a part of our subculture, just as much having gray blankets that say "US" folded at the foot of our beds and putting olive drab batteries in our Walkmans and boom boxes. By time we reached late elementary school age, these things were a source of pride for us, and our parents were usually hip to it.

God help any school administrator that told one of us we couldn't wear camo to school. The general attitude among our parents was "I didn't fight for my country in Vietnam (or wherever) just to come and have my kids told they can't express themselves." They may not have always understood our fashions, but most military parents respected them because they realized that long hair or denim jackets with spikes or hip hop gear were a source of pride for one's specific peer group and that they indicated that we were taking pride in our appearance. These were values that my dad at least wanted to instill, even if the aesthetics were different than what he was used to.

Second, this shows either supreme ignorance or supreme malevolence on the part of the admistrators regarding the culture of their students. Here's a quick lesson. Gang members tend to wear baggy khaki's, plain white shirts or gear from athletic teams, and of course, their colors. The reason that they wear that sort of thing is so they don't stand out, except as a member of their gang. They wear baggy pants, of course, to conceal weapons. But their clothing is plain and uniform in order to both blend in and to deny a usable description to the police. When a gangbanger holds up a liquor store or commits a driveby, and the cops ask for a description from the victim, what they get is "a black male, average height, average build, wearing khaki pants, and a white t-shirt," or "a hispanic male, average height, average build, wearing a plaid shirt and a blue headband". Of course when the cops in South Central LA or East Houston go to look for the suspect, they see about a hundred people matching that exact description. It's kind of like going to a heavy metal show and saying, "have you seen a guy with long hair and a black t-shirt?"

Camouflage, of course, defeats that purpose because it stands out. Sure it's designed to conceal and break up one's outline in the field, but as youth fashion in an urban or suburban environment it's supposed to stand out. That's why it's worn. Kid's wear camo because they want to look cool and identify with other kids who share the same sense of aesthetics and cultural identity. There's nothing wrong with that. It is, in fact, constitutionally protected free expression.

Of course part of the problem is ignorant administrators confusing gang culture with hip-hop culture. Hip Hop culture often includes camo and all black attire, but it also includes visual elements taken from gang culture, such as the extremely baggy pants. Regardless of what someone thinks of kids wearing baggy pants halfway down their asses (which I personally think looks stupid), it doesn't equate to being in a gang. Administrators are simply making a spurious connection that has no basis in fact.

To use their logic, I must be a gangster because I wore a pair of khaki's to my business casual office job the other day. Never mind I was also wearing a company polo shirt and some dressy moccasins, because khaki's are associated with gangs therefore I must be a gangster. It's a handy excuse for malevolent or racist administrators to persecute students they don't like.

But there's more.

In Winona, Minn., Students are being punished for wearing"Bondage Pants". Now before I post the text of the article, let me explain what the hell these things are because I know some of you are scratching your heads. Bondage pants are basicly baggy pants, usually black, with a lot of zippers and straps and shit hanging off of them. Supposedly they are used in BDSM sex play as you can use the straps to tie the wearer up. thus the term "bondage pants." Now, I know some people who are heavy into lifestyle BDSM and I've never seen them wear bondage pants. Those folks usually prefer leather. But regardless, these pants are common among goth, punk, and metal subcultures because they are usually black and they look cool.

Minn. high school bans 'bondage' pants
November 29, 2005

WINONA, Minn. --Winona Senior High School has prohibited students from wearing a certain style of baggy pants because of safety concerns.

"Bondage" pants -- pants with several straps that hook from each back pocket to the opposite pant leg -- were banned about a month ago. The school's dress code committee decided that students shouldn't wear any strap that could be unsafe, whether made from chain or fabric, said associate principal Jeff Sampson.

Although the straps haven't caused any injuries at the school, Sampson said they could possibly hook students onto something or someone and would be especially dangerous around shop class equipment.

Junior Ed Chick and his friends said the straps would rip off the pants once caught and most are too high off the ground for others to trip over.

Students said the new prohibition is aimed at groups who some label as "Goth" or "freak." They said teachers have been less stringent enforcing the dress code among students in other groups who wear skimpy blouses, T-shirts promoting alcohol or pants that show underwear.

"We've all been yelled at or called to the office," said junior Carl Schreiber, who was told he couldn't wear pants with cuffs 1.5 feet in diameter because he could conceal a gun in them or trip.

Sampson said about 15 students have agreed to remove the straps, and "a handful" were suspended after refusing.

"Safety concerns?" Bullshit!

That's a flimsy excuse if I ever heard one. Moreover, here we see the increasing mindset of punishing someone because something might happen, or worse, because of what someone else might do.

I'll tell you, I've seen these things worn at clubs and in some of the most ferverous mosh pits to have occured and not once have these caused a safety problem. They damn sure aren't a safety issue in a school setting.

This sort of ban is more common across the country since the Columbine shootings. Right after Columbine you saw lots of schools banning black trenchcoats or black gear in general. In fact chances are a lot of you reading this are young enough to have experienced this personally. Never mind that one of the things that drove the kids at Columbine to do what they did was that they were made pariahs by their teachers, administrators, and more "normal" peers because of the way they dressed. And again it's the guilty by association mindset. The guys that did the shooting were wearing black trenchcoats so any kid that wears a trenchcoat or even watches too many Matrix films must be a potential mass murderer.

But here's the worst one I've seen in a while:

In Jasper County, Georgia a student was suspended when he disabled and removed a camera that was taping in the school restroom!

A Jasper County mother says her 8th grade son found a video camera taping in the school bathroom this week. But now, he is the one in trouble.

Cindy Champion says her son, Mac Bedor, and a few of his friends took the camera out of the ceiling because they felt it violated their privacy. Champion says her son brought the camera home to show her that afternoon. She says when she contacted the Jasper County Comprehensive School, she found out high school principal, Howard Fore, put the camera there. She says Fore told her he put the camera in the boys' bathroom to catch students vandalizing. Champion says her son is now suspended for taking school property.

CINDY CHAMPION, MOTHER:
"I had told the high school principal, Mr. Fore, that he needed to come up with another solution. That this wasn't appropriate. His response to me was he was going to continue to film."

Jasper County Superintendent, Jay Brinson, sent a faxed response to Eyewitness News. Brinson says high school principal, Howard Fore, placed the camera in the bathroom last Sunday to control vandalism. He says Fore put the camera there "to discover the identity of those doing the damage." Brinson says the principal did tell Cindy Champion that the camera would be installed again. But in his statement Brinson says, "The camera was not placed back in the restroom, and will not be placed back in the restroom."

Eyewitness News tried to contact the Ocmulgee Circuit District Attorney about the legality of placing hidden cameras in public school rest rooms. He covers that area. Eyewitness News was not able to get in touch with him. But, Eyewitness News did talk with Bibb County District Attorney, Howard Simms. He says cameras in public school bathrooms are legal because schools have more leeway on privacy issues.

This is beyond outrageous! Normally, when someone is caught taping people in the bathrooom they are convicted of a sexual offense and registered as sex offenders in a public database. But here it's ok because the principle was trying to catch vandals? I don't think so!

Maybe the principle was trying catch someone in the act of vandalism. Or maybe, someone in this school's administration likes to get their jollies by watching young boys go to the restroom. Either way it's a completely unacceptable violation of basic privacy rights.

Those of you reading this who have children, how would you feel about a school administrator watching your children go to the bathroom? What would you do about it? How would you teach your kids to handle it? As a culture, we teach our children not to get in a car with strangers and not to give out personal information on the internet in order to keep them safe from sexual predators. Are we supposed to then lay that aside because the person operating the camera happens to be a school principle. Again, I don't think so. Or as we used to say when I was in the Navy, "not on my watch!"

Besides the persecution and selective enforcement that is common among these cases and many more like them, there is one common theme that I think cannot be ignored, and that is the wish and consent of the parents. The girl who got sent home for wearing camo was sent home against her mother's wishes. The mother bought the outfit for her child and encouraged her to wear it to school. The kid who was sent home because he wouldn't have someone taping him while he went to the restroom was punished (I refuse to apply the word "discipline" to a case like this) against his mother's wishes. The story about the bondage pants doesn't really mention parents' response, so I've got to wonder how many of these parents consented to this policy. I'm pretty sure that most of the parents bought these pants for their kids so that at least implies consent for their kids to wear them to school.

I seems like whenever I read a story like this, whether it's about a kid wearing a peace symbol on his shirt or a muslim girl wearing the hijab, the school policy is always at odds with the parents' wishes. Wasn't there a case in the late 80's where a father in Pasadena, Texas sued the school district because his boys were sent home for having long hair?

It seems like schools want to take the place of surrogate parents. As valuable as compulsory education is, the schools are most certainly not surrogate parents. Who gave teachers and administrators the right to determine how parents are going to raise their kids? While schools do have a certain supervisory responsibility, and while that responsibility comes with certain rights, the ultimate decision on what those rights are lies with the parents who send their children to school. The right of a parent to raise their child as they see fit is as fundamental as any basic human right in existence. It's not a privelage to be granted by a public institution to be revoked whenever that institution sees fit.

Moreover, American schools seem to be the primary battlefront for political indoctrination by those who want to take away our constitutional rights. It follows because children are impressionable that if someone wants to create an Orwellian society where children turn their parents into the State, then first they've got to get those kids to come around to the "correct" way of thinking.

Think of any contraversial issue involving Constitutional rights, or any rights for that matter. For every one I'll bet you'll see a corresponding effort to "educate" children on the subject, usually by those who want to take away those rights.

For instance with my personal pet issue, prohibition of alcohol, you've got MADD in schools teaching about the evils of booze, even though the kids aren't old enough to drive, much less drink legally. Same goes with legalization of marijuana and the legal issues that go with it, such as vehicle searches and drug screening. You've got constant, relentless conditioning on that issue and how bad "drugs" are.

Gun control? You've got "gun free zones" around schools. Constitutionally protected free speech? you've got schools banning attire and slogans left and right. Unreasonable search and seizure? How about the random locker sweeps and parking lot sweeps that happen all the time? Freedom of religion? Anyone remember "See You At The Pole"? Pick an amendment and you'll find someone trying to undermind it in our nation's schools.

It's not a coincidence, people.

Ihre papieren bitte

2005-11-29T19:47:00.000-06:00

So there's this lady in Colorado. She used to take the bus every day to get to work. The bus would go through some federal property. Some federal cops decided it was their prerogative to harrass the passengers on said bus.

When she refused to show her ID, she said, officers with the Federal Protective Service removed her from the bus, handcuffed her, put her in the back of a patrol car and took her to a federal police station within the Federal Center, where she waited while officers conferred. She was subsequently given two tickets and released.

You can click the link above to read the rest.

But there's more detail right here.

The Compliance Test
On Monday, September 26th 2005, Deb Davis headed off to work on the route 100 bus. When the bus got to the gates of the Denver Federal Center, a guard got on and asked her if she had an ID. She answered in the affirmative. He asked if he could see it. She said no.

When the guard asked why she wouldn't show her ID, Deb told him that she didn't have to do so. The guard then ordered her off the bus. Deb refused, stating she was riding a public bus and just trying to get to work.

The guard then went to call his supervisor, and returned shortly with a federal policeman. The federal cop then demanded her ID. Deb politely explained once again that she would not show her ID, and she was simply commuting to work. He left, returning shortly thereafter with a second policeman in tow.

The Second Compliance Test
This second cop asked the same question and got the same answer: no showing of ID, no getting off the bus.

The cop was also annoyed with the fact that she was on the phone with a friend and didn't feel like hanging up, even when he 'ordered' her to do so.

The second cop said everyone had to show ID any time they were asked by the police, adding that if she were in a Wal-Mart and was asked by the police for ID, that she would have to show it there, too.

She explained that she didn't have to show him or any other policeman my ID on a public bus or in a Wal-Mart. She told him she was simply trying to go to work.

The Arrest
Suddenly, the second policeman shouted "Grab her!" and he grabbed the cell phone from her and threw it to the back of the bus. With each of the policemen wrenching one of her arms behind her back, she was jerked out of her seat, the contents of her purse and book bag flying everywhere. The cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser, and drove her to a police station inside the confines of the Denver Federal Center.

Once inside, she was taken down a hall and told to sit in a chair, still handcuffed, while one of the policemen went through her purse, now retrieved from the bus.

The two policemen sat in front of their computers, typing and conferring, trying to figure out what they should charge her with. Eventually, they wrote up several tickets, took her outside and removed the handcuffs, returned her belongings, and pointed her toward the bus stop. She was told that if she ever entered the Denver Federal Center again, she would go to jail.

She hasn't commuted by public bus since that day.

Anyone Remember This Guy?

2005-11-28T21:16:00.000-06:00

Last year there was a story about a guy who lost his driver's license because he told his doctor he drank more than a six pack of beer per day.

Keith Emerich, 44, said yesterday he disclosed his drinking habit in February to doctors who were treating him for an irregular heartbeat.

"I told them it was over a six-pack a day. It wasn't good for me -- I'm not gonna lie," Emerich said in a telephone interview from his home in Lebanon, about 30 miles east of Harrisburg.

Emerich said he initially thought the license recall notice was a joke, but then hired an attorney when he said he couldn't get an explanation from the transportation agency.

"They want me to go to counseling to prove that I'm OK," Emerich said. "I tried to go to a place ... and they wanted $250 for a three-month program."

Well it turns out that after a year of legal wrangling, he can drive again if he installs a blood-alcohol measuring device in his car.

Keith Emerich, the Lebanon, Pa., man who lost his driver's license after telling his doctor he drinks 10 beers a day, is being allowed to drive again -- as long as he installs a blood-alcohol measuring device in his car, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Aug. 18.
"Just think of the stigma that's going to put on me, blowing into some tube just to start your car," said Emerich, 44. "This is how I'm being treated, like some common criminal. And all I did was go to the doctor."

Emerich had his license suspended by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDot), after he went to Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon for an irregular heartbeat. When a physician inquired about his alcohol use, Emerich reported drinking six to 10 beers day. The doctor told Emerich that the alcohol was damaging his heart.

Two months later, Emerich received a letter notifying him that his license was being revoked based on the doctor's judgment that he has a drinking problem. Under Pennsylvania law, physicians are required to report drivers with medical conditions that could be potentially dangerous. Alcohol misuse is on the list of dangerous medical conditions.

Lebanon County Judge Bradford Charles supported PennDot's action and ordered Emrich to install the ignition interlock device, a breath test for alcohol that must register below 0.025 percent for the car will start.

"If Emerich's alcohol addiction had progressed to the point where he could not stop drinking even though it was killing him, how could we reasonably expect Emerich to forgo alcohol simply to ensure safe driving?" wrote Charles in his ruling.

"We're happy that it gives him a chance to drive, but the ruling doesn't answer the ultimate question: Why isn't he able to drive when he hasn't done anything wrong?" said lawyer Horace Ehrgood.

Emerich is responsible for the device's $1,000 cost. "I'm tapped out. I don't know what to do. I can't afford to keep this lawyer I have. I've already tapped into my 401(k) for all this," said Emerich. "But I guess it's do what they say or walk for a while."

So, not only can local Government take away your driver's license without a criminal conviction, or even an arrest for that matter, and not only do they require doctors to violate their patients' expectation of confidentiality, but now a citizen must pay thousands of dollars towards intrusive devices and "rehabilitaion" programs because he might someday commit a crime. Just what is that about?

Hat tip to Rowdydrunk79 on the Modern Drunkard forums.

Pink License Plates For DUI Offenders

2005-11-15T14:52:00.000-06:00

Why don't they just call it what it really is,...a scarlet letter.

CLEARWATER - -- A Bay area senator wants Floridians to think pink before they have a drink.

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, has filed a bill that would require "bright pink" license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges resulting from a conviction for driving under the influence.

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

Filed Nov. 1, Senate Bill 538 calls for the first three characters on the pink license plate to read "DUI." The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

If passed, Florida would join Ohio and Michigan as a state with a punitive license plate law for DUI offenders. Many states have considered similar legislation, including Tennessee this year, but most bills have died after debate about privacy issues.

"Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it," said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.

So not only will people be more afraid to have a drink (remember you don't have to be drunk to get a DUI conviction), but they want to go ahead and circumvent due process yet again. If anybody complains, the US Supreme Court can always just rule a "DUI exception" like it has for every DUI case since 1983 or so.

MADD Has Become Intolerable

2005-11-08T21:56:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted to The House
Mad props to the folks at the Moderd Drunkard board.

Report: 50% of Arkansas 8th Graders Have Tried Alcohol
( Air Date: 11/4/2005 )

A compelling campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services features a young woman at an alcoholics anonymous meeting, talking about her own future consequences from using alcohol.

"My name is Lisa and in 9 years, I will be an alcoholic,” says the girl. "I`ll start drinking in 8th grade and I`ll do some things I don`t really want to do."

The ad’s intended to be a wake up call for parents, urging them to start talking before they start drinking. According to a new report, 50% of Arkansas 8th graders have tried alcohol. 1 in 6 Arkansas youth have tried alcohol, starting at age 11.

"The first age of alcohol consumption is getting younger, and younger, and younger,” said Teresa Belew with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. "This sets up children for a lifetime of addictive issues, as well as risky behavior."

The research also finds parents underestimate the extend alcohol is used by youth, because they assume it’s inevitable.

"2/3 of students surveyed say they`re getting it from the home,” said Belew. "It`s never too early to start talking to your child."

First of all, what in the motherfucking hell does this have to do with driving? It seems that Mothers Against Drunk Driving has decided to stop pretending that they are not really a neoprohibitionist organization that wants to indoctrinate children with their propaganda and subvert parental rights. They already want to take away parental custody so I guess it fits.

One poster on the MDM board said that MADD had come to their school and coerced their two sons into signing these pledges never to drink. We're talking ages 9 and 11. The poster said that the 11 year old flat refused to sign but the 9 year old was told he couldn't go to recess if he didn't sign the form.

Secondly, you got to love the reporting here:

A compelling campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services features a young woman at an alcoholics anonymous meeting, talking about her own future consequences from using alcohol.

"My name is Lisa and in 9 years, I will be an alcoholic,” says the girl. "I`ll start drinking in 8th grade and I`ll do some things I don`t really want to do."

So much for objectivity. It seems to me like the folks at KARK are trying to sell this crap. It's pretty obvious the either they or NBC are in bed with MADD and their ilk. And I like how they refer to her as a "young woman", as if she were an adult, when she's apparently not even an eighth grader yet. This means at most she's 12 or 13. Like that's even old enough to know about whether or not she's going to be a drunk. Any other situation and she'd be referred to as a "child" or a "girl" and they'd have declared her age.

These people are brainwashing children into saying "I will be an alcoholic." Words fail me.

Pondering

2005-11-07T10:48:00.000-06:00

I was pondering the possibility of riots occuring in the US on the scale in which they're occurring in France. So far, the riots in France have been going on for 11 days now, and have expanded to 300 towns.

As I was pondering the possibility, the following words echoed in my brain:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The primary reasons these riots have had such longevity is that the French people do not have the inherent right to self-defense. Well, actually, they do, but it's been taken away from them by their government.

Case in point, in 1992, there were riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict. Angry people rioted, destroying homes, shops, cars, etc. The places left untouched by the rioters were the ones where the owners camped out on the roofs of their homes/shops/etc. with their firearms. Places that were not similarly protected were looted, smashed, or gutted with fire.

Despite the screed of the Brady Bunch and the other bedwetting gun grabbers, the right to keep and bear arms has proven time and again to be an effective tool in defense of life and property, and firearms have proven to be the most effective tool used in exercising that right.

I doubt France will realize this any time soon.

Eminent domain looks less imminent

2005-11-04T09:13:00.000-06:00

House passes bill that could prevent private industry from using land seizures.
November 4, 2005: 7:27 AM EST
By Shaheen Pasha, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Legislation to put the kibosh on land developers seizing private property for private use is moving closer to enactment.

The House voted 376-38 Thursday to approve the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 --a bill cosponsored by 98 members of Congress that would prohibit states and local communities that receive federal economic development to invoke eminent domain as a means for private industry to build private businesses. A companion measure has been introduced in the Senate.

Eminent domain, under the House bill, would only allow federal funds for economic development such as building roads and hospital, acquiring abandoned property and revitalizing a blighted area.

The House bill would also allow private property owners the right to sue the appropriate government entity if they were stripped of their land through the use of eminent domain and later found that the land was given to a private developer.
Bill could hamper big business

David Snyder, an eminent domain attorney and partner at Fox Rothschild LLP said any legislation would have a profound effect on business.

"Private developers will have to be very focused on the way they deal with development in blighted areas," he said. "If they were planning on homes, that may not be problem but if you're looking to not only increase residential properties in a community," but promote commerce by opening shopping malls and supermarkets, they may have a tough time meeting the new standards under the bill.

The controversial practice of eminent domain stoked a bipartisan fire in Congress after the Supreme Court ruled in June that local governments have the right to transfer property from homeowners to private developers to build properties such as residences or businesses that are ultimately deemed to be in the public's best interest by improving economic development.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, Kelo vs. City of New London, the Supreme Court said the City of New London was within its rights to condemn and seize the property of nine citizens and provide that land to Pfizer for a $300 million research facility, which was included in the city's new development plan.

That fanned widespread fear that retailers such as Wal-Mart (Research) or Target (Research) will convince local governments to expand the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores, making it easier for these businesses to expand into markets where there is little open space to build new stores.

Local governments have increasingly argued that the jobs creation and tax revenue generated by private industry projects are in the interest of local communities and therefore constitute public use.

Snyder said the legislation as it stands would make it impossible for another Kelo-type development in the future.
Critics see bill as overly broad

But opponents of the legislation say that the House bill is too broad in its definition of economic development and could halt important economic projects in cities and towns.

In a letter to the Senate, Hartford, Conn., Mayor Eddie Perez wrote that the definition of economic development in the bill "has been so broadly written it may ban the use of eminent domain in any project that creates jobs or improves the general economic health of our city."

He added that urban communities that are already fully built out need eminent domain for revitalization and federal funds are necessary to improve those cities.

Eminent domain supporters contend that local governments often have to partner with private entities for the ultimate benefit of the community.

And Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, director of policy and federal relations at the National League of Cities, said eminent domain as a general practice has been sparingly used by elected officials and accompanied by due process and just compensation for the seized property.

She added that the practice has been around for over 20 years without any indication of widespread abuse.

"There is no one-size-fits-all type of definition for economic development" she said. "This is a states' rights issue and the states, not the federal government, should be allowed to develop a working definition that takes into consideration the projects that are going on."

Despite protests, a change is expected to pass Congress. The House bill received the support of Bush administration Thursday, which said in a statement that "private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally protected status."

The legislation would, in essence, negate the Supreme Court's ruling on Kelo.

"Local governments may have won the battle in Kelo but they clearly are losing the war," Snyder said. "The backlash has been extreme and it's clear that once the dust settled, the pendulum has swung back in favor of property owner groups."

First Amendment under assault - again.

2005-11-03T10:11:00.000-06:00

Hat Tip: GayPatriot.

Here's the House roll call of Representatives who voted on the measure to exclude blogs from government regulations.

Notice that less than one-quarter of Democrats voted to uphold the concept of free speech on the internet.

"The filibuster's on the table"

2005-11-01T11:19:00.000-06:00

After the Harriet Miers fiasco, President Bush has nominated federal appeals judge Samuel Alito as his choice to replace Justice O'Connor on the SCOTUS. Liberals and Democrats are gearing up their war machines. Let's look at why:

Republicans Enthusiastic About Alito

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 20 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House got the reaction it wanted out of its third Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals judge Samuel Alito: immediate acceptance from the conservatives who helped torpedo President Bush's previous pick.

But abortion rights Democrats are openly talking about trying to block the New Jersey jurist.

"The filibuster's on the table," Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) of California said as Alito headed back to Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Alito is courting Republicans crucial to his attempt to replace retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.

But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said, "I don't think we should assume that's going to happen at all." He said Democrats needed to learn much more about Alito's values and beliefs on topics like the right to privacy, women's rights and the environment.

"I don't think we should race to a conclusion here," Durbin said on CBS' "The Early Show." "Ordinarily it takes six to eight weeks to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee. We shouldn't rush to judgment."

Bush nominated Alito to the Supreme Court on Monday as a substitute for White House counsel Harriet Miers, who withdrew last week after conservatives refused to support her. Some other critics also said she wasn't qualified.

But Alito found steadfast support after Bush announced his selection, with GOP senators saying he deserved a Senate confirmation vote and threatening to eliminate judicial filibusters if Democrats try to block the White House's newest high court nominee.

"If someone would filibuster ... I would be prepared to vote to change the rules," said Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.

DeWine is one of the 14 centrist senators that Democrats need to sustain a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Without the group's seven Republicans, Democrats would not be able to prevent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., from abolishing judicial filibusters and confirming judges with just the Senate's 55-member Republican majority.

Under existing Senate rules, it takes up to 60 votes to end a filibuster and force a final vote.

The so-called "Gang of 14" will hold its first meeting on Alito on Thursday.

Frist said he's ready to move against judicial filibusters, using what Republicans call the "constitutional option," if Democrats force him to. "If a filibuster comes back, I'm not going to hesitate," he told "The Tony Snow Show" on Fox News.

Conservatives are much more comfortable with Alito than they were with Miers because of his conservative track record as a federal judge, prosecutor and a Reagan administration lawyer.

Miers had never been a judge.

The nomination got Bush on the good side again of conservative and anti-abortion groups, who declared Alito a winner after opposing Miers.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family Action, said he was "extremely pleased," and the anti-abortion Operation: Rescue declared that the country was on "the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."

Bush, who has seen his standing eroded by the insurgency in Iraq, rising fuel prices, Hurricane Katrina mistakes, the indictment of a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and Miers' nomination, emphasized Alito's work on "thousands of appeals" and "hundreds of opinions" when he introduced the candidate to the nation Tuesday.

"He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society," Bush said at the White House. "He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."

Alito pledged to uphold the duty of a judge to "interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint."

Democrats, however, are deeply suspicious of Alito, with Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the party's leader, wondering aloud "why those who want to pack the court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him" than Miers.

Alito upheld a requirement for spousal notification in an abortion case more than a decade ago, although Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter — an abortion rights Republican — insisted that doesn't mean Alito would rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established abortion rights.

Earlier this year, with O'Connor casting the deciding vote, the high court threw out a death sentence that Alito had upheld in the case of a man who argued that his lawyer had been ineffective.

Republicans, meanwhile, returned to their insistence that all judicial nominees deserve hearings and confirmation votes.

"I expect the Judiciary Committee to conduct a fair and dignified hearing in a timely manner, followed by an up or down vote by the Senate," said Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush's first nominee this year, John Roberts, is now chief justice.

From the Apple website

2005-10-26T12:58:00.000-05:00

Speaking of neoprohibitionism...

2005-10-13T08:24:00.000-05:00

Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle

Now, come on... Do we REALLY believe DC is doing this to protect the precious lives of its citizens? Do we REALLY think DC cops are stopping drivers and forcing them to jump through hoops because they care about driver safety?

I vote "NO" on that one, boys and girls, and here's why:

Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.

She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.

Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.

As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest."

Neither the police department nor the attorney general's office keeps detailed records of how many people with low blood alcohol levels are arrested. But last year, according to police records, 321 people were arrested for driving under the influence with blood alcohol levels below the legal limit of .08. In 2003, 409 people were arrested.

Although low blood alcohol arrests have been made in other states in conjunction with dangerous driving, lawyers, prosecutors and advocates of drunken driving prevention said they knew of no place besides the District that had such a low threshold for routine DUI arrests. In Maryland and Virginia, as in other states, drivers generally are presumed not to be intoxicated if they test below .05. Nationwide, .08 is the legal limit -- meaning a driver is automatically presumed to be intoxicated.

Fair acknowledged that many people aren't aware of the District's policy. "But it is our law," he said. "If you don't know about it, then you're a victim of your own ignorance."

Bolton said she didn't know. But defense lawyers who practice in the District do.

"Even one drink can get you in trouble in D.C.," said Thomas Key, a lawyer who successfully defended a client who had a blood alcohol level of .03. "They might not win a lot of these cases or prosecute them, but they're still arresting people."

Not many people fight the charge, said Richard Lebowitz, another defense lawyer, because the District offers a "diversion program" of counseling for first-time offenders.

"If diversion is offered and accepted, there's a guarantee that the charges will be dropped," Lebowitz said. "If you go to court and try to prove your innocence, it's a coin-flip. So most people choose diversion."
Bolton didn't. She balked at the $400 fee and the 24 hours of class time required to attend the "social drinker" program.

"I think it would have been fine if I'd done something wrong, but I didn't," she said. "I had a glass of wine with dinner." ...

You can read the rest for yourself. But needless to say...

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
--Ayn Rand

Damn Right It's Neoprohibition!

2005-10-10T21:51:00.000-05:00

Sorta crossposted, with just a bit more color, to The House.

Mad props, or should I say MADD props to Fox News. Also I want to give props to my people at the Modern Drunkard board for the link.

The Supreme Court gave its OK to the road blocks in 1992, despite conceding that they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the threat to public health posed by drunk drivers was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches without probable cause. Given that they're usually publicized, the primary effect of these roadblocks is to deter social drinkers. The hard-drinkers, the real threats to highway safety, know to avoid them.

Sure enough, after former President Clinton signed .08 into law in 2000, drunk driving fatalities began to inch upward again — after two decades of decline — suggesting that the real drunk drivers were successfully avoiding the roadblocks. Thankfully, fatalities fell again last year, but that hardly proves MADD correct — deaths continued to go up in those states that employ sobriety roadblocks. The corresponding fall in fatalities in states that refuse to use the roadblocks more than made up the difference, suggesting that, freed from roadblock duty, law enforcement was able to work more effectively to catch drunk drivers.

Nice little dig at Clinton there, although I can't say I disagree. But the danger with an article like this, be it on Fox News or CNN, is that it would apply partisan spin to what is probably the only issue where both parties are in agreement for one reason or another. In other words, the "socialist" Left wants to take your hooch away just as much as the "religious" Right. They have truly got their shit together on this and the taxpayer, as well as the responsible, casual drinker gets caught in the middle.

MADD has also worked to undermine the criminal protections of accused drunk drivers — protections routinely granted to accused murderers, rapists and other felony crimes. MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear. The organization also favors "administrative license revocation," which means the revocation of the driver's licenses and, in some cases, the confiscation of the vehicles, of those accused of drunken driving before they're ever given a trial.

The organization is also pushing the widespread use of ignition interlock devices, in which a driver must blow into a tube to start his car, then blow again every 20 minutes or so while driving. Washington state recently passed a law allowing judges to mandate the devices in the cars of people merely accused of drunk driving, not convicted. And the states of New Mexico and New York have both considered legislation that would require the devices in every car sold in-state. The New Mexico bill is stalled in the state senate after being passed by the house. The New York bill was initially killed, but it gains more votes each time its determined sponsors reintroduce it.

MADD is also pushing its agenda onto family laws, including a zero tolerance policy for divorced parents. Under the bills MADD is trying to push through state legislatures, a parent caught consuming one beer or glass of wine before driving could face penalties that, according to MADD, "should include, but are not limited to" — "incarceration," "change of primary custody," or "termination of parental rights." This means that if you take your kid to the game, have a beer in the third inning, then drive home, you could very well lose your rights as a father.

What started out as a legitimate organization that has been initially successful, has now begun to tread down a road that only leads to the further erosion of our rights. We don't have to fear the coming of neoprohibition. It's already here!

The Dominoes Keep Falling

2005-10-06T10:30:00.000-05:00

Hmmmmm. More Ramifications from Kelo.

Landowners must yield to ballpark
By Tim Lemke
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 6, 2005

The District will begin using eminent domain to acquire parcels of land at the site of the Washington Nationals' ballpark by the end of this month, after unsuccessful negotiations with nearly half of the landowners.

City officials said they expect to file court documents to take over at least some of the 21-acre site in the coming weeks and have $97 million set aside to buy the properties and help landowners relocate.

The city made offers to all 23 landowners on the site last month but received no response from 10.

"We think there are some that we'll have good-faith negotiations with," said Steve Green, director of development in the office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. "There are some we haven't heard from at all."

Many property owners on the site said the city's offers are inadequate. Others are suing the city on the grounds that it has no right to use eminent domain to acquire land at the site, despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of municipal governments to take private property for the purpose of economic development.

In April, the city notified property owners on the site that they would be required to move out by Dec. 31.

City officials said the District is on target to have title on all of the land by that date, but they don't expect to have full possession of the site until early next year, with construction on the $535 million stadium to begin in March. That would give the construction team, led by Clark Construction Group of Bethesda, about two years to build the ballpark in time for Opening Day of 2008.

Officials said that timetable remains realistic. Clark built the 80,000-seat FedEx Field, home of the Washington Redskins, in less time.

"Twenty-four months is not bad," Mr. Green said. "There's always the possibility of doing it in 22 or 23 months."

Meanwhile, the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission has been sparring with the new Anacostia Waterfront Corp. (AWC) on the location of ballpark parking.

The AWC, which the city created to promote development along the Anacostia River waterfront, said it prefers an underground parking garage beneath 600,000 to 800,000 square feet of office and retail development.

The commission said that would run up too many costs and take too long to build.

"We're not going to do it," said Mark Tuohey, chairman of the sports commission. "We don't care what they say. There's no money."

In order for parking to be built above ground, the commission must change a zoning requirement. A hearing before the zoning board on the issue is scheduled for Oct. 17, but could delay the process further. If the commission is denied a zoning change, it would have to turn to the D.C. Council for legislative permission or take the case to an appeals court.

"If we lose and it goes to the court of appeals, that takes years," said commission board member Linda Greenan. "That's not a good strategy."

Any discrepancy over development of the stadium site could affect ballpark financing negotiations, which have reached a sensitive stage.

"It could cause confusion on Wall Street, which is exactly where we don't want it right now," said John Ross, a special adviser for the city's chief financial officer and a commission board member.

City officials insist on below-ground parking because it would fit with plans for a retail and entertainment district near the ballpark. They are considering removing parking entirely from the cost of the stadium and paying for it separately, using tax-increment financing or other revenue streams.

Mr. Green said the debate over parking is not delaying completion of a lease agreement for the stadium, which Major League Baseball says must be finalized before it announces the Nationals' new owner.

"There's no real holdup," Mr. Green said. "It's just a very complicated document."

Domino Theory Alive and Well

2005-10-03T09:06:00.000-05:00

Florida city considers eminent domain

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
    "This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
    He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."
    Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.
    "Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections," Mr. Brown said. "But if we don't use this power, cities will die."
    Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.
    "This is a very [racially] mixed area that's also very stable," she said. "But no one seems to care ... Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there's got to be another way."
    In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.
    Dana Berliner, senior lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case, said "pie in the sky" expectations like those expressed by Mr. Brown are routine in all these cases.
    "They always think economic redevelopment will bring more joy than what is there now," she said. "Once someone can be replaced so something more expensive can go where they were, every home and business in the country is subject to taking by someone else."
    Last week, the Riviera Beach City Council tapped the New Jersey-based Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC to oversee the mammoth 400-acre redevelopment project.
    "More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.
Viking spokesman Peter Frederiksen said the plan "is to create a working waterfront," adding that the project could take 15 years and that "we would only use condemnation as a last resort."
    Viking has said it will pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys.
    Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.
    Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach wants to highlight its waterfront.
    "We have the best beach and the most attractive redevelopment property anywhere in the United States," he said.
    Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "And we want to develop a charter school for development of marine trades."
    Mr. Brown and others said this could be one of the biggest eminent-domain actions ever. A report in the Palm Beach Post said it is the biggest since 1954, when 5,000 residents of Washington were displaced for eventual development of the Southwest D.C. waterfront, L'Enfant Plaza, and the less-than-successful Waterside Mall.
    The fact that Riviera Beach is so financially downtrodden may seem ironic because as Mr. Brown notes "it sits right across the inlet from Palm Beach," one of the nation's wealthiest areas.
    "Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.

Second thoughts now the heat is on?

2005-09-27T10:34:00.000-05:00

New London Mulls Timing of Property Seizure
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
FOX NEWS

One of the Supreme Court's most controversial recent decisions is playing out in New London, Conn., where homeowners whose property the city wants to take for commercial use now find themselves on the receiving end of some conflicting signals.

The people who live in the houses set for seizure by the New London Development Corporation have gotten their notices to move, saying residents must vacate by Dec. 8. But now, the mayor of New London says the letter to vacate should not have been sent out.

"They jumped the gun and their attitude has been jumping the gun a lot and this was like the frosting on the cake," said Mayor Jane Glover.

The eviction notices were allowed when the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo et. al. v. City of New London that the city can seize private property for economic development projects like hotels and office space. The decision was heavily criticized.

The New London City Council has also voted "no confidence" in the Development Corporation and has demanded the agency's president be fired. But none of the recent events has changed the city council's decision to seize the property.

Glover said she still wants the tenants and property owners gone, but only after more bargaining.

"There are 90 acres there to be developed, seven people, maybe 15 dwellings are keeping that economic development from going on," Glover said. "The Supreme Court has given us the authority to just go in with a bulldozer, but I don't think the state of Connecticut or us particularly want to do that, not just because of the tenants but it's just not good politics. We were hoping the people would buy out."

But Richard Beyer, who owns two houses, is fuming.

"This hasn't been about money. This has been about them bullying us around and stripping us of our right to own property," he said.

Although the Supreme Court has ruled for the city, Beyer said he would not yield.

"All of America needs to stand up for their constitutional right to hold their property without a private corporation moving in and kicking them out of their homes for private gain," Beyer said.

With the New London Development Corporation now in turmoil, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell is getting involved to broker a deal in anticipation of what could be a nasty end to this ongoing debate.

THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND

2005-09-13T17:37:00.000-05:00

New London homeowners slapped with eviction notices
Despite Connecticut governor's moratorium on eminent domain, city pushes vacate order

Posted: September 12, 2005
10:50 p.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Despite Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell's suggested moratorium on eminent domain cases in the state, pending the consideration of new legislation restriction property seizures by local governments, the city of New London has issued eviction notices to homeowners who lost their case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Kelo v. the City of New London ruling.

"They have sent us eviction letters and have given us 90 days to vacate," homeowner Michael Cristofaro told WND. "As further insult to injury, they are requiring us to send them $600-a-month rent."

He said the city officials are apparently persuaded the Supreme Court ruling last June is all they need to proceed with their plans to transfer the properties to a private party for development of an office complex.

Cristofaro said he has attempted to contact two members of the city council to see if they are aware of the plans and approve of them.

In the highly controversial Supreme Court decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development and increased tax revenue resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

The city has previously threatened the homeowners with demands for back rent dating to 2000. Officials say that since they won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property for the last five years since they first began condemnation procedures.

In addition, buyout offers were based on the market rate in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.

The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.

The Kelo case, named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband, has ignited a national uproar.

One Los Angeles advertising entrepreneur, Logan Darrow Clements, has spearheaded a campaign to have the city of Weare, N.H., condemn Souter's property, a modest 200-year-old farmhouse on eight acres, in retaliation for his vote approving the seizure of homes in connection with the case.

Clements plans to create on Souter's land the "Lost Liberty Hotel," a kind of museum commemorating the lost right to private property in America.

Because the Board of Selectmen of Weare has rejected Clements' request to condemn the property, Darrow hopes to use a ballot initiative to do the job.

RIP Justice Rehnquist

2005-09-03T22:42:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist died on Saturday at his home in Arlington, Virginia, after battling thyroid cancer since October, a court spokeswoman said.

Rehnquist, 80, had experienced "a precipitous decline in his health in the last couple of days," and died in the evening surrounded by his three children, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

Rehnquist's death creates a second opening on the court, following the announced retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Leaving tonight

2005-09-02T15:40:00.000-05:00

Well, ladies and gentlemen - you knew it would happen sometime. I have been activated, and I am deploying to Louisiana in support of efforts to help the victims of the hurricane.

Obviously, I won't be keeping a blog during that time. Hell, I'm not even sure I'll have electricity or cell service.

Keep your chins up.

Nicki

Blogger Relief Day

2005-08-30T15:04:00.000-05:00

Via Malkin.

Hugh Hewitt is suggesting a Blogger Relief Day for the citizens of New Orleans.

Check out his blog for more details.

So long, private property rights

2005-08-22T15:22:00.000-05:00

I meant to post this earlier, but an emergency trip to New Orleans got in the way.

It seems our government has decided that citizens do not have the right to defend their property. In the case outlined below, a court ruled that a ranch owner had to surrender his property to illegal immigrants. Let's see what NYT has to say about it:

August 19, 2005

Two Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court Fight
By ANDREW POLLACK

DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.

The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them.

"Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land," said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit.

Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would "send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence."

The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border.

Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous."

"The illegals are coming over here," Mr. Dore said. "They are getting the American property. Hell, I'd come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos."

The immigrants getting the ranch, Edwin Alfredo Mancía Gonzáles and Fátima del Socorro Leiva Medina, could not be reached for comment. Kelley Bruner, a lawyer at the law center, said they did not want to speak to the news media but were happy with the outcome.

Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000.

Mr. Mancía, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms. Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis.

Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison.

Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress.

Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote.

Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment.

Ms. Albitz, a nursing assistant, signed over the land to the two immigrants last week.

"It scared the hell out of her," Margaret Pauline Nethercott, the mother of Mr. Nethercott and Ms. Albitz, said of the lawsuit. "She didn't know she had done anything illegal. We didn't know they had a judgment against my son."

This was not the first time the law center had taken property from a group on behalf of a client. In 1987, the headquarters of a Ku Klux Klan group in Alabama was given to the mother of a boy whose murder was tied to Klansmen. Property has also been taken from the Aryan Nations and the White Aryan Resistance, Mr. Dees said.

Joseph Jacobson, a lawyer in Austin who represented Mr. Nethercott in the criminal case, said the award was "a vast sum of money for a very small indignity." Mr. Jacobson said the two immigrants were trespassing on Mr. Sutton's ranch and would have been deported had the criminal charges not been filed against Mr. Nethercott.

He criticized the law center for trying to get $60,000 in bail money transferred to the immigrants. While the center said the money was Mr. Nethercott's, Mr. Jacobson said it was actually Ms. Nethercott's, who mortgaged her home to post bail for her son.

Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote had a falling out in 2004, and Mr. Foote left Camp Thunderbird, taking Ranch Rescue with him. Mr. Nethercott then formed the Arizona Guard, also based on his ranch.

In April, Mr. Nethercott told an Arizona television station, "We're going to come out here and close the border with machine guns." But by the end of the month, he had started his prison sentence.

Now, only remnants of Camp Thunderbird remain on his ranch, a vast expanse of hard red soil, mesquite and tumbleweed with a house and two bunkhouses. One bunkhouse has a storeroom containing some camouflage suits, sleeping bags, tarps, emergency rations, empty ammunition crates, gun parts and a chemical warfare protection suit.

In one part of the ranch, dirt is piled up to form the backdrop of a firing range. An old water tank, riddled with bullet holes, is on its side. A platform was built as an observation post on the tower that once held the water tank.

Charles Jones, who was hired as a ranch hand about a month before Mr. Nethercott went to prison, put up fences and brought in cattle to graze. He has continued to live on the property with some family members.

But now the cattle are gone, and Mr. Jones has been told that he should prepare to leave. "It makes me sick I did all this work," he said.

Ms. Nethercott said she was not sure whether her son knew that his ranch was being turned over to the immigrants, but that he would be crushed if he did.

"That's his whole life," she said of the ranch. "He'd be heartbroken if he lost it in any way, but this is the worst way."

Rubbing salt into the wounds

2005-08-18T09:45:00.000-05:00

This past June saw a gross travesty of justice known as Kelo v. New London handed down to us by the Supreme Court. In accordance with Kelo, local government may now seize private property and give it to whomever they damn well please, so long as they do it under the vaguely defined guise of "public good." In this case, "public good" translates into "more tax revenue."

To make matters worse for the plaintiffs in the Kelo lawsuit, the city of New London is charging them rent dating back to the time the land was condemned, going all the way back to 2000.

'I'd leave here broke'

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning brazen arrogance. The cliché example is a man who murders his parents and then begs a judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

The city of New London, Conn., deserves a chutzpah award. In 2000, it condemned 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and convention center. Susette Kelo and her neighbors spent years in a legal battle that culminated in June, when the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against them.

That was painful enough. But while the homeowners were battling in court, New London was calculating how much "rent" they owe for living in the houses they were fighting to save. (The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)

The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."

Well, they might have expected not to be bullied for exercising their right to be heard in court.

News of the city's heavy handed tactics should add to the unusual national backlash that has followed the Supreme Court's ruling. The court said state and local governments can seize homes, not just for a public purpose such as building roads or schools, but also for someone else's private profit if the city's economic future is at issue.

The court said states can curtail abuses, and legislatures have rushed to do that. Delaware and Alabama passed laws barring the taking of private property for economic development. Similar measures are pending in eight other states and Congress.

The bills have created some strange alliances. Conservatives worry about the loss of property rights. Liberals say the seizures amount to corporate welfare at the expense of low- and middle-income homeowners who lack the power to fight City Hall.

In response, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell is urging a compromise that would preserve the homes of Kelo and her neighbors.

Unless that happens, they will be evicted - with a rent due. Talk about chutzpah.

Thanks, everyone

2005-08-17T22:03:00.000-05:00

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their well-wishes, support, and prayers regarding my sister.

Sadly, they have all been in vain.

After a series of bone scans, CAT scans, and MRI's, we have learned the true extent of the spread of cancer. In addition to the breast cancer and the bone cancer, which we already know about, there have been additional complications. The cancer has spread to the lymphatic system, to the spinal cord, and to the liver. According to the doctors, the prognosis is terminal. At this point, it's just a matter of time.

-Vic

Apologies

2005-08-17T10:40:00.000-05:00

I would like to apologize for the sparcity of posts lately - especially on my end. Between work, school, and what seems like one family crisis after another, some things just had to be put on the back burner. Sadly, this blog is one of those things I had to put aside for the time being. Even my own blog has suffered from very light posting.

Rest assured, things will be returning to some semblence of normalcy in the very near future. Thanks for your patience.

-Vic

Kelo's Implications Are Horrendous

2005-08-08T08:23:00.000-05:00

Interesting commentary from Paul Craig Roberts on further potential dangers of the Kelo decision. Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

Here's an exerpt:

In 1981, General Motors used eminent domain against the Detroit ethnic suburb of Poletown. To make space for a GM assembly plant, 1,400 homes, 140 businesses and several churches were destroyed. Today, the exemplar of this practice is Wal-Mart.

What if Poletown had been a Chrysler plant that GM wanted to eliminate as a competitor? Under the Kelo ruling, if GM could show that its cars are more successful and produce higher taxable profits than Chrysler's, and the eminent domain authority is not in Chrysler's pocket, GM could prevail.

Today, Toyota, for example, could seek to condemn Ford's River Rouge plant, which is known to be largely obsolete, in order to obtain the site for its own economic use. There appears to be nothing in Kelo to prevent this outcome.

Note some of the implications: According to economic theory, monopoly profits are higher than competitive profits. Kelo becomes a way to get around antitrust laws and increase concentration in the name of public benefit.

Dis Me Getting All Huhu

2005-08-02T17:57:00.000-05:00

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just reversed a 1993 Federal Court ruling which upheld the right of Kamehameha Schools to admit only ethnic Hawaiian students. According to the 9th Circuit Court, the Hawaiians only policy represents unlawful racial discrimination.

I disagree, but not for the reasons you might think.

Some people feel that ethnic Hawaiians, like many indigenous people, Native Americans, etc., are entitled to a break. The Kamehameha Schools represent a relatively low cost, high quality option for a people who were exploited in the past and may not have had many options. Arguably, that was true when Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop founded the schools to meet a specific need within a specific historical context. Whether it remains true in modern times is a debate that I'm reallly not interested in.

Moreover, many would argue that opportunities exist for non-Hawaiian students in Hawaii which are just as valid. Case in point is the equally prestigious Punahou School, which is open to all ethnic groups on Oahu and in the past has been an opportunity for folks who were neither native Hawaiians nor of white missionary stock. These days they will give special consideration to ethnic Hawaiians, but are equal opportunity, according to their website. Again, That's not a debate that I care to address.

I mean really, I'm a brat which means my haole ass went to Radford, so screw 'em. ;)

But that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is that Kam is a private school. Did you catch that? I said private, son! And as a private school they ought to be able to admit whoever the hell they want to admit for whatever reason they see fit. They should be able to hang a big sign in front of their Kapalama Campus that says "Kanakas only! All Haoles, Pakes, BukBuks, Portugee, Japanee, and Popolos stay away and sully us not with your non-ethnic-Hawaiian stench," should they choose to do so. Granted that would be overtly racist and bad for enrollment, but as a private school they at least should have the legal right to do so.

Since when does a Federal court get to tell a private organization what to do? That's what this really boils down to. If it were a public school such as Radford, McKinney, or Castle (all considered good schools on the island, at least as far as public schools go), that'd be a different story.

This is not Brown V. Board.

Is there an inverse to taxation without representation? Because that's what this sounds like. The Kam schools are funded partially by tuition, for which financial aid is available, partially by money from Princess Pauahi's estate, and partially by lease revenue, as the Kam Schools represent the largest private landowner in the State of Hawaii. So taxpayers didn't pay for this, but the Government (through the 9th Circuit Court) is going and tell them how to run things anyway? What's that about?

So do we now as citizens no longer have the right to determine how our private money is spent?

EDIT: As I was posting this, a coworker came up and saw "Kamehameha" highlighted in blue and asked me if I was writing about Dragonball Z. Apparently, there is a character in Dragonball Z named Kamehameha and my coworker goes, "you mean there's a Kamehameha besides the one in Dragonball Z?" This was a grown man that asked me this!

Fuck!

No wonder our rights are being taken away. We are too damned culturally illiterate to know a damn thing about anything!

23 Days Late

2005-07-27T12:50:00.000-05:00

(Cross-Posted at Memento Moron)

I have for some time found myself at a loss as to which modern American political movement closest matches my own beliefs, political views, and philosophies. I understand that it is more and more common, as well as admirable, for individuals to eschew party names or other labels in favor of voting their conscience. While this is an excellent way of applying your beliefs to your voting habits and to choices you make that affect political outcomes, it can become time-consuming in discussions to have to explain just what your beliefs are. Thus, it is often more efficient to identify yourself with a particular party or movement in general, and divulge any variations from that norm only when they are germane to the conversation. This becomes more problematic the more eclectic ones beliefs, I suppose. But I digress. Well, only just a little. The point is that while I find myself agreeing quite frequently with particular parties or movements, there have been numerous occasions where I’ve had to make exceptions to my support or agreement.

Over the course of the last year (wow, I’ve been doing this a year!), while expressing my own views on this blog, I’ve read the comments by my readers, and I’ve read other blogs and the comments by their readers, and in doing so, have learned more about politics and political theories and history than I ever knew before. And while I’m still a novice in such things, I feel confident in saying that I now understand my OWN political views better.

There was a time when I was a staunch modern conservative. This was as a very young person, and was mostly influenced by my family upbringing. During my college and early adult years, I was strongly influenced by opinions and attitudes within the culture of Christian Missionaries, which is what I aspired to be. This led to an odd mix of beliefs all based on what I perceived to be sound biblical doctrine, and I suppose you could say I was socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and a dove with regard to foreign policy. The High Water Mark for my adherence to these positions was in

Churchill’s comment about the effects of age on ones politics certainly rang true in my case, and as time wore on and I began to think out certain positions I held, I grew more hawkish and more fiscally conservative. On social issues, I found myself growing more conservative on some points and more liberal or moderate on others. Eventually I found myself once again firmly in what I believed to be the Republican camp (and, to be honest, that is the way I usually vote), though I found, and find, myself more in agreement with libertarians on some issues.

From there my understanding of my own views evolved to the point where I considered my self a constitutionalist. I believed, and for the most part still believe, that the Constitution was and should be the final benchmark for law in the United States.

But recently I found myself challenged – not to question my belief in the Constitution, but to question its exact place in my political philosophy. As I mentioned in an essay early on in my blogging days, my political views are still guided by my religious beliefs, as horrifying as that might be to some. The First Amendment was established, I believe, not to prevent an individual’s religious beliefs from having ANY effect on that individual’s political views, but rather to prevent organized religion from dictating public policy, and to prevent government from dictating religious doctrine. Therefore, I reject the Separation of Church and Brain.

This has put me in a dilemma with regards to my stance as a constitutionalist on several occasions, the most notable of which was the Schiavo case. Without launching into a separate debate on the merits of that case, for the purpose of THIS discussion, it must suffice that I believed I was helping to defend an innocent life in taking the stand I did on that occasion. In doing so, and in actively following the blogosphere’s discussion of the case, I was challenged by a post by Naked Villainy’s Smallholder, questioning the depth of commitment to the Constitution of Republican congressmen who were interfering in the case; and the depth of commitment to the Constitution of conservatives in general by their approval of these actions.

And while I’m not sure he was 100% right (not being as much of an expert in the Constitution as I am a believer), he did have a point, one I had to consider and finally concede, at least on my own behalf. In this case, I had to admit, I was willing to waver in my commitment to the constitution in order to remain firm in my commitment to defending life. I found myself further troubled when confronting the argument that the Federal Government was acting unconstitutionally in waging the Civil War, a war I believe achieved great good. This put me, you can imagine, in the unenviable position of once again needing to readjust exactly how I represented myself politically. Eventually I concluded that I still considered myself a constitutionalist, but what I call a Means Constitutionalist, as opposed to an Ends Constitutionalist. By that, of course, I mean that I believe that adherence to the Constitution is NOT the highest end of American Law, but rather, that the Constitution itself is the greatest means by which we strive to the highest ends of American Law. And what is that highest end?

For a very long time, in fact, ever since the days when I was an anti-abortion socialist-leaning pacifist, I held firm to a belief that in arguing the constitutional merits of any given policy or law, modern politicians were overlooking the importance of the Preamble to the Constitution. It was, and is, my belief that within the Preamble, the framers laid out exactly what end they intended to achieve, and in the rest of the Constitution, expounded on how to achieve it.

These are the ends of Law in the United States, and of the Constitution itself: Union, Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, General Welfare, and Liberty. Any law that opposes those ends, whether technically adherent to the rest of the Constitution or not, should be opposed. Any law that promotes those ends, whether technically adherent to the rest of the Constitution or not, should be supported. The former should be rendered unconstitutional as quickly as possible, the latter rendered constitutional. But if the day ever comes when the Constitution ceases to uphold those ends, I will cease to be a constitutionalist. In short, my loyalty to the Constitution and to the United States is conditional upon their loyalty to the principles upon which they were founded.

How can I say such a thing? Sedition! Well, not yet. But sadly, the day may come when my words above would be seditious. So be it. For this belief of mine is based on another set of words that were, when coined, equally seditious. But you just said that the Constitution is the final authority on what the ends of our law are! No, I said that the Constitution, or specifically the Preamble, expresses what those ends ARE, and the rest of the Constitution expounds on how they’re to be achieved, but it is not the final AUTHORITY on what they are. Well, then, what or who is? I am. You are. We all are, individually and collectively.

It’s simple, really. With regards to the end of American government, the Constitution addresses almost all of the most important “5W/H” questions:

Who?
We the People of the United States

What?
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
Where?
Philadelphia

When?
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

How?
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice the glaring omission?

Why?

At first blush, I thought that that was what the preamble was about. But I came to believe that the preamble explains WHAT we are setting out to do. But why do we want to form this more perfect union? Why bother creating this finely crafted, well-thought out document?

I finally concluded that the reason WHY, the authority and motivation behind the Constitution, could be found in a document several years older than the Constitution. And I have come to view THIS document as the authority on which rests the constitution. Of course, I am referring to the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, I believe the foundational concept, the authority upon which rests the entire US Constitution and government, is expressed in the following clause from the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

...That’s it. That’s why we have a constitution, why we have THIS constitution. And the rest of that clause goes on to explain why I think it right and proper and altogether fitting to hold to the position I do, which is that I am a constitutionalist only as long as the Constitution achieves this end. Because I believe…

...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

House Renews Expiring Sections of USA PATRIOT Act

2005-07-25T07:43:00.000-05:00

With a second round of attempted terror attacks in London on their minds, the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday night approved 16 expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, making 14 of them permanent and extending two of the most controversial provisions for ten years.

The USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 passed by a vote of 257-171, with 43 Democrats joining Republicans. (Fourteen Republicans voted against the bill.)

This is the same kind of post-terror panic that prompted the legislature to overwhelmingly pass the "PATRIOT" Act in the first place, effectively creating a loophole around the Constitution and allowing the "authorities" to stomp on our rights.

This is one of the few times in my life you will find me agreeing with Nancy Pelosi, who stated, "I listened intently to the gentleman from Virginia, [Rep. Rich Boucher (D-Va.], when he described in detail the serious constitutional issues concerning Section 505...by which the government possesses power to seize citizens' medical and other personal records without notice, without the ability to challenge these orders, and without meaningful time limitations. And for this reason, I will join Mr. Boucher in opposing this legislation, but with the hope that it will be improved in conference."

There are other questionable and barely constitutional provisions in this legislation. For a more in-depth analysis, check out an article I did a few years ago, describing the slow, systematic death of the Bill of Rights.

One of my favorite novels describes the concept of terrorism in very precise terms. "Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within … causing unrest in the masses. ...Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.”

This is exactly what the terrorists around the world are doing. They are inciting panic, causing governments such as ours to clamp down on the citizens, to destroy their rights and freedoms -- all in the name of appearing a bit less ineffective and powerless than they really are.

The "authorities" are fighting terrorism with smoke and mirrors.

If, in fact, the goal of terrorism is to destroy the populace's faith in the government's power to protect the people and cause unrest from within, those in power are simply trying to create the illusion that tyrannical measures such as the "PATRIOT" Act allow them to better protect the people.

In fact, all they're doing is turning America into a minimum security prison.

Dry Warfare

2005-07-20T21:38:00.000-05:00

If ever you need a classic example of how the denial of basic rights makes criminals of honest men and women, look at the predicament of our armed forces currently deployed in Iraq.

I work on a dry military base in Iraq as a civilian supporting the military, and I can report that prohibition has made criminals of us all. We smuggle, we sell, we steal, we get smashed. We cache alcohol around bases like so many weapons of mass destruction. And at night, we nurse our illegal beers while watching the flashes of firefights and air assaults in the distance. When mortars land nearby, we reach for the next round and toast to the fact that we’re still around to have something to toast to, clean underwear be damned.

But we also drink in fear and in melancholy sympathy. A knock on the door from the military police could mean our jobs — or in the case of those in uniform, their rank, pension, and ability to go home soon to their wives, husbands, and kids.

For the soldiers brave enough to face the horrors of combat but too timid to face the horrors of military justice, the indignities are extreme. After hours in the desert sun under body armor, the chow-halls insult them with massive ice-cold slabs of non-alcoholic beer. It is a credit to our armed forces that these near beers go mostly untouched.

Many of you reading this remember when States were blackmailed into raising the drinking age to 21. Do y'all remember the classic argument? I do. And I'm also here to tell you that not only is that argument still valid, but the predicament is worse than ever. You know what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that our nations young men and women can die for their country but are not allowed even a modest drink!

We as a country have permitted this outrage for almost 20 years!

Even if one is of "legal drinking age," one is still risking one's livelihood, job, or military career by committing the heinous and unforgivable act of simply having a well earned beer or shot of whiskey after escaping death while defending against religious fanatics who want to kill us all for, among other things, our choice to drink alcohol. We can fight these fundamentalist lunatics abroad, but who's going to fight the fundamentalist lunatics at home who would ruin our lives for the same "offense?"

Let's talk about the guy who ran Beer For Soldiers, simply for the purpose of raising funds to legally buy soldiers over 21 a beer. Click on the link and see what became of his site and that will tell you everything you need to know.

Many of you reading this have served and know what a blessing such small comfort as a strong drink can be. Why in the hell would anyone want to deny those comforts to the very people who are defending the dwindling freedom for that comfort to exist? There can be no motive save for pure malice. And there is absolutely no excuse to tolerate this double standard any longer.

Say what?

2005-07-19T10:51:00.000-05:00

Not only do we have politicians in government failing to do their job, we now have politicians promising to aid these illegal invaders.

Speaking to the nations' largest Hispanic civil rights organization, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received a standing ovation Monday when she vowed her support for legislation that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to attend college.

UN Butting In

2005-07-18T10:56:00.000-05:00

Via Michelle Malkin.

It seems our "friends" in Turtle Bay have decided they want control over the internet.

At issue for the group is who runs the internet and how it can better serve the world. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has long pressed industry, government and private interest groups to ensure that people in poor nations have greater access to the internet.

Among the governance options put forward by the group were a continuation of the current system, creation of a world body to address public policy issues stemming from the work of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) and creation of a body to address a broader range of public policy issues. The fourth option is to create three bodies, one to address policy issues, one for oversight and one for global coordination.

It's bad enough we have our own government trying to regulate what we can or cannot do or say on the internet, but the UN's track record of "governance" is even worse. I forget who said it, but someone once said "Giving the UN control over anything is like giving a drunk teenager the keys to your Porsche. It can only lead to disaster."

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

Light posting

2005-07-18T10:34:00.000-05:00

Sorry about the lack of posts lately. It's not that we have lost our dislike at the slow death of the U.S. Constitution at the hands of the government, but things in our personal lives have been moving at a fairly fast pace. Once things slow down, we will resume our regularly scheduled rants.

Invasion USA

2005-07-12T14:00:00.000-05:00

Heres a little excerpt from the U.S. Constitution:

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

As it stands today, the government continues to fail its Constitutional duty of defending the United States from foreign invasion. Every year, hundreds of thousands of illegal invaders cross U.S. borders unhindered. The government has neither the will nor the desire to stop them. In fact, the opposite is true.

Let's take a look at the government's latest effort to address this problem:

McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill Opens the Border

by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted Jul 12, 2005

At a time of sustained, mass immigration, a glut of unskilled foreign workers, unrelenting illegal immigration and fiscal overload, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., propose to flood America with more of the same.

Their recently introduced legislation, S. 1033, creates two supposedly temporary work visas. Those programs are vehicles to legalize all 10-12 million illegal aliens.

Read the rest here.

That's right. Sens. McCain and Kennedy are drafting an amnesty bill with the intent to reward invaders for breaking U.S. immigration laws. Social services, such as welfare, healthcare, edcuation, etc., for llegal immigrants costs the state of Texas an estimated $4.7billion/yr and the state of California an estimated $10.1billion/yr, yet no government agency seems to want to do anything to prevent this.

Illicit drug trade and an increased threat terrorism are other risks of our current "open borders" policy.

In April of this year, A group of concerned citizens calling themselves the "Minuteman Project" gathered along the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona. The MMP proved, beyond any doubt, that beefed up security along the border can help stem the tide of this illegal invasion. What was the government's response? Ordering the Border Patrol to "stand down" to minimize the success of the MMP.

This is yet another example of where the government has seen fit to ignore the U.S. Constitution in the name of political expediency. And, for some unknown reason, we keep electing the clowns that allegedly represent us in government.

When is enough truly enough? When do we start holding elected officials accountable for their inaction?

"Authorities" steal? Say it ain't so!

2005-07-12T11:55:00.000-05:00

Cross posted over at the Liberty Zone. Thanks to Publicola for bringing it to the forefront of my mind.

We know the "authorities" can now steal your land with impunity, thanks to the Kelo decision. But before the Supremes decided your home wasn't really yours if Wal Mart decides it would be better suited as a Mecca of low quality shopping for the inbred...

..."Authorities" around the nation have been stealing for decades!

Publicola has brought one such despicable action to our attention today.

Apparently, an 84 year old man in Indiana shot and killed a burglar in February of this year. The District Attorney called this a justifiable homicide, but apparently, the stealing scum that pass for stellar law enforcement professionals out there in Indiana have decided that Mr. Robert Birtwhistle's gun is part of a "death investigation," and ergo, will be kept forever for their "own records."

Mr. Britwhistle is understandably upset. "I'm an easy target... I'm feeble and have no (lung capacity). ... As far as I'm concerned, they have stolen that gun."

More from Publicola:

Damn right they stole it.

See a lot of gun owners would argue that any gun used in a shooting, even a justifiable one, can morally be taken to make sure the shooting was in fact justifiable. But since it's been 5 months & the DA has already called it a justifiable shooting, not to mention Mr. Schaffer's confession, we can avoid any such arguments. They stole a gun from an 84 year old man & they are not ashamed of it.

Of course they should return the firearm to Mr. Birtwhistle immedietely. I don't mean that sometime later today they can tell him to come pick it up; I mean they should put Mr. Schaffer in a squad car (in the back of course) & have a cop drive him & Mr. Birtwhistle's firearm (with the blue lights on) to Mr. Birtwhistle's home, return it, then have Mr. Schaffer lay prostrate at Mr. Birtwhistle's feet whilst he begs forgiveness for his justification of his larceny. Then the cop should leave after escorting Mr. Schaffer off Mr. Birtwhistle's property but without offering him a lift back to clean out his desk. & the people involved should pony up a suitable sum out of their own pockets to attempt to compensate Mr. Birtwhistle for the trauama caused by their theivery. (sic)

"I can't get (that February) incident out of my mind,' [Birtwhistle] said. 'If I'm not doing something, I'm thinking about it. The main thing is, I need protection. I'm getting along fine, but I'd get along better with that gun.

"Eighty four friggin year old man has to plead for his means of defense back from the government who said he hasn't done anything wrong. Mr. Birtwhistle has a shotgun, but he prefers the pistol. Why?

"Recently, Birtwhistle has taken his grandfather's shotgun, which he's had locked away, to his bedroom for protection, but he still prefers his former weapon. 'The revolver is easier to use; it makes me feel more comfortable,' he said."

An 84 year old man is using his grandfather's shotgun as a means of defense. Now I agree that a shotgun is much better than a handgun for repelling invaders, but not if you're too infirm to work the damn thing right. Besides, we're talking about an 84 year old man's grandfather's shotgun. A conservative estimate would be that his grandfather was born 124 years ago. That'd be 1881. Let's assume his grandfather didn't acquire the shotgun in question until he was 30. That'd be 1911. (I know; a fine year for pistols.) Now a lot of firearms from around then work just fine but odds are we're talking about a single or double barrel shotgun. It was probably made well enough that with decent care it should be in fine working condition today. But we're still talking about a 7 to 9 pound shotgun that an 84 year old man would have to work.

The bastards should give the old man his pistol back. Then they should all be given a good switchin' - the kind where they have to pick out their own switch. & if they come back with a skinny little one you make them go back a bring a handful.

Deplorable. Abso-friggin-lutely deplorable. Until Mr. Birtwhistle's firearm is returned, I sincerely hope all responsible develop painful boils in embarrassing places.

Call. Write. Ask why the hell they're keeping an elderly man's property (& his preferred means of defense) contrary to all decency & morality, not to mention the law. If you wish to try to reason with them, here's the contact info & some choice bits from Indiana's Constitution

St. Joseph County Prosecutor's Office
227 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Suite 1000
South Bend, IN 46601
(574) 235-9544

May I also humbly suggest that maybe a whole bunch of well-meaning gun rights supporters help this gentleman out and maybe help him purchase a weapon? It's doubtful the thieving scum in Mishawaka will listen to reason.

Just a thought.
Nicki

Carnival of Liberty #2

2005-07-11T14:41:00.000-05:00

Here is the Carnival of Liberty #2.

Read and enjoy.

The Supreme Court's Power

2005-07-11T10:44:00.000-05:00

The kind of government that is strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything that you have.

President Ronald Reagan
1911—2004

How did the Judicial Branch become the end all be all of the American Government?

It is clear that Judges now think they are not responsible to either of the other two branches of our government; this was clearly exemplified in the Terri Shivo debacle, when a judge ignored the congressional subpoena. It was a message to congress that they can not interfere in matters that the courts. Right or wrong on that issue, it doesn’t matter, what does matter is that the court ignored congress, telling them that they do not have the power to correct the courts.

How did this situation come to be? It has been a slow process that started when the courts started finding meanings in the constitution that were not there. This can be traced all the way back to Mayberry v. Madison, when the court first asserted authority and established Judicial Review. Many important and helpful decisions have come out of the court system over the years, such as the federal banking system. Decisions like that were able to find basis in the constitution, how ever, some decisions were found that there is absolutely no basis for.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Constitution the following is a partial list of items not mentioned in the constitution:

Judicial Review
Separation of Church and State
The Right to Travel
Right to Privacy
Innocent until proven guilty
Jury of Peers
The Right to Vote

These things are not bad things, and most are addressed in amendments, however it is a stretch to say that some of these things mean what the Supreme Court has said that they do.

President Reagan once said:
The kind of government that is strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything that you have.

Who knew it would only be a matter of years?

Police Still Using Matrix-Type Database

2005-07-10T19:34:00.000-05:00

My apologies for the short hiatus. Had National Guard drill all weekend, and had spent a significant portion of last week preparing. However, back to the slow, systematic death of the Constitution.......

Here's an exerpt:

When the federal government in April stopped funding a database that lets police quickly see public records and commercially collected information on Americans, privacy advocates celebrated what they saw as a victory against overzealousness in the fight against terrorism.

But a few states are pressing forward with a similar system, continuing to look for ways to quickly search through a trove of data - from driver's license photos to phone numbers to information about people's cars. Their argument in seeking to keep the Matrix database alive in some form: it's too important for solving crimes to give up on.

Florida, Ohio, Connecticut and Pennsylvania still use software that lets investigators quickly cull through much of the data about people that reside in cyberspace. However, without the federal grant for the Matrix data-sharing system, they won't be routinely searching through digital files from other states - at least for now.

Privacy advocates still don't like the idea, saying government shouldn't have easy access to so much information about people who haven't done anything wrong.

They Would Make Informers Of Us All!

2005-07-07T16:58:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to Craig at libertybellblog.

MADD, in their typicly underhanded fashion, wants to encourage us to get on our cell phones and rat people out. It looks like they didn't get the memo.

Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That frustrates everyone.

"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."

Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Or, more likely, they did get the memo but they just don't care! It seems to me that if MADD were truly interested in improving highway safety, they would incorporate a cell phone safety agenda into their platform. But I submit to you that this is further proof that MADD is not interested in safety but in prohibition. They want to offer up the paranoia that if you have a drink or two that you will be prosecuted by an army of your fellow motorists wielding their cell phones. They want to make you afraid to drink even moderatly, and along with manipulating the BAC and relying on the unconstitutional breathylizer machine, this is one more way to do that.

The hypocrites! They pretend to be family friendly by publicizing incidents where a drunk driver ran into a station wagon full and killed some kids, but they never tell you about the times when the drunk gets killed and the kids survive (which happens just about as often). Of course they don't want you to know about the 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries that sober drivers incur annually in this country while talking on their cell phones. That would just take the wind right out of their sales wouldn't it.

It would certainly put a dent in their funding that's for sure.

And it would be a lot harder to take away our constitutional rights based on cell phone usage because too many prominent people use them. They can't demonize cell phone users or portray them as criminals the way they can with casual drinkers and "drunks." One, there's too many people in government, law, and business that live by their cellphones, the very people that MADD wants to influence. Two, cell phone usage doesn't have the moral stigma that drinking does in American culture. Alcohol prohibition goes back hundreds of years in this country, from religious settlers who forbade strong drink, to Carrie Nation and her saloon smashers, to the prohibition years where booze was linked to violent crime, then to drunk driving, which, while it is a real threat, is highly exaggerated for MADD's political purposes.

One of the things MADD relies on is a public stereotype of the violent, drunken pariah who gets behind the wheel, reeking of booze, and selfishly decrying anyone who offers to get him a cab or take him home, and plows into a car full of innocent children. Never mind that the majority of folks who get busted for DWI/DUI with a .08, .04, or even .02 BAC after having a couple of drinks do not fit that stereotype. That's assuming they've even been drinking as it's not unheard of for designated drivers to get busted these days when a cop decided to arrest everyone in the car because one of the occupants smelled like booze. Hey, it's probable cause! And if the driver gets a false positive because he drank some milk, ate a bran muffin, or gargled some listerine, well it's obvious he's lying because he doesn't want to go to jail.

But MADD can't very well paint a negative stereotype in the public eye of a raving, violent cell phone user, reeking of....I dunno, plastic and car air freshner?. It just doesn't work, does it? Particularly when minds they would plant that stereotype in are the very same people using the phones.

So I guess the way MADD sees it is that it's better for more people to die at the hands of cell-phone using drivers in order to ferret out a few more suspected "drunks" and further their neoprohibitionist agenda. I wonder how they sleep at night.

Attacks in London

2005-07-07T09:28:00.000-05:00

By now, we all know about the attacks that took place in London earlier today. I'm not going to post too much about it here because, quite frankly, it's all over the blogosphere. I do, however, wish to offer my sincere condolences to the people of Britain in the wake of this tragedy.

A closer look at the Bill of Rights

2005-07-06T14:35:00.000-05:00

Here is the Bill of Rights as it stands today after having been ravaged for years by politicians and judges with an agenda.

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.]
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.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ~~nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation~~.

Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Article [VII.]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.]
~~Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed~~, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Life, Liberty, and Property

2005-07-06T11:21:00.000-05:00

CDP has joined the Life,
Liberty, and Property blogging community.

Coming soon: Carnival of Liberty #2.

What kind of Justice will Bush nominate?

2005-07-05T10:22:00.000-05:00

Last week, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court after having served on the bench for 24 years. Since then, much speculation, and not a little hyperbole, has been put forth as to whom President Bush will nominate to replace O’Connor.

On the conservative side, there is hope that Bush will nominate someone who will render judgments based on the Constitution. There is also trepidation that Bush will – once again – disappoint conservatives and nominate a moderate wildcard. On the liberal side, there is fear that Bush will nominate a “far-right religious nut.”

Naturally, there can’t be any form of controversy without hyperbole or extremist rhetoric. The National Organization of Women has declared a "'state of emergency' for women’s rights" in response to O’Connor’s retirement notice.

I know where the members of the CDP team stand, but it’s time to put the question to our readers: What kind of Justice will Bush nominate? I have added a poll to the sidebar to facilitate this.

Vote in the poll, and please feel free to leave a comment telling us why you voted the way you did.

Independence Day Weekend

2005-07-01T16:34:00.000-05:00

As the Foruth of July is nigh upon us, we here at CDP would like to wish everyone a safe and happy Independence Day. Since most of us will be spending time with family and friends, there probably will not be much in the way of posting over the weekend.

Take care and have fun,
The CDP Team

State of the Blog Address

2005-07-01T12:20:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday night, Brian and I came up with the concept of this blog as a means of expressing our disgust with the repeated government assaults on our fundamental rights as they are laid out in the U.S. Constitution. We figured posting on this blog would be cathartic - a way to vent our frustrations in a manner with which we were proficient: writing. We also decided to invite several other bloggers to join us in our frustrated rants.

That said, no one on the CDP team suspected this blog would take off as quickly as it has. Since late Monday evening, when I added the hit counter, we have received almost 900 hits. On behalf of the CDP team, I would like to extend our thanks everyone who has stopped by. We would also like to give special thanks to those who have helped contribute to this blog's content.

In the near future, probably sometime in the next week or so, I will be taking the time to rewrite the blog template to make it neater and more pleasing to look at. I'll post a warning before I do the actual update in case things don't go well and the blog starts acting funny.

Also, PLEASE don't hesitate to either leave a comment or to email us. Constructive feedback and content recommendations will always be welcome.

Thanks,
Vic

Supreme Court from a gun owner's point of view

2005-07-01T12:08:00.000-05:00

Also cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

Supreme Court batle begins as Justice O'Connor retires

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation Friday, setting off a long-anticipated ideological battle surrounding the Bush administration's choice for her replacement. The last Supreme Court opening was 11 years ago.

O'Connor, 75, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, was the first woman on the court and in recent years has been a crucial
swing vote on several landmark decisions. Her retirement was not unexpected, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has thyroid cancer, had been the primary focus of speculation.

So how many are expecting Bush to actually appoint a strict constitutionalist to the Supreme Court? Raise your hands!

It ain't gonna happen, folks! From a gun owner's perspective, this is frightening. Remember, the current Bush appointed Reggie B. Walton as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia! Why does this upset me? This is why.

A federal judge upheld the District's 28-year-old gun-control law yesterday, rejecting a legal challenge from a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs had contended that the law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that other arms, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

In a 64-page opinion, Judge Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Judge Walton wrote.

How about Bush's appointment of a certified gun-grabber to the post of Attorney General?

Testifying before the U.S. Senate last week, Alberto Gonzales announced he supports President Bush's position on the semi-auto ban.

"The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress," Gonzales said. "I, of course, support the president on this issue.

"While some might be tempted to give Gonzales a "pass" since he was parroting his boss' position, Gonzales went even further, indicating that gun control was a heart-felt position of his own.

He spoke of his brother, who is a Houston SWAT officer, and said, "I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street." Hence, he supports a prohibition on semi-automatics that, in truth, only amounts to a ban on ugly guns.

Now, I ask AGAIN: Does ANYONE actually believe that Bush will appoint a constitutionalist to the Supreme Court?

(*insert cricket chirping sound effect here*)

The Fight Is On, But Be Not Weary

2005-07-01T11:28:00.000-05:00

Cross-Posted at Memento Moron.

So Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring.

Good.

As Ace has pointed out, O'Connor has been inconsistent, even self-contradictory, in her rulings, and her opinions tend to muddy the waters, not clear them, which is one of the main purposes of the court.

So who will replace her? I honestly don't know. I'm not a legal wonk, and don't know the roster of judges from whom to choose. I will make one predicition:

It will be a woman.

The precedent, if you'll pardon the pun, was set when Clarence Thomas was nominated to fill the vacancy left by Thurgood Marshall. It can be argued either that Bush 41 knew that any nomination other than another African American would be attacked as being damaging to the progress of Civil Rights, or that he made sure his nominee was black to defuse any furor over his nominee's politics (a tactic that failed, as we all recall), or, most likely, both. Based on this precedent, I find it highly unlikely that we'll end up with anyhting but another woman to replace O'Connor. The perception has become that if the position was filled by a minority in the past, it must be filled by that same minority in the future. And that's too bad.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying there are no women qualified for the position, nor that the MOST qualified candidate isn't a woman. Again, I don't know who the candidates are. But I am arguing that it shouldn't be a prerequisite that the candidate be a woman.

The reasoning behind the trend are understandable, if mistaken. It's the same reason that people alaways want to see more minority members of congress, or of the workplace. The argument is that those places should be representative of the population. And in the case of Congress, it's at least an arguable point. A representative from the same ethnic group and culture may be better equipped to represent their desires and opinions and priorities.

But the Supreme Court is not intended to be the House of Representatives. It's the judicial Branch, not the Legislative. It's job is to interpret the law, not make it. Thus, the prime requirement for a member of SCOTUS should be an understanding of the Constitution.

Not membership in a particular demographic.

O'Connor retiring from SCOTUS

2005-07-01T09:35:00.000-05:00

Various news agencies are reporting that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court.

My prediction:

Bush will once again disappoint conservatives by nominating a moderate.

The Dems in Congress will filibuster their little hearts out until 2008.

Either way, the chances of getting a real conservative - one who will use the Constitution as the basis of rulings, rather than international law - on the bench is negligible.

A heap of.......... something

2005-07-01T09:15:00.000-05:00

Julian Sanchez of Reason Magazine shows the dangers of stare decisis and slippery slopes in America's courts.

Here's the bottom line:

Stare decisis is an important guarantor of stability in legal rules: By insisting on like treatment of like cases, it provides people with a more detailed sense of when they're engaged in constitutionally protected conduct than the stripped-down language of the Constitution alone ever could. But legal rules, to be legitimate, should also reflect a shared public understanding. That's not to say the polls must vindicate each particular court ruling. But when stability begins to undermine the public's sense that they understand the most fundamental rules by which they're governed, it's a sign that jurists need to be willing to step back and see the heap.

What Are the Odds?

2005-06-30T09:05:00.000-05:00

Hat Tip to the Llama Butchers for the link.

Sound familiar?

A developer in New Hampshire wants to use Eminent domain to seize a private residence and use the land to build a hotel. Here's what makes the story different:

The home in question belongs to SCOTUS Justice David Souter.

I know, I know, it's a protest move, symbolic, a publicity stunt. And it's got a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening.

But if it causes Souter, for even one second, to know what it feels like to be the rest of us, it was an effort well spent.

UPDATE

Here's a an update from Logan Clements, who appeared last night on FNC's "Hannity and Colmes":

When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn't go after Justice John Paul Stevens' abode as well, Clements responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations."

-Vic

What a misnomer!

2005-06-29T17:53:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Jennifer Freeman and the hard-working Patriots at Liberty Belles for the following:

PATRIOT ACT WANTS YOUR GUNS

Section 211

ACCESS TO BUSINESS RECORDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS UNDER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

Would allow FBI access to the following records without a court order and without notification to the affected individual:

(A) The production of tangible things from a library, as defined in section 213(2) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(2)).

(B) The production of tangible things from a person or entity primarily engaged in the sale, rental, or delivery of books, journals, magazines, or other similar forms of communication whether in print or digitally.

(C) The production of records related to the purchase of a firearm, as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code.

(D) The production of health information, as defined in section 1171(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(4)).

(E) The production of taxpayer return information, return, or return information, as defined in section 6103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 6103(b)).

The Patriot Act is supposed to protect the United States from terrorists. Unfortunately, we don't always know how the term "terrorist" will be defined. History shows that totalitarian governments fear an armed populace and are willing to take a pre-emptive strike at such a populace. Armed members of the populace who oppose a tyrannical government could easily be labeled as "terrorists." One can't help but wonder why this bill was named the "Patriot Act" rather than the "Anti-Terrorism Act." Let's hope the bill wasn't actually intended to apply to Patriots.

They Still Want Your Hooch

2005-06-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

And they will lie, scheme, manipulate, and disregard the 4th Amendment to take it away from you. And they will take away your rights while they are at it.

And they never really went away to be honest. Like any malevolent being, the neoprohibitionists have simply morphed into something appealing to the current generation of killjoys, nanny-staters and just plain dupes that genuinely think they are doing the right thing and will never waver in their self-righteous furor.

Yesterday it was Carrie Nation, the Anti-Saloon League, and The Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Today it's MADD and, well, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. As far as I'm concerned MADD is no better than PETA, and we know what lunatics they are! Only problem is that MADD, having been establish with a noble goal to begin with, has evolved into a sacred cash cow for neoprohibitionists.

"But it's for the children!" goes the sacred mantra against those who dare question their lies. Only a monster would question a group that wants to put a stop to raving drunks plowing their car into a station wagon full of kids. But what they don't tell you is that that raving drunk is no longer the focus of MADD's efforts as they have shifted towards the casual drinker instead. In true Left-Winged fashion, they want to question what the definition of "is" is by redefining what it is to be "drunk." First it was "impaired", then it was a .10 BAC, then a .08 BAC. Now most jurisdictions will arrest you for DWI for having a .04 BAC (less than 2 drinks for some people) and even if they know the charge won't stick, they can try to plea-bargain you down or intimidate you into pleading guilty. And in some jurisdictions if you are on probation or parole they will arrest and convict you of DWI with a BAC of .02, as if somehow that assault and battery charge you got three years ago has lowered your body's resistance to alchohol and turned you into a raving drunk after one beer.

Let's not forget the unconstitutional roadblocks that still go on today in many States, where cars are stopped and randomly searched and the drivers given breathylizer without having done anything to indicate probable cause or generate reasonable suspicion. Of course if you refuse the breathylizer you get taken to jail and your license will automaticly be suspended, even if you are not convicted, even though you didn't even do anything to arouse suspicion.

There are plenty of cops and judges who think this is bullshit. One has even put out a video on the subject and advises people not to take the breathylizer test.

You can exercise your rights and refuse at any time. If you know you’re over the legal limit, which most people won’t know, I wouldn’t do it. Why give evidence against yourself? That’s like robbing a bank and sending the police department a note a week ahead of time saying so.

If I was stopped for a DUI, I wouldn’t walk, I wouldn’t talk, I wouldn’t do anything that’s going to help that officer articulate in his report that you are intoxicated. You will be arrested, but you have to buck up and play the game. I don’t believe in that implied consent crap, it’s blackmail. I’d rather lose my license for a year than get a DUI charge.

By this time many of you reading this are going, "well doesn't the fourth amendment cover this?" Well apparently since about 1983 or so (the same time that MADD came on the scene), the Supreme Court of these United States has been ruling that there is a "DUI exception" to just about every constitutional amendment that could apply to a DUI/DWI incident. Whether it's illegal search and seisure of your vehicle at a random checkpoint, avoidance of self-incrimination by breath, blood, or urine tests, your right to remain silent when questioned, the ability to have evidence examined by an independent body (when you take a breathylizer test, the air sample is immediately released into the atmosphere upon taking the reading, preventing any further examination of the evidence), or your right to a jury trial, the esteemed Justices of SCOTUS have said that you as an American have no constitutional rights.

Murderers, Rapist, and Child Molesters have these rights. But if you have a couple of beers, or even if you are completely sober and simply driving through a police checkpoint, then you do not have these rights. God forbid you should wear Aqua Velva or Brute.

But if you're not driving your safe, right? Right?

Not so. Public Intoxication is the charge that most jurisdictions use, and in effect it's become a "walking while intoxicated" charge, y'know, for when you've inconvenienced your local law enforcement body by not operating a motor vehicle so they can get you for driving while intoxicated. Hell in Fairfax, Virginia they just started sending police into bars, pulling people off of their barstools, giving them breathylizer tests, and taking them straight to jail. That includes designated drivers who were in there drinking coca-cola all night.

Now a lot of people were surprised at the gall that SCOTUS had in their latest ruling regarding imminent domain and property rights. But if you see the way that SCOTUS and MADD have been acting towards our right as Americans simply to have a couple of drinks, this sort of thing really doesn't seem out of step.

Oh, by the way, if you happen to have purchased a car made by General Motors in the last couple of decades, you've helped contribute a crapload of money towards taking away all of our constitutional rights. Over $3 million from 1995 to 2002 in fact. Thanks, guys!

Hat tip to Frank Kelly Rich and the folks at Modern Drunkard Magazine. Also a hat tip to the folks at The Center For Consumer Freedom who run the Activist Cash website.

Kelo aftermath

2005-06-29T15:14:00.000-05:00

Hat tip: Institute for Justice

Cities' Actions Since Kelo
Links to News Articles

Freeport, Texas
Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport began legal filings to seize some waterfront businesses (two seafood companies) to make way for others (an $8 million private boat marina), according to the Houston Chronicle.

Lake Zurich, Ill.
Five property owners facing condemnation for private development had asked Lake Zurich officials to hold off until the Kelo decision. The Chicago Tribune reports that City officials are now moving to condemn.

Boston, Mass.
Two days after the Kelo decision, Boston City Council President Michael Flaherty called on the mayor of Boston to seize South Boston waterfront property from unwilling sellers for a private development project. “Eminent domain is one tool that the city can use,” Flaherty told the Boston Globe.

Arnold, Mo.
“Arnold Mayor Mark Powell applauded the decision,” reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The City of Arnold wants to raze 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold VFW, for a Lowe’s Home Improvement store and a strip mall—a $55 million project for which developer THF Realty will receive $21 million in tax-increment financing. Powell said that for “cash-strapped” cities like Arnold, enticing commercial development is just as important as other public improvements.

Baltimore, Md. (West Side)
The City of Baltimore is moving to acquire shops on the city’s west side for private development. Ronald M. Kreitner, executive director of Westside Renaissance, Inc., a private organization coordinating the project with the city’s development corporation, told the Baltimore Sun, “If there was any hesitation because of the Supreme Court case, any question is removed, and we should expect to see things proceeding in a timely fashion.”

Baltimore, Md. (East Side)
Baltimore’s redevelopment agency, the Baltimore Development Corp., is exercising eminent domain to acquire more than 2,000 properties in East Baltimore for a biotech park and new residences. BDC Executive Vice President Andrew B. Frank told the Daily Record the Kelo decision “is very good news. It means many of the projects on which we’ve been working for the last several years can continue.”

Newark, N.J.
Newark officials want to raze 14 downtown acres in the Mulberry Street area to build 2,000 upscale condo units and retail space. The Municipal Council voted against the plan in 2003, but then reversed its decision eight months later following re-election campaigns in which developers donated thousands of dollars. Officials told the Associated Press that the Mulberry Street project could have been killed if the U.S. Supreme Court had sided with the homeowners in Kelo.

Lodi, N.J.
Save Our Homes, a coalition of 200 residents in a Lodi trailer park targeted by the City for private retail development and a senior-living community, goes to court on July 18 to try to prevent a private developer from taking their homes. Lodi Mayor Gary Paparozzi called the Kelo ruling a “shot in the arm” for the town. He told the Bergen County Record, “The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment. That’s the best-case scenario for using eminent domain.”

Cleveland, Ohio
Developer Scott Wolstein has planned a $225 million residential and retail development in the Flats district. Wolstein has most of the property he needs, but is pleased that Kelo cleared the way for the City to acquire land from any unwilling sellers. If eminent domain is “necessary,” he told the Plain Dealer, “we think this makes it clear that there won’t be any legal impediments.” Previously, city leaders publicly supported Wolstein’s call for eminent domain.

Dania, Fla.
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that Dania Beach City Manager Ivan Pato “expressed joy” over the ruling in Kelo. Dania plans to buy a block of properties for a private development project, and Pato said the city will use eminent domain to oust unwilling sellers. “Unless we expand the city’s tax base … our residents are facing rising taxes on their property,” Pato said. “Redevelopment is the only way we will be able to make ends meet.”

Memphis, Tenn.
The Riverfront Development Corp. is planning a massive, 5-mile development effort, including the use of eminent domain to claim a four-block section from the current owners for a mixed-use development. “[Kelo] definitely gives the city more tools in its tool box for dealing with the legal issues surrounding that piece of property,” RDC president Benny Lendermon told the Commercial Appeal.

Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale and Miramar, Fla.
Broward County officials yesterday cleared the way for new condo and retail development in these three cities. Hollywood residents in the targeted area fear their homes may now be taken for economic development following the Kelo decision. Mayor Mara Giulianti said the City would use eminent domain on a “case-by-case basis” to remove homeowners unwilling to sell.

West Allis, Wisc.
West Allis officials want to “revitalize” the West Allis Towne Center, a shopping mall. If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the homeowners in Kelo, officials may not have been able to use eminent domain to claim the mall, West Allis development director John Stibal told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Bloggers plead for freedom from election laws

2005-06-29T13:10:00.000-05:00

Hat tip: David from War On Guns.

Bloggers plead for freedom from election laws

Bloggers plead for freedom from election laws
Published: June 28, 2005, 4:51 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack

WASHINGTON--Political bloggers on Tuesday urged federal regulators to keep the Internet as free as possible from campaign finance laws.

At a public hearing convened by the Federal Election Commission, both liberal and conservative political commentators lauded the brand of freewheeling online politicking that has characterized recent elections. The FEC is under a court order to extend campaign finance rules to the Internet, and the Democratic commissioners voted not to appeal.

Mike Krempasky, a conservative activist and contributor to the RedState.org blog, said he hopes the FEC will "ensure that no blogger, no amateur activist and no self-published pundit ever need consult with legal counsel." The FEC's 47-page proposed rules, which are not final, cover everything from candidate endorsements to fund-raising, bulk e-mail and paid advertisements.

Read the rest here

David sums it up quite well:

What's This "Plead"?

"Bloggers plead for freedom from election laws."

"Plead"?

I'll not plead.

This is my online journal. I write it for me, to reflect my thoughts and my opinions. As such, I will say whatever I damn well please, whenever I damn well please.

These fascists can pass whatever edicts they wish. I'll still say what I want.

I'll continue to do so until incapacitated. I will defy any attempts to silence me until I am incapable of defiance.

But I'll not plead.

I'll never plead.

Thanks

2005-06-28T10:36:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Right Wing News for linking the Constitution Death Pool as their "Website of the Day."

CorridorWatch

2005-06-28T10:27:00.000-05:00

Hat tip: commentor "Retire05."

Texas Corridor Watch.

Kelo v. New London will make it easier for this travesty to become reality.

Judicial Activism

2005-06-27T23:55:00.000-05:00

I would love to do a post about which right, guaranteed, like that means anything, by the constitution and bill of rights, is next to fall, but as a judge here on the CONDEATHPOOL I cannot.

I do believe that there are many liberties that are under assault today by what is known as judicial activism.

Judicial Activism is a phrase that described the making of law by judges instead of them interpreting the existing laws. Some of the more recent and infamous examples of judicial activism are the rulings that have given us the “right” to abortion the “right” to privacy and most recently the “right” of local governments to take our property. As a new homeowner, (well Citibank “Owns” it for the next 30 years) I find this most distressing.

However there have been time where this activism has been good for America. A former Professor of mine had pointed out that it was President Adams who had appointed John Marshal to the supreme court in 1801. Marshal was a committed Federalist who upheld nationalist principles until his death.

The marshal court’s first major decision involved the judicial review. In 1798, during the dispute over the Alien and Sedition Acts, republican dominated legislatures in Kentucky and Virginia had asserted their authority to determine the continuality of national laws. However the Constitution stated “the judicial Power shall extend to all cases...arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United Stated”, implying that the Supreme Court held the final power of judicial review. But before 1803 when Marshal composed the decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court had never overturned s national law or had it ever claimed the power of judicial review. During the first half of the 1800’s the Court had used this power sparingly and then only to overturn state laws that conflicted clearly conflicted with federal law.

The court used its power with restraint but it always had kept the idea that the constitution came first. Lately the recent use of Judicial Review has been to find new meanings in the constitution, meanings that one must use a leap of faith to get be able to reach. The Judges are now looking to the constitution for meaning to impose personal views and agendas. Where will this activism stop? At what loss of freedom will we demand that the judges stop imposing their personal views on the majority of Americans?

I believe that most citizens love the freedoms that we have been given, but we are so used to those freedoms, that we take them for granted. Loosing one or two of the freedoms may seem trivial but it is adding up and one day we will wake up to find ourselves living under the yoke of serfdom that our forefathers fought so hard to give us.

How this blog will work

2005-06-27T16:18:00.000-05:00

To those of you who have been asking if you could help us out,

Right now, we have five members on this blog. Each of us has our own writing style and areas of specialization (for lack of a better word) regarding our rights as U.S. citizens. We are not looking for more members at this time.

BUT....

You do not have to actually be a member of this blog to contribute to its content. If you find some information about how the government is trampling our Constitutional rights, email that information to us. We'll read the information provided then we'll post it on the blog, along with credit to the original sender.

Thanks.

-Vic

UPDATE:

COMENT, COMENT, COMENT

The posts are thought provoking, but please share those thoughts with us. Your input helps further the discussion into these real issues that will affect not only us, but our children as well.

Vulture 6

New Member

2005-06-27T14:11:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the CDP team, Mister Priapus.

Ten Commandments Disallowed in Courthouses

2005-06-27T09:42:00.000-05:00

I'm not a very religious person. I do not follow any Judeo-Christian beliefs. I'm pagan.

However, this inane foolishness needs to cease.

WASHINGTON -- In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.

The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays _ like their own courtroom frieze _ would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.
"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc _ Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.
The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.

The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.

But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.

Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."

Fascism?

2005-06-26T05:35:00.000-05:00

Fascism.

This word bothers me for many reasons. The chief reason for this is that it’s the first word thrown out in political debates when one wishes to denigrate his or her opponent.

The word “fascism,” much like the words “Nazi” and “racist,” has had its true meaning watered down by overuse. Since the word is bandied about so freely during increasingly heated political discourse, no one understands its implications anymore.

It is for the reasons listed above that I despise using the word “fascist” to describe anything, yet I can think of no other word that truly identifies the full scope of the travesty of justice known as Kelo v. New London.

With one stroke of its pen, the United States Supreme Court has completely invalidated Clause 5 of the Fifth Amendment. In accordance with Kelo, local governments can seize private property for any reason whatsoever – with "just compensation" - and give it to someone else. And, who exactly defines "just compensation?" That’s right. Some faceless bureaucrat who works for the same government entity that has seen fit to seize private property in the first place.

Isn’t that just peachy?

I’ve always wanted to work my tail off to scratch together enough money to buy myself a nice comfortable piece of the American Dream just so some nitwit on City Council can steal it from me for pennies on the dollar and give it to some other nitwit who wants to build a bowling alley on my land.

Many of you reading this are thinking “That can’t possibly happen in America!” I hate to be the bearer of Bad News. The citizens on New London, Connecticut didn’t think that, either. Neither did the citizens of Freeport, Texas, for that matter.

There are three basic rights granted to all citizens of the United States. They are Life, Liberty, and Property, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, these three rights provide the very foundation of all laws in the U.S. Against the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold and defend, the majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have embraced fascism with a decision to strip American citizens of one of their three most basic rights: the right of Property.

Now that I ponder it, there is one other word that encompasses the act of betrayal committed by Supreme Court this week. It is a word I hate to use even more than “fascism.”

Communism.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, brought to you by the U.S. Supreme Court.