Friday December 19, 2014
Jump to content
The last sentence in the fourth paragraph has a typo: "The income tax is designed to hide the inflation caused by printing worthless fat currency." It should be "fiat currency." It must have been introduced in the transcription process; my copy of the text has it correct.
I'm trying to find a single thing Wendy is crowing about here that is supported by data derived from reality and not pie in the sky liberal-style cooking the books. I also haven't found a single thing she is crowing about that the federal government is authorized by the Constitution to do anything about.
But that doesn't matter to a dyed-in-the-wool liberal: Let's just have a king to take pity on all the poor folks who can't cut it in the marketplace; never mind personal responsibility and the rule of law.
She seems excited about the deficit being cut in half (a factoid seriously in doubt) and ignores the 17.7 trillion dollar national debt. THANK HEAVENS we have the most obstructive Congress in history fighting against the most destructive administration in history! If it weren't for the Tea Party element in Congress we'd have a national debt around fifty trillion and that twerp infesting our White House would be gleefully filing for national bankruptcy. As it is we already have Chinese officials with calculators rummaging through America totaling up how much collateral we have left, which isn't much.
Wendy is right about one thing: She is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. No wonder she hates capitalism: Capitalism rewards doers instead of complainers.
If Eric Holder opens a civil rights investigation into the Ferguson, Missouri police department because a white police officer shot a 300-lb. black gang member who had attacked him and was coming to attack him again, and Eric Holder has NOT opened any civil rights investigation into any of a myriad of cases in which black thugs attacked, murdered, maimed, raped, assaulted white folks of both sexes who merely happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, is that racism?
Thank you, Jim Gier. Well said.
It all boils down to a fundamental principle taught in (legitimate) ethic studies classes: "If you allow government to do it to 'them,' you are giving government the power to do it to you."
A fundamental principle of liberty is that if you don't fight for the liberty of others whether you agree with them or not, you don't have it.
Cheap shot, Don. The whole purpose of the legal system is to protect the citizen from victimization by the criminal and from victimization by the system, because the average citizen is too busy making a living and living a life to devote the time and energy to developing warrior skills and the warrior mindset. All Meria wants, all most citizens want, is for the rough men to stand on the ramparts ready to do violence on their behalf, and not suffer victimization by those rough men. That's why we have a Constitution, and why you had a career. I really regret your experience made you bitter.
The Supreme Court ruling under discussion by the editor of the Roundup, in which the Court ruled police officers have no grounds to arrest someone for merely being in possession of a firearm in the absence of knowledge or probable cause to believe the holder of the gun is a prohibited possessor, was named "Serna" and he was a violent gang member felon. Ever notice, Meria, that Supreme Court rulings protecting our fundamental rights from the police, nearly ALWAYS are brought to the Court by CRIMINALS? Why? Well, it's in their self-interest of course, but that raises a very important question: If a law-abiding citizen is exercising his/her rights legally and properly (according to the plain English language of the U.S. Constitution) and he (or she) is accosted and mistreated by a law enforcement officer and a prosecutor and a Court for doing something he (or she) had a RIGHT to do, why doesn't that law-abiding citizen take the case to the Supreme Court?
THAT'S what happened to your right to privacy. The backbone of this country, the law-abiding hard-working middle class, GAVE OUR RIGHTS AWAY by default!
If you are not willing to fight tooth and nail to preserve your rights, you don't have any. Period.
I suggest a new perspective: In 1803, the Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison a law not pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is not defective merely from the moment of its discovery, but is null and void from the moment of its inception. Until about 1921, most Supreme Court cases were decided based on the U.S. Constitution, or existing law if they could be decided without reaching the Constitution. Along about 1920, under the leadership of Progressive (read "Marxist") President Woodrow Wilson, the Courts began ruling based on "case law," basing their decisions on prior rulings about the Constitution instead of the Constitution itself. I propose we, the people, start using Marbury v. Madison to strike down those defective court rulings (such as Wickard v. Filburn, for example) that violate the plain English language of the U.S, Constitution in the interest of some authoritarian legal system.
You are exactly right, Don Evans, and first: I want to thank you for your service. Second, I'm glad you survived 35 years as an LEO, Third, what you describe is exactly the cynical, bitter opinion of a person who thinks his job is to "police a mass of human detritus" as you remark in your message below. It is easy to acquire that point of view when your faith in the decency of the average citizen is betrayed time and time again, as every police officer experiences. It's hard to accept the fact that human beings are humans first and icons of civic virtue second ... or third ... or fourth. But that is how it is, and that is how it has ever been. So the real problem becomes this: Should the officer be a "law enforcement officer:? Or should he be a "peace officer"? Should he be an extension of the policy of the Chief and the Mayor and whomever else, or should he recognize, honor, uphold and obey his oath of officer to defend the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution? And now, the $64 question: Before you acquired your bitter summation of the human condition, have you ever read, investigated, and understood the plain English Consent of the Governed as conveyed by the Constitution of the United States? You know, that document that trumps the policies of your Chief and your Mayor and your Governor and your President?
I beg to differ, Robbin. Refusing to cooperate with a demand to waive your rights is not probable cause. Even a police officer's "suspicion" that you have, or are about to, commit a crime does not rise to the level of probable cause. Merely seeing you is not sufficient probable cause to run your license plate, but if they want to they will follow you until they see you commit some minor traffic infraction for which they can cite you, and then they'll run your plate. Your suggestion there is some kind of "(M)asonic system" that has a bearing on whether they run your plate or not is pure horsepucky with regard to 99% of the police agencies in this country, though there are some very corrupt agencies, especially in the deep South and deeply-urbanized northeast, They get caught periodically, and cops go in the slammer. It has been my experience, and I have had some experience, that most corruption in the courts and the prosecutors is at the federal level, but most of it is not a bribery kind of corruption: It is a corruption of personal agenda trumping the law and especially the supreme Law. You can see a very sharply defined example of federal corruption in Eric Holder opening a Civil Rights investigation into the shooting, by a white officer, of a 300-lb. black teenager gang member with a rap sheet as long as your arm: That is a prime, glaring example of rummaging around looking for probable cause without having the probable cause in advance to do so. And it shows the kind of bias in himself he is looking for in the Ferguson officers: He didn't call for an investigation of even one of the last dozen or so black people who have murdered, raped, and/or maimed white victims. There is also agenda-driven corruption in the offices of some big-city State prosecutors, who try to enhance their resume of successful prosecutions by a process called "felony creep," where a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor and told that if he doesn't plead guilty, they'll prosecute him for the felony version of the crime -- that's going on in Maricopa County right now today. As for kickbacks to judges from the highly profitable (and highly unconstitutional) private prison system, I'm sure there is some, but probably miniscule -- that would be a guaranteed career destruction if any defense attorney found out about it. I believe there are mostly good people in law enforcement and the courts and even in the legislature, but they are driven by ambition, and that always bends the rules somewhere. I've been fighting for the U.S. Constitution for 36 years, and I have never failed to find it to be true: If there is a method by which corruption can gain a foothold, it will exist sooner or later. It is a fundamental truth, which is why the U.S. Constitution every time, without exception, no excuses, is so vitally important.
Well said, Shirley.
Loud cheers! It's about freaking time the courts recognize that liberty trumps safety: Freedom isn't free and freedom cannot be "safe." To a population who can exercise their rights only when not in the presence of a government law enforcer, liberty is an illusion.
Last login: Tuesday, December 9, 2014