Who said these things?

• A: Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read ‘em their rights.
• B: Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.

The answer to A is Sarah Palin at her acceptance speech in St. Paul.

The answer to B is Barack Obama in March 2009 on 60 Minutes.

So why are we now reading the terrorists Miranda Rights? Palin told us Obama was worried about it but Obama said they did not deserve them so why are we reading the Miranda Rights to the terrorists?

…For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan. [emphasis mine] The Weekly Standard

It looks like Obama paid lip service to the idea that terrorists do not deserve Miranda Rights.

It also looks like Sarah Palin was correct.

Quotes A and B from Rush Limbaugh’s website.

Share on Facebook

Apparently that is as many as you need to get minority legislation passed in favor of yourself, so you can feel entitled and good about yourself, and as I understand it, this is necessary to life- it’s probably a “right”, right? I mean, if feeling good about yourself isn’t a right, it should be, because we are a minority, and we are entitled.

What bullcrap- nowadays, we have been hijacked by a plethora of “minorities” or “oppressed” peoples, each with their own litany of complaints and demands, like a spoiled child who needs his backside warmed to remind him that he is NOT the center of the universe.

This used to be the country where the majority ruled- because it makes sense to go in the direction that the most people are headed. But  we are compassionate people. We have, in the past, accommodated others who might not be of the same faith (other than Christian), of the same dietary needs, people who are, let’s face it, the minority. These are people who make the tapestry that is America much richer for their contributions.

But in recent times- say the last twenty- five years or so, we have bent over backwards to assist others in assimilation into this society, with the aim that they would begin to conform more to the majority in behavior.

Instead, we have begat a segment of society that does not care to assimilate, and doesn’t want to compromise, as if it is they, and not us , who are in the majority. What arrogance on their part. Here’s an example:

The lovely-looking restaurant and bar The Breslin begins lunch service tomorrow, and co-owner Ken Friedman (The Spotted Pig) is planning on serving alcohol despite objections from the Masjid Ar-Rahman mosque across the street. Earlier this month the mosque’s leaders called a meeting with Friedman at The Ace Hotel, where The Breslin is located, and asked, “Can you move the bar?” Friedman’s response makes us want to hurry over to The Breslin right now for a dram of Laphroaig to show our support (and drown out the voices):

I said, “This is the United States of America and we’ll do whatever the f*ck we want.” He said the mosque had suggested it couldn’t control the behavior of “a few bad eggs”; i.e., we could get a brick through our window.

gothamist.com

These muslims sincerely believe that our citizens should conform to their standards- what gross stupidity on their part, but it does illustrate how horribly skewed our society has become when these types of “entitled” spoiled brats actually think they can do this. Our compassion at this point begins to dry up when confronted by supercilious attitudes such as these.

Friedman notified police of the threat, but just to show he’s not a hard-hearted man, that it’s not all dollars and cents, he agreed to put a curtain over the windows so devout Muslims wouldn’t be corrupted by the sight of infidel inebriation. But the curtain hasn’t arrived yet, so over the weekend he actually taped paper over the windows to hide a gay wedding. A volunteer at the mosque says city law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that “not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar.”

But Ace Hotel developer Andrew Zobler tells The Observer, “The law is clear that in order for that to apply it has to be an exclusively dedicated house of worship, and at their space they have both residences and a restaurant, so basically, because of those uses the law allowed there to be a bar within 200 feet. Everyone was aware of that when the liquor license was granted.” And Friedman adds, “They can threaten, but they can’t really stop us.” Yeah, heh, what are these devout, pissed-off Muslims gonna do?

gothamist.com

What are they going to do indeed? One never knows, but the greater question is who the hell do they think they are? Granted, I would never think of wandering into their mosque sipping a bottle of Bushmills Black label (although I have heard that it is a rather out of this world experience when you sip enough), because I do care somewhat about their sensibilities- at least enough to be polite, but when spoiled people try and dictate their whims to the majority, they begin to act like children in need of discipline, or worse, like liberals.

The solution to either is the same- slap the snot out of them- it will set them on the road to sanity, and in twenty years or so, after they have grown, they will thank you for that guidance.

And perhaps they will have a mature outlook with which they deal with people.

And, for God’s sake not whine so much about non existent “rights”.

If you want rights, look in the Constitution.

Share on Facebook

The newest version of the health care takeover bill making its way around has a provision to fine families up to $3,800 for not obtaining health insurance. The geniuses working on this plan figure that they can solve the problem of people not being able to afford health insurance by fining them. This is like a bank charging you $35 for an overdraft check. They fine you what they know you don’t have. For those who can afford it and choose not to get it, power to them.

There are plenty of things wrong with this whole idea. The first is the idea that you can be forced to buy health insurance.

The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.

Auto insurance is only mandatory if you decide to get a vehicle. If you do not want to pay for car insurance you have the option to not get a car. In other words, you have the freedom to choose whether or not you want to incur this expense. Health insurance is quite different because you have no choice in the matter. You can opt out of car insurance by not driving. The only way to opt out of health insurance is to stop living. While that might make the government happy, it will not be good for you. While we are on the comparison to auto insurance perhaps we could make health insurance like auto insurance in that you have to pay for routine check ups. You have car insurance but it does not cover new tires and oil changes. When you go to the doctor you should have to pay for the routine stuff. That would lower the cost of premiums.

I also note that even with the mandatory requirement for auto insurance (if you have a car) there are still plenty of people driving around without insurance. A huge number of them are ILLEGAL aliens and they have a lot of accidents. Perhaps if they wanted to charge fines for not having insurance they could do it in the auto insurance arena. That would be much more productive.

Another issue here deals with our basic freedoms. We have the freedom to choose (just ask any pro abortion zealot) and should have that freedom when it comes to health insurance. You have every right NOT to buy insurance. My only thing in that regard is, if you get hurt then you pay the bill out of pocket or over time but you have to pay it. If you don’t then they get to come take your stuff to satisfy the bill. I really don’t care if you lose all your worldly possessions because you decided not to get health insurance but I will fight to my death defending your right to take that decision.

The last thing here is the heavy handed approach the government is taking. What it is basically saying is; “Either you will do exactly what we want and buy something that we say you have to have or we will heavily fine you.”

I have stated many times that this is about control. The health care bill is not about health and it is not about care, it is about government control over your life. They will make a rule that you have to buy insurance or you will be fined. Later on they can say that if you don’t have a certain kind of insurance you will be fined. Then they can change some other rule under the threat of a fine.

What next? Will they fine you if your Body Mass Index (BMI) is too high? Will they fine you if your cholesterol is elevated? Will they decide that every American must join a gym and attend three times a week or be fined?

Where does it end?

Can someone explain why we allow the government to do this? Why do they have a say in how we live our lives? Why are so many willing to let them have near total control over their lives?

I would also like to know how it is that a woman cannot be denied an abortion. States keep working on anti abortion laws but liberals are against all that. They are even against parental notification. It is not the role of government, they say, to impose these things on women thus denying them their right to choose. So what gives government the right to choose for the rest of us? What gives it the right to take decisions on our behalf and to force us to do things we might not want to.

Where is our right to choose?

We need to defeat this health care bill completely. They need to start from scratch and keep it simple by fixing what is broken and leaving the rest alone.

They also need to stop attempting to violate our rights by fining us for choosing how we live our lives and what we do and do not buy.

Vote them all out in 2010. We must end the redundancy of incumbency.

Share on Facebook

The country is looking at the upcoming flu season with worry about the H1N1 (swine) flu and what an outbreak might mean. Will it be as bad as the 1918 Pandemic that killed millions? Will it fizzle out? Will the vaccine that is being rushed trough cause as many problems as the flu?

There are many questions and the government is trying to determine the best course of action.

In Massachusetts that course of action includes a violation of the rights of the people who live in that state. The Legislature is considering a bill that would give government unchecked power to violate citizen’s rights based on a public health emergency as determined by the politicians in charge. Some of the troubling items the state is considering include:

• to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
• to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
• to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
• to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
• to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
• to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
• to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
• to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;

[emphasis in original] World Net Daily

It is not difficult to see that some of these measures violate Constitutionally protected rights. Another issue is what constitutes an emergency? With a law written in such a fashion, the government of Massachusetts could declare an emergency in order to control the population. A public health emergency could be declared to prevent people from assembling for an anti government health care rally.

There are certainly contingencies that need to be in place but no law should take away Constitutionally protected rights. If this is going to happen then they should declare martial law and be done with it.

This proposed law is a chilling reminder of what an unchecked government can do. Massachusetts is a liberal state so where are all the liberals who supposedly oppose violation of their rights? Where is the ACLU?

Imagine how this would have played out if a state with a conservative legislature and Republican governor had proposed the same kind of law.

Elections have consequences and Massachusetts has elected a liberal majority that will do whatever it can to control people.

That is not freedom.

Share on Facebook

First they published a memo calling all people who have conservative values Right Wing Extremists. The chilling report labeled people with single issues like opposition to abortion, as extremists. It was distributed to police agencies so they could be on the look out for us. Though that met stiff opposition and was reportedly quashed, I would not be surprised if those sentiments were still held and we are all being observed under the radar.

Then came the snitch campaign where the Obama White House wants people to report anyone who says something about the health care plan that might be “fishy.” There is an email address that people can forward such things to. This means if you send an email to a friend and it gets passed on to the White House, you will be in a database of opponents. This is reminiscent of the Nazi campaign to snitch on neighbors, particularly to rat out Jews. Is it any wonder that someone would feel compelled to carry a swastika to a protest event. Yes, it appears that two were seen at different events. All the other signs were ignored and the swastika was the focus of attention. I challenged Pelosi to find one and one of her lap dogs did. I am willing to bet there were more of them at one anti Bush rally than have been at all the protests combined. Why would they feign indignation now when they were not bothered then. It is because they are trying to paint all protesters as right wing radicals rather than the diverse group that includes Democrats, liberals, Republicans and conservatives. They want you to believe that only Republicans and conservatives are involved and they are radicals who have, gasp, a swastika. How dare they insult Herr Obama?

Now we have a columnist at the Washington Post chiming in. He has labeled those who are voicing opposition to the plan as political terrorists. Steven Pearlstein says:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems. [emphasis mine]

So Steven, what were the Democrats and Obamadinejad when they opposed more than a half a dozen bills that would have reformed health care? If they were concerned about this serious domestic problem then why did they all oppose items that would have provided reform without a complete overhaul in order to cover a small percentage who have no insurance?

The claim by Mr. Pearlstein is that Republicans are making claims that this will result in a government takeover of health care and he contends that there is no way to read what has been proposed and conclude that. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, the words of Obama saying that he wanted a single payer system and of Barney Frank saying the way to get there was by first passing a government run plan are clear indications of what they want and what they have in mind. The claims that the opposition is being misleading or disingenuous are funny considering that those who are pushing the plan are misleading and disingenuous.

This is another example of someone presenting two options. Obama has said it a number of times. People who oppose this want to keep things they way they are. This straw man argument is designed to make people believe there are only two options. The reality is that many members of Congress have introduced legislation to reform and those items did not involve the complete overhaul of our system. Democrats opposed these because they want to control it all.

There are plenty of options as I have discussed in the past. We can drop the mandates in coverage. States require a number of things to be in a plan before it can be offered. Some companies do not want to put those plans out so only a few are allowed to offer. This means less competition. Insurance should be like a cable plan. There are items that are essential such as catastrophic care, emergency care, dental care, vision care, surgical care and any preventive care that involves more than a routine office visit. Then other items can be offered if the consumer desires them. It makes no sense to force a single male to pay for a plan that includes abortion services or OB/GYN. It is nonsensical to force people who do not drink or do drugs to pay for substance abuse treatment. Some people might like aroma therapy but others see no benefit. Allow those who want it to add it on and pay for it and those who do not to pass on it. Just like cable TV, you have a basic package and you add on the extras that you want. People should also pay for wellness visits. We have car insurance but that does not pay for routine maintenance. Why should people not pay for their routine care?

We should also remove restrictions on buying insurance across state lines. If a person likes a plan offered in another state then he should be able to buy it. Restricting to in state companies stifles competition and drives costs up.

I also think Doctors should be given tax credits for seeing people with no health insurance. I heard Congressman Ron Paul’s son discuss this and I think it is a great idea. Rand Paul is a doctor (Ophthalmologist) and he is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He believes that doctors should see those without insurance and receive a tax credit for doing so. This will provide care to those who need it and compensate the doctors providing the care. Of course there will need to be oversight or some will abuse the system but I think it will provide incentive for doctors to see those who truly cannot pay.

These are but a few ideas that would help to reform the system and they would make health care more affordable. People will still have to pay but it will not cost as much. I am sure if they can afford a cell phone, two cars, high speed internet and cable TV with the premium channels they can squeeze in health insurance.

For the absolute destitute among us, we still have government plans that will cover them.

No, I am not a political terrorist for opposing the health care scheme and wanting less government regardless of what any reporter says. I do wonder though, where this guy was when the left was using similar tactics to oppose Bush? Has he called the Code Pink morons who harassed Marines in Berkeley political terrorists?

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Opposing health care or any other plan in a peaceful fashion is not political terrorism, it is an exercise of our Constitutional rights.

Those who cannot see that or would work to oppose it, are the real political terrorists.

Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU

Share on Facebook

Oh boy- where to begin?  With Nancy Pelosi and China? With Liberals in general? With the apparently rapidly spreading ignorance of not only english, but definitions of these english words? Perhaps we should begin with the proper definition of the word “rights”.

Right(s)- In politics, implying preservation of existing, established order or of restoring former institutions.

I have to say, I was never aware that ecology of our planet was a right- an obligation, perhaps- but not a “right”.

Responsible caretaking of this planet was first mentioned in the Bible (yes, I know that just the mention that ecology was not the exclusive purview of Liberals just drives them NUTS), and done properly, is not only necessary, but desirable in the grand scheme of things, but to call this “green” ridiculousness a “right” is hyping on a scale that makes a fisherman’s stories sound real.

Nancy Pelosi has gone to China, not to chide them on their Human Rights record ( of which they could justifiably be chided indeed), but to inform them of the NEW right that they might not have been aware of (like those other, pesky rights they already ignore). This new one is a responsible path to a greener world, not the democracy thingie, not the “holding Tibet as a slave state” thingie either, despite the pictures she has of her and the Dalai Lama on her web site.

And for all of you who might think that she might be giving away state secrets by showing the Chinese the new ways to use plastic on one’s face, I am fairly sure they already know that one, although perhaps they use melamine- after all, as we have found out, the Chinese believe melamine is a food group.

The botox, well that might engender some interest, although I am fairly sure they already have “inscrutable” down to an art by now, although they might be just a little unsettled at not being able to see emotion on Pelosi’s face. The fact that she, or anyone from the States, could have the unmitigated gall to lecture them on their country’s behavior when ours is in such disarray, just has to leave them speechless. After all, their cars already get better mileage than ours, even though they use a different set of standards.

The average fuel economy of family vehicles in China is already higher than in the United States, mainly because cars in China tend to be considerably smaller than those in the United States — and are getting even smaller because of recent tax changes.

Cars with small fuel-sipping engines are now subject to a 1 percent sales tax, while sports cars and sport utility vehicles with the largest engines are subject to a 40 percent sales tax. Stricter fuel economy standards have won support from four interest groups within the Chinese government, said a Chinese government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

n.y.times.com

As they say,their cars are smaller, but the main reason for this miserly usage of oil and gas is fear, because while they had been self- sufficient up ’til 1995, now they import 3/5 of all their oil, and they must do this on seas that are patrolled by the U.S. Navy.  Their navy is not as modern nor is it as large, so their xenophobic paranoia tends to kick in with regard to their energy needs. This doesn’t apply to the coal- fired reactors, for their supply of coal is vast, even though they tend to kill plenty of their citizens doing so.

Still, to have Nancy Pelosi even attempt to lecture them on responsible ethics, green or otherwise, is the height of hypocrisy, and behind their outwardly inscrutable faces, you can bet the farm that they are laughing their butts off. 

Since Barama has been elected, we, as a nation, have no street cred in this world. Is there a single instance of ANYTHING that Barama has gotten done in the international arena? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Sending Pelosi might have been effective at scaring their children on Halloween (if they celebrated Halloween), but she, and her message are non- starters. The Chinese will not take her seriously, although for politeness’ sake, they will nod and grin, and soon as she is gone, it will be business as usual.

And they can have a good laugh at her newest “right”.

Share on Facebook

A Wisconsin Court ruled that the police did not need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on anyone’s vehicle. The case involved a man who was accused of stalking a person and the police obtained a warrant and placed a GPS on his car. They were able to determine that he was in fact stalking. So far, so good because they got a warrant.

The stalker, Michael Sveum, went to court to argue that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that police were able to track him in the privacy of his home (his car was parked in a garage). The court ruled that the tracker was not a search or seizure so Sveum’s rights were not violated. They did have a warrant for the tracker. So far, still so good.

Then the court ruled that a warrant was not necessary to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle even if the person who owns the car is not under suspicion of anything. In essence, if the cops want to track you they can even if they have no reason. The court ruled that the tracker does not provide any more information than the police could obtain by observing a person.

Does this mean they no longer require warrants to tap a phone? The tap does not provide any more information than the cops could have obtained if they were there listening.

The police should have some probable cause to follow a person and this includes putting trackers on cars. If there is no probable cause then they should not be allowed to place tracking devices on vehicles. This is why warrants are necessary. The warrants ensure that the police have a valid reason for tracking people (or listening in on them). There are laws that cover surveillance where a warrant is not needed but, in general, GPS trackers would not fall into that category.

This ruling is moronic and it opens the process to great abuse. Police officers could use trackers to track a person for profit (as in following some guy for a wife who thinks he is cheating). The police could put trackers on cars and then wait until they are parked at bars. They could then send police officers to follow the car when it leaves and invent probable cause to pull the person over and see if he has been drinking.

The process is in place to ensure the rights of the people. The guy in this case had no ground to stand on because the police had a warrant but the ruling now gives police officers greater access to the public and provides a greater possibility of abuse.

If I ever found a tracker on my car I would take it off and put it on a freight train heading across the country.

It is a sad day in America when a court decides that the police can tamper with private property whenever they want.

I wonder what will happen when a cop is placing one of these in the middle of the night and gets shot as a suspected car thief…

Could happen.*

*This was edited to remove words that conveyed a different thought than intended.

Share on Facebook

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s a fairly powerful first amendment to the Constitution- I can see why they led with what is probably the most powerful statement on what is PROHIBITED to the government in terms of action, but in the coming weeks, you will see the Barama government try an end- around on this amendment, as they attempt to re institute the “fairness doctrine”, a term for an action that is anything but fair. Oh, they will relabel the doctrine, but the result will be the same.

This is an attempt to silence talk radio, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as well as countless others, most of whom are conservative, and therein lies the crux of the problem as the Uberlibs see it. They are embarrassed that liberal talk radio fails every time. Take the Ultra- Leftist radio network  Air America for example- programs hosted by Al Franken and Janene Garofalo were so bad , that the whole radio network failed, went bankrupt not once, but twice, and would have failed faster if it wasn’t for Uberlib George Soros, a fairly rich man with more money than sense. He kept the station afloat financially, desperately hoping that the ranting babies on air might gain traction.

Well. that experiment failed, and by and large uberlib radio always will fail, because they have no redeemable message to speak of.

So now they turn to government interference in the free market, by instituting what they call “localization”, meaning a contrasting viewpoint must be presented, with an equal amount of time, FREE OF CHARGE, to “rebut” any viewpoint that the radio has paid for. This interferes with the free market, because if the people wanted another viewpoint, they would pay for it.

Radio knows what pays, and they would broadcast 24/7 whale sounds if they thought there would be a profit on it. There isn’t, so they won’t.  That is how the free market works, when it doesn’t have government’s heavy hand messing with it.

And now, newspapers are finding out that leftist thought doesn’t sell, and many are going out of business. So, what do these failing business models do? Why, ask for a bailout, bless their little hearts. Now, if they get the bailouts, they will be government controlled. Does ANYONE think a government controlled press is a good thing? I am pretty darn sure that this “abridges the freedom of the press”.  It certainly casts doubt on the impartiality of the press that takes the money.

And now we come to the crux of the mater, the crown jewel in “Government control”- the Internet. Does the thought of controlling the Internet send a “thrill up YOUR leg?” It will happen, mark my words, in the name of “protecting our children”, or some such feel- good theme, and ironically, the ACLU and some other allegedly freedom- loving “rights” advocates, will be slow to realize that they have backed a tyrant, a Type A controlling government that will not hesitate to control them if they get out of line.

Control of the internet would absolutely stifle liberty and freedom as we know it, because freedom of speech is the freedom to say that a government is not doing its job, a freedom to criticize, and if the government can control what information is shared, then it might not control the hearts, but it begins to control the minds. This is NOT a good thing, I find it ironic that the Fascistic controls that many on the left thought  would happen on President Bush’s watch, are happening now, under King Barama the First.

These controls and changes are happening slowly, though- that is how you slide things by people, draw their attention away from them with little stuff, while you slip the big stuff in as their attention is distracted. It’s all misdirection, and Barama is the magician.

This is not the only Amendment to the Constitution that is in trouble, it is just literally the First one, because after this one, abridging or eliminating the others would be easier.

The First Amendment is the Keystone Amendment, the one without which, all the others stand on shifting ground. 

Without free speech, bad ideas begin to sound good, and lies can and will proliferate, because there is no dissenting viewpoint allowed. And bad ideas, as we are seeing now, could be the death of our country. 

This would be the end of the world, because, contrary to what Uberlibs believe, it is the United States that holds the world together. With a weakened U.S., there would surely be a World War, but this time there will be nukes.

If that is the endgame of this administration,they have made a good start.

Share on Facebook

Barack Hussein Obama is against the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution and he denying the use of one to silence information about the other. Barack Obama has held anti gun views throughout his political career. He favors bans on handgun sales, bans on most hunting ammunition and bans on many of the rifles and shotguns we use to participate in sport. Make no mistake about it, despite the nuances and lies of the campaign, Obama has a history of opposing gun ownership. His support of the Heller decision runs counter to his claims of supporting the DC gun ban. Obama will say anything now that he realizes that he needs the gun clingers to win this election.

So, in order to win Obama will trample on our rights. It has been previously reported that the Obama campaign has been working with law enforcement in Missouri in order to harass people who say things about Obama that are considered to be a lie. This is illegal and reflects the kind of tactics one would expect from a Communist leader, not someone who wants to be the leader of a FREE country. The Obama campaign is taking its suppression of rights two steps farther.

Obama’s lawyers have sent letters to broadcast stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania criticizing them for airing an NRA ad that they claim is full of lies (but is demonstrably full of true statements) and covertly threaten the broadcast license of the stations if they continue to air the ad. The Obama campaign is threatening the First Amendment right of the stations as well as the NRA (and therefore its members) in order to suppress Obama’s threat to the Second Amendment. The ad (embedded in this post and placed in my sidebar) demonstrates Obama’s threat to the Second Amendment and Obama does not want those who bitterly cling to their guns to see it. I encourage all bloggers who support the Second Amendment to put the video up on their blogs, Obama and his lawyers be damned.

Yes Barry, this is a reason not to vote for you. You found that out and are trying to use thuggery to suppress the people but it won’t work.

These thuggish acts are right out of the Chicago politics playbook and portray an ominous future in an Obama administration where people’s Second Amendment rights would be under attack as would those who dare to write or say anything about the “Dear Leader, Obama.” I doubt however, that the rogue leaders of the world would pay much attention to a letter from Obama’s lawyers expressing dissatisfaction over words used to describe the Dear Leader.

Barack Obama and his thugs are liars, they are miscreants who use strong armed tactics to run roughshod over people who disagree with them. Well screw them. We will not allow them to take away any of the rights enumerated in our Constitution. I took an oath to protect this country against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Obama is a domestic enemy of our Constitution (who keeps company with domestic terrorists in this country) and we must stop him at all costs. The first method is by opposition to him and his lawyers and their demands, peacefully at first and then escalating to whatever level is necessary to stop the assault.

The second way is to ensure that this Communist is not elected to the presidency of this country. If that becomes a reality our rights will be under further assault.

And we will not allow that to happen no matter what we need to do to stop it.

For a guy who claims not to be a Muslim he sure acts like them when it comes to people saying or writing things he does not like.

Sic semper tyrannis

Others:
The Volokh Conspiracy (corrects Fact Check’s errors) | The Bitch Girls | Instapundit | Snowflakes in Hell

Share on Facebook

I have been thinking about this for some time now. It all started when I wanted to file several lawsuits for government involvement in causing cancer. You see, the several states in the Union, including the state of Maryland, filed suit against tobacco companies claiming that their products caused cancer and that this was an increased burden on the Medicare system because a lot of money is spent on people with tobacco related illnesses and therefore is taken away from people who have an illness not related to substance abuse. The states won and Big Tobacco was forced to pay billions of dollars, most of which, by the way, went to the lawyers. The states got a cut but not nearly as much as the lawyers got. So here is where I come in. I wanted to sue Maryland for contributing to the problem.

Maryland allows tobacco products to be sold here and they charge a lot of taxes on those products. I figured that if Big Tobacco was responsible (under the law) and had to pay the states then the state was just as responsible and had to pay me. Then I decided I would sue Florida because they advertise as the Sunshine State and encourage people to visit there and sit in the sun. We all know that over exposure to the sun causes skin cancer (some exposure is necessary for Vitamin D absorption) so I figured Florida was getting people sick and to make matters worse they send those people back to their home states so that the home state gets stuck with the bills. This looked like a win-win for me. How could they deny that either state was complicit in the sickness and how could states defend against something that they already sued for and won?

The problem was, I have no attorney. I called around and the hourly rates these guys charge is off the scale. They get more in an hour than some people make all week and there was no way I could afford them. So then I thought, well everyone has a right to an attorney and I called the court to ask how to get one. They told me that I was only entitled in a criminal case in which I was the defendant and that civil cases (which is what my lawsuits would be) are not covered by the Sixth Amendment.

This got me thinking even more because now I began to realize that all the lawsuits that are filed each year cost average people a lot of money. I always heard about people who lost houses and their life savings but I figured they were morons who did not exercise their right to an attorney. I had a friend named Mac who ended up in this kind of a jam and lost everything, house, wife, kids, retirement, all of it because his kid left a skateboard on the sidewalk and some old woman fell over it. Her son was a lawyer and Mac never got one (now I know why). Mac drank himself into a coma at the age of 32 and he never regained consciousness. One day his liver failed and we lost him for good, July 4th 1993. I decided to look into the lawyer issue and I found out that:

• Legal fees are more than 2% of our GDP
• A lawsuit is filed an average of every 2 seconds in the US
• The average person is more likely to end up in court than the hospital
• More than half of the Senate are lawyers

These might not seem like a big deal to most people but the Democrats running for office are saying we need nationalized health care when what we really need is nationalized legal services. We are pretty much covered in criminal cases but we need help with the civil ones. I think it is time that we had nationalized legal services so that each person would have a lawyer when one is needed. I am sure that it will be tough for the politicians to get this through because many of them are lawyers and they have lawyer buddies that get rich by filing lawsuits. Look how many times the ACLU gets its way because it threatens to sue and their target backs down because they cannot afford the legal fees. This is not fair. They say there are 40 million uninsured people in the US (it is more like 15 or 20 but I will use their numbers) but there are over 300 million people here and most have no attorney.

We need to have equal footing in the court system so we can fight off Big Law. Big Law is responsible for huge pay outs for spilled coffee, huge pay outs for using electrical equipment in the water and all kinds of stuff. People and businesses are sued for all kinds of things by Big Law lawyers who get rich at the expense of people who could not afford attorneys. It is time to stand up to Big Law people like John Edwards so that those of us on this side of the two Americas can get fair representation just like the rich people do. It isn’t fair that rich people can afford lawyers and the average guy cannot.

The government needs to start charging rich people a legal fee tax and all settlements in civil court should have 10% removed to go to the nationalized legal service fund. We need to get some of the money from the excessive pay outs of civil suits and use it for the downtrodden. How is a person supposed to raise a family if he needs a lawyer in a civil case and he has to spend his life savings or go to court on his own?

I am serious about this and apparently so are some others. I am trying to find the websites but there are a few places that are pushing for nationalized legal services so that all Americans will have legal representation under the law. One place that I heard about is Justice for Justice or Justice in Justice or something like that. If anyone has heard of them and has a url I would appreciate you sending it to me.

We all deserve a lawyer and we should get that lawyer for free.

Share on Facebook