As if our warfighters were not having a rough enough time now some hair brained general wants awards for putting our troops lives in danger…
This is beyond stupid on so many fronts…
Read about it HERE
Archive for May 12th, 2010
The Pussy Award: Will it come with a “V” like kerry’s Silver Star..?
May 12, 2010Elena Kagan: As more becomes known
May 12, 2010Long before Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s April 9 announcement that he will retire this June, legal observers had already picked a front-runner for the seat Stevens has occupied for 34 years: former Harvard Law School dean and current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
Kagan is seen as the politically wise choice for Democrats. Some legal and political observers say the moderate credentials that earned her quick congressional approval in 2009 for solicitor general — the government’s head lawyer and spokesperson before the Supreme Court — would translate into a relatively smooth Supreme Court confirmation. Having already approved her as SG, it would be difficult for congressional Republicans to oppose Kagan’s nomination and paint her as “outside the mainstream.”
But this focus on short-term political calculation obscures the most significant consideration. On matters of executive authority — where the judicial branch has been a vital bulwark against post-9/11 “war on terror” civil-liberties violations — Kagan’s record indicates an ideological departure from Justice Stevens, who authored watershed detainee-rights opinions and organized the five-justice majorities that struck down other Bush administration power grabs.
To be sure, attempting to assess a judicial philosophy, much less a justice’s evolution once on the bench, is difficult (see David Souter). And Kagan’s tight-lipped nature regarding her personal legal philosophy, coupled with a scant paper trail, doesn’t help. But if her record — the few clues she provided as an academic, and in her tenure thus far as SG — is any indication, she’s more likely to side with the conservative bloc on matters of executive power and war-time presidential authority.
From crisis to crushing of liberties, happens just that fast
May 12, 2010Reprinted with permission of the Author.
You may have read about the Sheridan Police and how they harassed me and my family, you may also know that I would not comply with their request for identification since they performed an illegal stop. This isn’t my just my opinion, the basis in which a police officer cannot detain, search and seize just because a person is armed has been upheld by the courts time and again.
From the Tenth Circuit Court ruling by Judge BRUCE D. BLACK in a recent case in New Mexico:
“relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing…prohibited openly carrying a firearm…summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and…constitutional claims”
You are about to see how some individuals are challenged by the police at greater extremes, the following is from U.S. District 7 in Wisconsin. Jesus Gonzalez a U.S. Citizen that was abused by the same ones that are sworn to uphold the constitution, he was not only arrested for merely having a gun, according to court documents the police retained his property for 10 months before returning it and that was only after a court order.
But please realize this is how “law enforcement” joins the fight against your liberties. And yes it happens even though everyone involved took an oath to uphold the constitution.
From my own personal experience:
When the Town of Pine Bluffs Wyoming took a stance that the open carrying of firearms would be regulated by the local police, the town attorney Alex Davison told me “that he spoke with the Judge (wouldn’t you like that luxury?) and there had not been a similar case and he as the town attorney felt comfortable with an arrest and trying such a case in court”.
The Pine Bluffs town attorney was willing to usurp constitutional rights by using the courts, even though state law preempted their municipal power. Of course Mr. Davison finally saw the light and later relented.
Back to Mr. Gonzalez, he resides where concealed carry permits are not issued, in Wisconsin statute dictates the only way you may carry a firearm is fully exposed or what is called open carry.
The police officers ignored the fact that Gonzales had done nothing illegal, detained him and arrested him, seized his property including his social security card. Remember Mr. Gonzalez was forced to get a court order to get his own SSN card back.
Besides performing an illegal arrest, search and seizure, the police denied Gonzalez a right of refusal to disclose his SSN, in violation of Section 7(a) of the Privacy Act, even threatened him with jail if he failed to provide it.
But why would the police want to seize and keep a social security card of Mr. Gonzalez a Hispanic U.S. Citizen? I can’t help thinking that the police had intensions of flexing their authority in his face.
Second time’s a charm isn’t it?
About a year later the police arrested Mr. Gonzalez a second time and again pushing the envelope retained his firearm, magazine and ammunition, against his will and without a warrant and without what was needed the most, “PROBABLE CAUSE”.
So here is where I am going with this:
I contend that enacting legislation for example, under the guise of protecting us from illegal immigration with the possibility of “redefining probable cause” in the courts is dangerous stuff. Knee jerk responses to monumental issues could mean that unintended consequences will be at the forefront.
Also think about this, we are in a time where using a tactic of “pushing the federal government to fix the problem” will only weaken the tenth amendment fight on other issues. Wyoming should only enact legislation in which we take the bull by the horns, asking nothing of the federal government and at the same time hold up constitutional protections.
Remember from the last Line in the Sand article:
Wyoming Constitution 97-1-007 – Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.
Drafting laws at the state level that are concurrent with federal immigration law or simply using existing laws to enforce illegal immigration, would be most prudent.
As far as the Feds – “they really don’t want to fix the problem” or “maybe they just want more control over U.S. Citizens”. To draw the same conclusion, you must first understand how the game is played, it is all about politics and politics is all about, here it comes…wait for it – “WHO RULES WHOM”.
While many neglect to see the danger of changing the rules in the middle of the game, it will be the very people that support such actions that will later find, they too are caught in the snare.
Since early gun control was racist by nature and was originally enacted to control the gun ownership of Blacks, to ignore this political incrementalism now could bring us full circle.
Also by allowing our elected officials to use incrementalism against our liberties, then we will surely lose. In my opinion, when we see issues like immigration and terrorism being politicized, the first thing that comes to mind is this -“Caveat Emptor” or “Let the buyer beware”.
Want proof?
Under the threat of the “war on terror” under the Bush Administration, Attorney General Ashcroft rallied for full control over what were supposed to be rights that were protected by the constitution.
If you remember the Left made an issue about this abusive control put in place by President Bush.
Fast forward to the present time and now the Left is silent when Obama and his appointees support the Bush policies including the Patriot Act. Even more alarming, Eric Holder has stated that he wants to change the Miranda rules, this means that once again your own constitutionally protected rights are now in danger under the guise of terrorism.
How can this be, the Left now agrees with policy put in place by Bush and now they are even willing to grab more power by changing the Miranda.
Please understand I never supported this kind of policy coming from Bush and now only mention it to shine a light on the this – Both the Left and Right are guilty of using and creating crisis for political gain and with such action comes legislation that will crush your liberties.
Like I said – Let the buyer beware, in this case no matter which side is selling the goods.
Suggested reading:
Constitutional Chaos – by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Anthony Bouchard is a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights and limited government – he is also the Director of WyGO – Wyoming Gun Owners Association, Wyoming’s Only No-Compromise Gun-Rights Organization.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 