Freedom Of Speech At Risk

It's one thing for a government to allow private individuals or organizations (who claim to be offended) to silence their opponents with assistance from government agencies (like Canada's Human Rights Commission).

When the government itself uses authoritarian powers to silence political opponents (or anyone else who expresses an opinion not sanctioned by the government), it's a different matter altogether. When a member of the British Parliament can be arrested for pointing out wrongdoing by the ruling party and have his home and office ransacked by police, then you know that freedom of speech is dead.

I'm sure that the MP will eventually be given back his computer and personal papers and issued an apology. "And by the way, we found some personal correspondence and pictures on your computer that you probably don't want your wife to find out about. So, apology accepted, no lawsuit? Good man. Very understanding of you."

It is also apparently illegal in Britain to refer to the Church of Scientology as a "cult." Likewise, in many European countries, it is illegal to publicly deny the Holocaust.

It makes you wonder how Europeans (and even Canadians) can have the gall to criticize the U.S. for our supposed human rights violations (confining unrepentant, dedicated murderers at Guantanamo, for example). Who would like to take responsibility for them? Perhaps we could find good homes for them in, say, San Francisco or Paris.

Speaking of our foreign critics, a quick look at the laughable makeup of the United Nations Human Rights Council is proof enough that the U.S. is far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to valuing human rights.

People should feel free to say anything they wish, no matter how stupid it might be. That's the easiest way for the rest of us to determine just how stupid they are - and we really need to know.

Thank goodness our freedoms are safe. [/sarcasm]

Joe the Plumber wasn't arrested for disagreeing with Obama's idea of wealth redistribution, but he was "investigated" by several Ohio state agencies looking for something in their official records that might be used as leverage against him by certain liberal interests.

Intimidation by officials who abuse their positions of trust can silence opposing views just as well as laws restricting free speech.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

I'd feel better if those state officials were fired and charged with official misconduct, but it looks like a mild slap on the wrist is worst punishment any of them will receive. Stalin would be proud of them.

Real-Life Crime Fighting

Police in Irving, Texas arrested two "dangerous" criminals recently. One failed to stop at an intersection before her front bumper entered a crosswalk. The other failed to stop before crossing a sidewalk when leaving a parking lot onto a public street (there was no stop sign).

The TV news clip didn't say if their cars were towed to the impound lot, but it seems likely since the owners were taken to jail. You can imagine what a hassle it must have been for those two women. I hope they hire good lawyers and maybe put an end to this type of abuse of power.

Maybe this incident is one of the reasons why it takes forever for the police to show up and remove unruly patrons at the city's libraries. Traffic offense revenues seem to trump public safety.

Mayor Pro-Tem Rick Stopfer says "pro-active arrests like this has helped bring the Irving crime rate down 10 percent so far this year."

Oh, sure.

War On Drugs

Here is another example of what the "war on drugs" has come to. A Maryland mayor's house raided by police, his dogs shot, and his family traumatized.

If this report is accurate, it just goes to show what can happen to anyone. It could have been worse. Many people, myself included, take the security of their homes seriously and will shoot first and ask questions later if someone comes busting through the front door.

No one wants to harm a law enforcement officer who is just doing his job, but when the door crashes open, the homeowner doesn't know who is breaking in. With the number of home invasion incidents reported in the news, the potential victim can't afford to take a chance on it being just an overzealous bunch of cops.

With $30 billion spent annually on the "war on drugs," you'd think it would have been won by now. So what do we have to show for all the money and effort expended to rid our country of dangerous drugs? Well, more drugs and a lot of people in jail. It's a lot like the time they decided to make alcohol illegal in America. The result was .... more alcohol and a lot of people in jail. Oh, yeah, and the birth of organized crime.

Maybe it's time to rethink this perpetual problem. We already know that the traditional methods of dealing with this type of situation do no good and, in fact, make the problem even worse.

Illegal drugs aren't going away as long as people want them, and no one wants America to continue down the road to becoming a police state.

I know, we're pretty far down that road already.

Liberal Facism

It's for your own good. We know what's best for you.

It's the audacity of elitism. The health police (aka liberals), spurred on by their successful persecution of smokers, are now going after people who "don't eat right."

The Los Angeles city council has decided that there should be no more fast food restaurants in a southern portion of the city. That part of town apparently has a higher obesity rate than the more affluent areas of LA.

What is even more disturbing (to me, at least) is that the city council knows, or even wants to know, where all the fat people are. Should that be any of their business? Is the government getting a little too comfortable examining the people over whom it rules?

Your Rights are Obsolete?

An amazing (to me) opinion was published in the Star-Telegram the other day. I was going to comment on it immediately after prying myself off the ceiling, but I had to wait until my blood pressure was back down to normal (114 over 73, thank you).

Lee Gaillard had written an opinion piece entitled "The Second Amendment is Obsolete." (This guy really knows how to grab my attention.) I naively assumed it was meant to startle the reader and sound the alarm that the gun control fanatics are mounting another attack on what many Americans consider to be a sacred right to "keep and bear arms."

Having, on many occasions, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I instinctively reach for my gun (figuratively speaking, of course) when someone suggests that the Constitution (or its "Bill of Rights") should be rewritten or otherwise defaced.

"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."

Liberals, who wet themselves at the sight of a firearm, keep bringing up the argument that the reference to "the people" in the Second Amendment refers to the individual states. If the Second Amendment were the only amendment to the Constitution, that argument might not be patently bogus, but the other amendments that refer to "the people" make it clear that the framers of the Constitution knew the difference between "the people" and "the states."

For example: the First Amendment addresses "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

The Fourth Amendment starts out with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

The Tenth Amendment pretty well establishes the fact that "the states" and "the people" are not to be confused.

"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."

Now.....as I have said before, it's time we either rewrite the Constitution to satisfy contemporary attitudes (say, every 10 years or so - or whenever a new fad attitude comes along) or repeal all laws that are in violation of the Constitution.

The status quo (numerous laws that flaunt the Constitution) makes a sham of our Constitution and our claim to be a duly constituted republic.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I can read.

Concealed Handgun Laws

The Star-Telegram had an editorial a couple of days ago that promoted a bogus argument for making public the names of those people who have been issued Concealed Handgun Licenses.

The editorial equates other state-issued licenses, e.g., for cosmotolgists, pharmacists, auctioneers, dental hygienists, etc., with the Concealed Handgun License. Apples and oranges. There is no reason to keep confidential (and every reason to make public) the licenses issued for commercial activities such as providing a service for a fee to the public.

Making public the names of those who have been issued a CHL, exposes their defense against crime. It would be like making public the defenses used by police and military personnel in their jobs. The less the enemy knows, the better.

It would also subject the license holders to possible discrimination in our society that has been conditioned over the last several decades to fear guns (and even distrust those who own guns).

I would prefer that people who have criminal intentions assume that every potential victim is carrying, and willing to use, a firearm in his own defense.

Illegal Immigration

Congress is tossing around a bill that would, in effect, be a grant of amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. Any politician voting for that will probably find it to be a career-altering event.

Let's get a few things straight right off the bat.

1. No one has an inherent right to enter any country in which he is not a citizen....for any reason.

2. What people may have done hundreds or thousands of years ago during periods of human migration into sparsely settled areas of the Earth is irrelevant.

3. The reality of today is that nations exist and have established immigration laws designed to preserve and protect the societies that make up those nations.

4. We don't actually need anyone from another country to come here.....we have enough people already.

5. If your country is so screwed up that you want to leave, fix it......it's your responsibility. We sympathize with you, and we have probably already given you billions of dollars to help solve your problems. If your government has squandered our aid money and continues to oppress you.......well, that's what revolutions are for.

D.C. Anti-Gun Law Overturned

A 20 year old law that outlawed handguns in Washington, D.C. was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It seems that the 2nd Amendment rights of D.C. residents are the same as for the rest of the country.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty was quoted in this AP article as saying: "Today's decision flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." The article offers no information as to whether the Mayor's statement is true or false, but lets it stand unchallenged.

A Washington Post editorial, however, contradicts the Mayor's declaration of the effectiveness of the harsh gun laws in the nation's Capitol.

"Since 1976, the city's murder rate is up 32 percent. The country's is down 36 percent."

Anti-gun laws may or may not have an effect on crime rates......there are numerous factors involved besides those laws.....but the 2nd Amendment hasn't been repealed. Until that happens, those laws remain unconstitutional. Thank goodness there are some judges who are willing to uphold our country's founding document.

"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."

Either repeal the 2nd Amendment or repeal all the laws that violate it.

Sudafed

I went to the store to buy a box of Sudafed for my wife.....she has a bad cold.

Little did I know that it would have been a less involved procedure if I had tried to buy a gun or even dynamite.

First of all, even though no prescription is required, Sudafed is kept behind the pharmacy counter. I had to surrender my drivers license and wait while the pharmacist ran a background check on me on the computer. Then she entered some information about the Sudafed, including the lot number, and I had to fill out a tag with my name, address, date of birth, signature, and date and TIME of purchase. WTF?

I've heard that pseudo ephedrine, a Sudafed ingredient, is used to make methamphetamines, but is one box going to be enough for the government to worry about? It's probably been over 20 years since the last time I bought Sudafed, and I have no idea how to make methamphetamines, nor any inclination to do so.

This one purchase took several minutes, and the time and effort required to satisfy the law must have some influence on the cost of the drug.

Needless to say, I am not just disgusted.....I'm outraged! If 20 years ago someone had told me what I would have to go through just to by a stupid box of Sudafed, I would have said "No way! Not in THIS country!" But I was pretty naive 20 years ago.

Now if only someone could come up with a way to make a "dangerous" drug from dandelions. I would enjoy watching DEA agents desperately trying to keep my lawn free of weeds.

More Greed Plus an Insult

The City of Farmers Branch is being sued by Guillermo Ramos over the recently enacted city ordinances that are intended to discourage illegal aliens from residing within the city limits. The article in the Star-Telegram is the latest in the on-going saga of life in the small town north of Dallas. I've commented on this controversy in a previous post.

Ramos, a resident of Farmers Branch, claims in his suit that "...the ordinances were approved after discussions in closed-door meetings, a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act." If that is true, and I don't know that it is, the ordinances should be withheld until all legal requirements can be met.

The real purpose of the suit, however, appears to be that the ordinances will be bad for Ramos' real estate business.

He reported that his real estate business "like other businesses in Farmers Branch will suffer from the negative impacts likely to result from the ordinances."

In the print edition of the newspaper, but not the online edition, the suit is reported to challenge "...a second "divisive" ordinance that targets property maintenance" by banning "...empty flowerpots and dirty garage doors" that, according to the article, "...is unmistakably and improperly directed toward a definable ethnic group - Hispanics - in Farmers Branch."

I know what you're thinking.....what do "empty flowerpots and dirty garage doors" have to do with Hispanics? Ramos apparently thinks this is a valid method of determining whether someone is Hispanic or not.

If I were "Hispanic," whatever that really means, I would sue Ramos for defamation of character and demand punitive damages for hurting my feelings.

Empty flower pots?..........Sheesh.....

A Victory for Women......and Men

Finally, a court opinion I can agree with.

Police in Daytona Beach, Florida arrested a woman who was protesting the inequity of anti-nudity laws by appearing topless in public (oh, the horror).

An appeals court, however, ruled that protesting topless as part of a legitimate political protest (heh) was allowed by law.

Like I said, a victory for women AND men.

Love those protesters.

U.S. Bans Internet Gambling

Yeah, like that's going to work. Remember Prohibition?

An informative article in the Washington Post provides some of the pro's and con's of internet gambling.

My opinion: It would be less expensive and more effective if the Department of Health and Human Services had a section charged with monitoring online gaming operations and providing warnings to the public of the dangers. An educational campaign can make a lot of difference in people's behavior, and it seems to have worked pretty well in changing people's attitudes about smoking.

The last thing we need is the government, through draconian measures, protecting people from themselves.

Yes, I know there is a lot of precedence for that type of social engineering (seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc.), but can't we at least try to discourage our lawmakers from further eroding our civil liberties?

"Gun-Free" School Zones

The Star-Telegram ran an opinion column on Friday by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman that claims that so-called "gun-free" school zones are a sad joke and do nothing to protect children.

Their's is not a novel argument. Ever since the beginning of the anti-gun hysteria in this country, it has been argued that criminals are encouraged in their activities when they think that there's little chance that their intended victims will be able to fight back with a firearm.

I've read several reports of increased firearm-related crime wherever the legal possession of guns is prohibited, and a corresponding decrease after the passage of concealed-carry laws. I cannot vouch for the validity of those claims, but it does seem reasonable.

Think of any of the instances in which some lunatic rather casually, and with impunity, walked about shooting people in a school or a Luby's cafeteria. If only one responsible person had been there with a gun, the incident could possibly have been terminated early with a happy ending.
There's no guarantee of that outcome, but at least the victims would have had a reasonable chance of survival.

If you have a gun, do yourself a favor and attend a firearms safety class. Just don't attend a class conducted by this guy, or this guy, and especially not this guy.

I Just Don't Get It

Canadian police informed the U.S. that a Syrian-born Canadian, Maher Arar, was suspected to be involved with Al-Qaida. The U.S. deported the Canadian to Syria after he was apprehended at a JFK Airport on a return flight from Tunisia to Canada in 2002.

Arar claims that the Syrians tortured him before allowing him to return to Canada in 2003 where he was cleared of any connections to terrorist organizations. His side of the story can be found at his website.

What I don't get:

Why would the U.S. deport a Canadian citizen to Syria? Did Canada OK the deportation?

Why would the Syrians, of all people, torture someone the U.S. considered to be a terrorist? You would think that the Syrian government would proclaim Arar a hero. Perhaps they thought he was a U.S. spy posing as a deported terrorist? (Wacky Conspiracy Theory Alert! - could this be an elaborate ruse by the Syrians to remove suspicion from Arar so he can maintain his "cover?")

Why would Syria even accept a deportee from the U.S.? I thought they didn't cooperate with our government on any issue.

Canadian PM Stephen Harper is demanding an explanation from the Bush Administration. I'd like to know what the heck is going on, too!

Sportsman's Rights Act?

Well here's another one the Texas state legislature slipped past us.

The Sportsman's Rights Act, according to today's Star-Telegram, makes it illegal "to intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife."

The article tells the story of one landowner fined for making too much noise for hunters to shoot deer on an adjacent property.

I've got mixed feelings about this issue. People have a right to hunt on their property. People have a right to play music or ride dirt bikes and ATV's on their property.

Which "right" is more important to uphold?

If I were the landowner fined for making noise that interfered with hunting, I would file a counter complaint about the noise of gunshots interfering with my lawful use of my own property and even causing me concern for my safety.

I believe both of the property owners are within their rights, but I don't like the way the law reads, because it tends to negate the rights of non-hunters in favor of the rights of those who want to hunt with noisy and potentially dangerous guns.

The Wright Amendment

One of former U.S. Rep. Jim Wright's(D) legacies here in Texas is the Wright Amendment, signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter(D) in 1979.

What this means to the people who need to fly into and out of North Central Texas using DFW airport is having to pay for over-priced airline tickets. In some cases it is cheaper to fly to Houston or Austin and then catch a flight to your out-of-state destination.

This legislation restricts flights departing Dallas Love Field (Southwest Airlines, mainly) from non-stop flights beyond the boarding states. Dallas/Ft. Worth International airport (American Airlines), it was believed by some, needed protection from competition by Love Field (Southwest) in order to be successful in this market and "become the driving economic engine in north Texas."

Stifling competition didn't seem to be necessary in Chicago (O'Hare & Midway), Houston (Intercontinental & Hobby), or New York (JFK, LaGuardia, et.al.), so why here? I haven't seen or heard a plausible explanation for that.

For nearly 30 years, passengers have had to pay higher fares from DFW airport - not that the politicians, or American Airlines, really care about passengers.

Recently, to stave off another (likely successful) attempt by opponents of the Amendment to have it repealed, an agreement was reached between (the politicians of) Dallas and Ft. Worth to basically phase out the restrictions over an 8 year period.

I have not flown out of either of these airports in nearly 10 years (except for one unusual exception this summer) and cannot foresee any need to for the rest of my life. Therefore, I have no stake in the argument. It just seems wrong that this type of restriction on free enterprise would even be considered, much less made into law.

What I find amusing is the opinion column in the Star-Telegram, written by both the mayor of Dallas and of Ft. Worth, that begins:

"For almost 30 years, business and leisure travelers in North Texas have suffered the consequences of burdensome federal restrictions on air travel in our communities."

Keep in mind, Ft. Worth and American Airlines have been the staunch defenders of the Amendment, while Dallas has often protested it.

What's their joint solution to these "consequences of burdensome federal restrictions?"

Allow American Airlines to bleed the public for another 8 years.

Is this a great country, or what?