To Have and To Hold: SCOTUS Takes on Gay Marriage

On Tuesday April 28th the United States Supreme Court will be asked to decide if homosexuals have the right to marry each other (same sex marriage) and/or if a couple is married in a state which practices  marriage equality has a right to have that marriage recognized in a state that does not have permit gay-marriage.

If I were a member  of SCOTUS (and fortunately there is little chance of that) I believe I would decide the matter that 1. Government needs to get out of the marriage business. We do not have an interest in marriage we have an interest in contracts. All contracts should be honored across state lines due to the theory of comity (legally it means reciprocity among sovereigns). I do not believe the federal government should be sanctioning what is really a religious ceremony. As a contract, I should have the right to contract with any one I choose who is of age and who is not otherwise coerced by me or others to enter into a contract. In other words if a contract is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, it should be enforced everywhere. 2. I would let each state decide if the wanted to issue contracts for marriage but if they did, they would have to allow everyone to have one equally. I would not set a national standard because in the end, it just is not part of the business of the United State's Government. It is a local issue to be decided on a state to state basis.

The issue  also presents a divide in the very middle of America's heart and heartland, but it is an important issue. The hypocrisy on both sides of the issue is as ironic as it is unspoken. The anti-marriage equality group do not want to give people the right to contract with whomever they choose but they want to allow the right not to contract to be observed. The pro-marriage equality group wants to allow the right to contract but not the right to not contract. Stupid is as stupid does.

On this issue I have just one more thing to say. To all you "Christians" who do not "support" marriage equality: Do you serve divorced couples? Do you have baby showers for out of wedlock moms? Do you allow people who have committed adultery to later marry in your establishment? Do you serve people who do not make their child support payments? Do you serve people who have stolen from others or even killed others? Is that not supporting that lifestyle which is directly DIRECTLY forbidden by the TEN COMMANDMENTS?? God did not tell Moses that marriage was between a man and a woman but he did say don't kill, don't commit adultery or fornication, don't steal. How is it your "religion" forbids you from servicing homosexual couples but not those committing acts specifically forbidden in the Ten Commandments??

Got news for those types (Mr. Huckabee, Santorum, any number of shop owners and others who want to do away with homosexuals) of politicians and business people: YOU ARE BIGOTS. YOU ARE PREJUDICED, and no amount of joining together to present that view will absolve you of YOUR sin of hypocrisy.

"You Know Who Else Spoke Arabic? Osama Bin Laden"*: Sh*t the TSA Gets Away With When They Violate Your Freedom!

I was just about to give up on finding anything to blog about when I came across this little decision out of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. In George v. Rehiel et.al.  Dkt.:11-4292 (3rd Cir. 2013)( a Civil Rights case brought under 42USC1983)  an American college student of Middle Eastern Culture at a University in California was boarding a plane in Philadelphia (heading back to school) and under went an "administrative search" (which is a recognized "exception" to the 4th Amendment) at the boarding area. It is an everyday bother for airline passengers but it does keep us safer and it is usually minimally intrusive, that is until the Third Circuit decided to throw America's new obsession with paranoia into it.

During the search, the TSA employees (who seemingly have absolutely no training in law)  found handwritten flash cards that included the Arabic/English words for everyday language as well as for some words that if SAID ALOUD, would trigger an arrest in an airport (words like Bomb, Terrorist, Explosion, Attack, Kill, Battle, To Wound, to Kidnap). Now the fact that he was a student and one might want to know these words if involved in Mid Eastern current events did not matter. That he wasn't speaking the words but that the cards were in his carry-on so he could study didn't matter either.  That after finding the flashcards and swabbing everything around for explosives and finding zilch well that still did not matter. As far as the TSA was concerned these flashcards (and a treatise a college kid might read on the failures of American Interventionist Foreign Policy) required he be detained for a supervisor to question him AND for TSA to call the police.
The supervisor came and for 15 minutes more she stalled Mr. George in a  TSA security room (which by the way he was not free to leave) asking inane questions such as:
Q: Do you know who is responsible for 9-11?
A: Osama Bin Laden

Q: Do you know what language he spoke?
A: Arabic

Q: Do you see why these (flash)Cards are suspicious????????????

WTF????? Really???? Needless to say Mr. George was arrested, cuffed, detained for 5 hours, and missed his flight. Yes, if you were wondering, Philadelphia is part of the United States of America...

Mr. George and his attorneys sued the TSA agents, the cops, and FBI agents (who after five hours arrived, questioned the kid another 30 minutes and determined that he was not a terror threat) for violating his civil rights: His rights under the Fourth Amendment, Free speech and further sued for false arrest false imprisonment etc.


The question before the court was: did the TSA agents act outside of their employment authority by detaining young Mr. George, and if so did they have a reason to know that acting that way was against an established rule supporting the rights to privacy and speech.

The court never reached the knowledge element because it ruled that given the "totality of circumstances here could cause a reasonable person to believe that the items George was carrying raised the possibility that he might pose a threat to airline security". 

Re-read the quote from the decision that I highlighted above. Have you ever seen a more tepid comment?
"...could cause...to believe...possibility...might pose." Gee he could have been carrying a New York Times and all those words would be in it. It is indisputable he had the right to have those cards and that he had a right to have and read the book on the failure of American intervention in the Middle East.  Does it really raise a right to detain someone for 30 minutes or even 5 minutes once they found he had no explosives or contraband on him? Do you know what it feels like to be detained at an airport in an tiny room that you cannot leave. They have your phone? You can't call out check email tell others what's up? WTF??? Then they called the cops who arrested him and held him handcuffed in a cell for up to five more hours!! The court held the cops arrested him on their own.  In other words a cop came up and not on the say of the TSA he just decided to bust the kid for five hours without being asked because presumably he found probable cause to make an arrest!! Based on flashcards and a book? (In fairness to the court they did rule that you cannot arrest someone because of the books they read. Evidentially flashcards are far more dangerous...) The court held it was speculative that the TSA ordered the arrest. I am sorry but I don't see that at all, of course that is one of the myriad of reasons I will never be a judge. I cannot suspend my disbelief for a long enough period to excuse people when they act like idiots in the name of the USA.

I am accustomed to government paranoia. Look we are all gonna die someday but really can't we go as men and women and not as frightened sheep? Are these judges for real? Are they going to hide behind 9-11 to support clearly illegal conduct by federal agents for the rest of our lives?? Liberty does hang in the stakes. If the Courts will not rein in the government when it clearly goes beyond our ever more liberal rules for destroying our Constitution, then we are lost.

That the lead judge was a Clinton appointee not some Neo-con Bush appointee. So if you are learning Arabic, and studying Middle Eastern culture, you better watch out...you just gave your government the right to detain you based on what they unreasonably fear might be a possible preparation for an attack or maybe just a learning thing but they are really unsure but they don't need to be any more sure because that could cause them to not detain Osama bin Laden or the ENGLISHMAN who was the shoe bomber or THE LATINO that was an underwear bomber. If you understand any of that, you MAY qualify to be a Federal Judge...

Sad.

H/t: Justia (US Third Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.) and Rueters.

*The title of this post paraphrased the questions but the quotes here are from the decision and are culled from plaintiff's complaint.)

Opps She Did It Again!: Nassau County NY District Attorney Kathleen Rice Blows ANOTHER "Flush the Johns" Case

In a now fifth case decided by a different Judge, Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice has had another of her "Flush The Johns" cases dismissed for lack of evidenceNassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice has had another of her "Flush The Johns" cases dismissed for lack of evidence.
Last October, right before the election (of course) Rice used county money to run one of the dumbest sting operations in her history of dumb cases. It was called 'Flush the Johns". All it has done so far is flush good tax money down the toilet. Wasting literally hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on what was basically a publicity stunt, Rice ran a sting by having police women pose as prostitutes on Craigslist and Backpage.com so that they could lure men into hotel rooms and arrest them. She then put their names and pictures into Newsday (which also should be ashamed of itself) and ruined marriages, professional careers and reputations.
Last week Judge Sharon Gianelli ( a fellow Democrat) dismissed two more cases and then there was one in November that went down the tubes. Now Judge Susan Kluewer (another fellow Democrat) dismissed this case for lack of evidence after a man was charged after entering a hotel room with his buddy (who claimed he had to stop and drop something off to the person in the room). The man neither called the alleged prostitute, nor did he negotiate a fee or pay said fee. In other words the case was the only thing in the room that sucked!! (Sorry I couldn't resist). The man's wife instituted divorce proceedings and the case has destroyed him. There was no probably cause to arrest this man, despite what Rice's overpaid PR guy says. Salvatore Marinello said his client is going to sue Rice and the Nassau County Police for False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution. Even if he loses it is going to tack more tax money onto this losing proposition to defend the county...
Rice just won re-election. Nevertheless she should step down. She and her crew of carpetbagging attorneys and nepotistic appointees have done nothing to protect Nassau and worse yet, she has wasted our dollars, inflated her budget all so she can run for higher office. Kathleen Rice is a disgrace. Shame on her, and Shame on Nassau Voters who supported her re-election.

Related Post: Flush Nassau DA Kathleen Rice: Her Flush The Johns Sting Goes Down the Drain

Breaking News: Newsday Special Investigation Into Police Misconduct on Long Island!

Newsday has broken a major investigation into police misconduct and its failures to be properly investigated or punished.  Police misconduct puts good citizens at risk and worse makes it very hard for good cops to do their jobs well. It corrupts a system.
Nassau and Suffolk have had this problem for a number of years. Whether it be the band of thugs that run the land of NO on Fire Island, or the insanity of the Nassau cop who beat and shot a taxi driver for no reason in Suffolk, or the many instances of testalying and other misconduct, it has to end.
I have regularly called for the institution of a Civilian Review Board with teeth. Now is the time. We need it here.
What do you think? How do you feel about a Civilian Review Board?

Going Rogue: Who in the Hell is Watching the ATF??

Okay I am back, for a while I guess. Somehow my long term writers block seems to have lifted. Lets hope it stays this way for a while.

We have spent most of the year looking at how the NSA is really an internal spying organization run by former military men whose level of paranoia while likely defensible is waaaayyy to high to actually run a spying agency in a democracy. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know that the US government has since 2001 been doing an really good job acting like the KGB of 1955. Now this comes as no surprise because for a nation that prides itself on talking about civil rights, we suck at providing them to anyone who isn't in our view when we look in the bathroom mirror.

Nevertheless, while the NSA, CIA, DEA, FBI and main Justice (Just us?) Dept. have all been seriously scrutinized these last few months by the libertarian (and only reluctantly by the main stream) press, our old friend of merry makers, the original set 'em up and blow them up gang over at the AFT (Bureau of Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco) (remember WACO? RUBY RIDGE?? FAST AND FURIOUS??????)  have been on the down low... until now.

Seems that the agency hasn't had a real director since 2006. That is 7 years... for the last two years the "acting director" was also the full time US Attorney in Minnesota!! All this lack of supervision has given the merry men of the ATF way too much time on their hands. Hence they have come up with all kinds of ways to screw up on our dime. (Actually on our $1.23BILLION DOLLAR dime)

Lets lookie see what they have been spending money on...:
Well they have been picking on mentally challenged men and encouraging them to have tattoos of Giant Squids Smoking a Joint put onto their necks
They have encouraged robberies so that they can then buy the stolen merchandise back and lock up the guy who stole it, except most of the robbers never stole before the ATF decided to give away money by OVERPAYING for the stolen stuff
Oh yeah they like over paying for stuff, so they offered to buy guns for more money that they could be purchased for at a place like Dick's sporting goods... so even the mentally challenged figured out that it was worth it to BUY THE GUNS Legally and sell them for a profit to the MORONIC Special Agents...
Then they discovered that teenage boys like sex...SO  They have been trying to get teenager boys to buy guns and drugs in the vain hope a particularly sexy "special agent" will have sex with them. (Too bad she didn't twerk, maybe the mainstream media woulda picked up the story.)
Finally they are slobs too.

I hope there is a Republican Congressman who sees this. WANNA FIND A BUDGET TO CUT?? Start with the ATF!!!!

Hat Tip: The Atlantic.com

Mischaracterizing The Checks and Balances In Our Constitutions Framework: Justice Scalia's Dissent in Arizona v. USA

As promised I have had a chance to read, reread and digest the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona v. United States where a majority of the Supreme Court ruled Arizona's controversial Immigration law a\k\a SB1070 as unconstitutional.

You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here

What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.

Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.

With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.

Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.

Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.

(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)

In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:

...U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.

Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.

Legislating Civility and Freedom of Speech: The Free F***ing Speech Demonstration in Middleborough MA.

I begin this by saying that I strongly believe in the First Amendment and believe you cannot legislate civility. The City Counsel or Board of Selectmen or whatever they have in Middleborough MA. disagrees with me. (No kidding, there is something new. People disagreeing with That Lawyer Dude, unheard of.)They passed a law outlawing certain words (we usually refer to them as "Dirty Words") and if you violate it, they fine you Twenty ($20.00)Dollars. This so obviously violates the Constitution of both Massachusetts and the USA that I cannot wait to see the first challenge to the law.

The Free F***ing Demonstration at the Middleborough Town Hall is supposed to gather tens of people to stand there and well in the words of organizer Adam Koresh:"... a large civil disobedience protest on Monday, June 25th from 12:30-1:00pm. Bring your bullhorn and foulest vocabulary to the Town Hall at 10 Nickerson Avenue, Middleborough MA 02346 and engage in the most profane conversation possible with your fellow liberty lovers. Let's show these uptight a**holes what freedom of f***ing speech is all about! Here is a NSFW Video announcing the action.

Now I am sure that the bullhorn is probably just as bad an idea as the actual legislation is but putting that aside, I think there is more to this.
Middleborough's officials are in the firestorm of what happens when civility clashes with the law. Sure I don't like hearing "F*** You!" screamed at the top of someone's lungs while I am walking outside of church. I don't like to hear it when I go into the visiting area of the jail. Why? Well because even though I don't believe in the concept of dirty words, I was raised to keep a civil tongue and although I can be profane, I still flinch when I hear the words spoken.

The Issue is one of who is going to decide what constitutes "dirty words" and who gets to make the rules. It can't be done. No matter what derogatory words are used, someone is going to be angry about them. Curse words depending on their use can mean a lot of things. They can mean the speaker doesn't like something strongly, they can mean the speaker is trying to show disdain for the concept of Dirty Words, it can mean the speaker doesn't even know the words are "forbidden." I could keep going but I think you all get my point.

On the other hand, I think the better protest would be a silent one. One where hundreds stood in the square with a copy of the State or US Constitution being held in each of their hands and say nothing NOTHING for a half hour, then at 1 PM BURN THOSE CONSTITUTIONS and maybe an American flag too. Now that is a more appropriate demonstration. It is respectful, memorable and should send a much stronger message than a bunch of children acting out against authority.

Either way, this ought to get coverage, but It is far better I think to send a strong reserved message than to shout from the rooftops at people who are not listening.

Not In The Best Interest Of The Child: Why Should a Custodial Parent Not Be Charged With Kidnapping

Up front I want to thank Lenny Sienko (http://lennyesq.wordpress.com/) for putting me onto the case of People v. Leonard (http://newyorkcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/06/01/people-v-leonard) wherein the NY Court of Appeals twists and contorts the law so that it can permit the Government to intrude unnecessarily in the most important relationship in the world, that between a parent and a child. It is not enough that for whatever reason, the state refuses to acknowledge a privilege between child and parent so that one can be forced to testify against the other, but now a custodial parent can be charged with kidnapping. Thats right the custodial parent can be charged with taking his own child illegally. The facts of the Leonard case are simple and sad. Father and Mother conceive child out of wedlock. Mom stays with dad until child is born and then takes child from Brooklyn to Ulster County. She never seeks an order of custody or sole custody. Dad goes to Ulster and visits with mom and child and possibly engages in an act of domestic violence against mom. Dad now has child and wants to keep him (as is his legal right at that point). Cops arrive, dad has child and a knife, cops chase dad into a bedroom dad allegedly holds knife to child's throat and tells cops he wants to leave with his son. They refuse and are rightly in fear for the child's safety. Ultimately the child is taken back and the cops arrest the Father for??? Endangering the welfare of a child??? NO Of Course not, the DA and Cops want to shred the law and want to bring as high a charge as they can so, they charge KIDNAPPING!!!! Judge Smith in the Ct of Appeals and the majority (it was a 4-3 divided opinion) goes into a convoluted twisting of the meaning of words when the real issue is, did the legislature ever in its wildest dreams think a court would allow the Kidnapping statute to be used against a parent who had custodial rights?? NO! In fact the legislature would say we have a law... THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD law. Smith and the others in the majority know it is a bad decision. They know it because in their opinion they use dicta to explain that this outcome should only be precedent in cases with similar fact patterns. SURE! RIGHT JUDGE! Like that is going to happen. Look it is a bad case but we know that when courts do not have the backbone to stand up to the bad case, it makes bad law. Why is this bad law, because: 1. It was not predictable to the Father that this would be the outcome of trying to take his own custodial child. 2. It further damages the relationship between the parent and child. We have no privilege with our children, CPS can interfere in that relationship in the name of protecting the child and the family courts do not consider the needs of parents at all but only what the court decides is in the best interest of the child. 3. Criminal court is not the place to decide cases like this and they are better handled in Family court. 4. It over criminalizes activities and gives parents another sword in which they can hold over each other's heads. Here is an example. Mother and father at odds, child with father, mother comes to father's house takes child in a raid with 3 other of mom's family members mom is in such a hurry to outrun father that she leaves child's asthma meds in house. Well, did she kidnap kid?? I think so. Especially under this ruling. What is kid dies of an asthma attack? Is it Murder? Since Kidnapping is an intentional crime, is this intentional murder? Forgetting bad consequences, any law that keeps parents and child apart without actual physical damage being done to the child, is not a good law. Parents need room to discipline children, teach them their religion, and give them education. A parent nurtures a child in ways that a community can't (Apologies to Madame Secretary of State Clinton), and mostly the law needs to stay as far away from our homes as it possible can. We do not need a cop or a lawyer or an appellate judge (especially not an appellate judge :) ) determining what should pass for reasonable behavior and what doesn't pass in the lives of our children. What say you??

Kid Tweets That She Muscled Governor Brownback. Should She Be Made To Apologize? I Say YES!

Here is the story from the Associate Press:

"A Kansas teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is rejecting her high school principal's demand that she apologize.

Emma Sullivan (twitter@emmakat988) told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's not sorry and an apology letter wouldn't be sincere.

The Shawnee Mission East senior was in Topeka last week when she sent a tweet from the back of a crowd of students listening to Brownback. It read: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person."

She actually made no such comment..."

Thereafter Brownback's Media hound found the tweet while searching the Governor's name. When she read the tweet, she contacted the school. The Principal got a call from the Governor's office, and had heart palpitations. He ordered the 18 year old woman to write an apology to help him with "damage control."

Our Question is: Should Ms. Sullivan apologize and for what should she apologize?

The kid claims to be liberal. Okay. She also claims not to like Governor Brownback. Okay again. She has decided not to write the apology...and every liberal and libertarian it seems supports her decision... NOT ME.

I am not being contrarian, I just think that there are some serious issues here that may not be affected by this young woman's right to free speech.

1. She was at a school function, representing her High School.
2. She lied, she said she told Brownback off, in person.
3. She tweeted, against the rules of the school at a time she was in class.

Now I want to make the following clear. If she had tweeted, on her personal twitter account at 3:30PM that she saw Brownback and wished she had told him he sucked, well then no problem.
That isn't what happened here. Here she was invited to meet with the Governor of her state.Not because she was someone who the governor would normally meet with, but because she was chosen by her school to go. While she was in the Governor's home or office, she took out her cellphone, and reported she told the man "He sucked" (Skip the fact that the statement is both juvenile and vulgar) in person. That was both against the rules about texting in class, AND, it was a lie.

Now imagine if she had said something dumber like she had assaulted or God forbid shot the man? Would that be okay?? What First Amendment line had been crossed? Isn't that still political speech? She is still saying she doesn't like the man. She is still lying. She would still be doing it on school time.

No, I don't agree that she is putting forth her opinion. I think she was going for a laugh, which is also okay as far as it goes, but the truth is, it was disrespectful not of Brownback (after all it goes with the territory of being a politician) but of the Office of the Governor. It was also a disrespect of her position as a campus leader of her school and all the people in it, including the few that may like the Governor, AND, she broke her school texting rule.

Now that doesn't mean she should have written a mea cupla, nor promise to help Brownback win his next campaign. It does mean that this college bound woman should show some understanding that: 1. The Governor of your state deserves your respect as the leader of the state and the choice of the people of your state; 2. You broke school rules and you are sorry for that, and; 3. That as a school leader, she has an obligation to represent her student body by asking smart questions, reporting accurately what was said and if she disagreed she had the right to state an opinion that criticized Brownback.

I am not asking her to agree with Brownback, but respect for our institutions is an important thing for schools to teach. The proper way to engage in debate is an important thing for leaders to learn. (Remember when some wingnut congressman yelled out at Obama during his State of the Union "you're a liar"? that kind of comment does not spur on the debate. It doesn't bring the other side into understanding your grievances. Saying Brownback "sucks" is just juvenile and frankly makes me think Ms. Sullivan is stupid. All I know is, she is entitled to an opinion, but you don't have the right to come into my house and crap on my carpet. Verbally, that is what she did. Her principal is right to demand an APPROPRIATE Apology. Not one that necessarily makes the Governor or his people happy, but one that indicates that the student understands where she went wrong.

Happy Fourth of July 2011

Well in a few hours our nation celebrates its Independence from the Tyranny of the British Royal Crown. A few years after the decision to cede from British rule and after a war, we finally settled on a Constitution (there was a loose confederacy of states before that but we ultimately chose a federal system of government)to govern us. This Constitution tried to embody as much of the Declaration of Independence as it could, however the original document was thought lacking by the Declaration's author Thomas Jefferson, so he persuaded his friend John Madison to lobby through an embodiment of the Rights of Man our American Bill of Rights.

Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.

In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.

For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."

Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.

I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.

Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!

Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.

In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.

The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.

Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.

Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.

Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination

In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.

Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.

A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here

As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.

I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.

Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.

I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.

I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.

Hattip: Huffington Post

Understanding Islamic Discrimination: Wearing the Hijab or Islamic Headscarf Is Not Grounds For Firing Someone (or arresting them either)

ABA Headline : Jailed for Wearing Headscarf to Court caught my attention for a few reasons: 1. It offends me that someone could be arrested for wearing religious gear to court; 2. I am interested in seeing how next month's House Of Representative hearings on the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism in America go (as in will we learn something about the reasons approximately fifteen percent of American Muslims between 18-30 believe suicide bombing can be justified.) or is it going to be the witch hunt some groups claim it will be?: and 3. Because I am seeing more and more valid complaints of discrimination coming into our NY and Long Island offices from members of the Islamic community as well as from Sheiks who are often confused for Muslims due to their headdress.

In the Georgia case cited by the ABA Journal it seems a woman who went to court to support a family member wore a Hijab to court. She was told to remove it. This is in my mind akin to asking a Jewish person to remove a Yarmulke. I am sure that the court staff will suggest that there were security reasons for their demand and when it wasn't followed they arrested. What I find curious is that it seems to be agreed that after the woman said she would leave they arrested her anyway. I thought the idea was to NOT have her in the courthouse. Either way, I think they will be hard pressed to show that they could not have found a way to allow her to attend the court date without removing the headdress. (For instance they could have asked her to walk through a scanning device or have "wanded" her to see if she were carrying a weapon. I understand that such a process would not negate her from carrying the parts of a bomb or other items of a deadly nature on her person but I don't see how the headdress alone rises to that issue. Further if she were wearing a full Burkha I doubt that she would be required to remove it any more than a Catholic Nun would be asked to remove her Holy Habit (the tunic part which is part of the uniform if you will). You cannot arrest this person solely because she dresses in a religious.

On the Issue of the proposed hearings, Peter King is the incoming chair or the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. Congressman King has announced his plan to hold hearings into why American grown Muslims are becoming more "Radicalized." The issue is, will Congressman King use the meeting to call members of the Clergy before Congress to name names of those in their congregation who are Radicals? That seems somewhat McCartyesqe. I hope Congressman King (who was a pretty fair lawyer prior to entering politics) focuses on why there seems to be an affinity for Radical faction of Islam among our younger members (those polled tween 18-30 years old.) I think you can start looking at the reason being that young Muslims are being discriminated against in larger and larger numbers. The Pew poll sited above notes that and I can say that I see it in our practice in both Nassau Suffolk as well as in NYC and it's outer boroughs.

Here is a quick primer on religious discrimination in employment/labor situations.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified under 42 USC 2000 e-2(a)states that (1). "Religion" is defined to include "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

At first blush it is up to the person who claims to be discriminated against to prove that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements." I suggest that if one is called in about one of these issues, that she take a small digital recorder with her and (at least in NYS) record the conversation. In New York only one party to a conversation need know it is being recorded (check your state rules here.) That should make the whole thing a lot easier to prove.

Thereafter, assuming the plaintiff (or victim of religious discrimination) has made her case the employer must then show
(1) "that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee's religious practices"; or (2) "that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship." Id. If negotiations between employee and employer "do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee's proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so."

Now public employees in security positions have less rights to dress outside of the uniform than do other sectors of Public or private Sector employees. Nevertheless, short of showing that there was an economic loss or the potential for a morale disaster, the undue hardship will be hard for the private sector employer to prove. As for the first part again you can see how it is in your favor to record the conversation or negotiation. Rarely do I hear an employee say that they were listened to or negotiated with.

In our case, our client wore her hijab to work. She was ordered to give it up or go home. She worked that day without it over her objection. The next week when she went back to work, the same manager had the same complaint and further he basically told her to quit or be fired. She did leave but she was de Facto fired which saved her for unemployment benefits. We have just received a right to sue letter from the EEOC so you will be hearing more about this as the next year progresses.

If you should be incurring problems with employment religious racial or sexual discrimination or retaliation, why not give me a call to discuss it? You can still reach me through 516-741-3400.

Queens District Attorney Brown wants to Silence the Judge so he can make the Defendants talk: Another attack on Miranda

Prosecutors hate quiet defendants. In fact they will go to great lengths to get them to talk, especially to confess. In New York City over the past few years, Assistant District Attorney's will go into the holding pens known as Central Booking and actually interview these arrested folks, telling them that this is their only chance to talk to a prosecutor before arraignment and that it may result (during a blue moon)in a dismissal of their case. Certainly the Prosecutor will check out anything they tell them (like their alibi which really means he will send a detective down to take partial statements from alibi witnesses and screw up a defendants alibi allowing them to convict many more innocent people.)

The way these interviews begin is for the prosecutor to tell their spiel to the defendants BEFORE THE DEFENDENTS ARE GIVEN THEIR "MIRANDA" RIGHTS.(Miranda warnings give a defendant their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.) After they have promised them to listen to their stories then give Prosecutors read in the rights. It is a "Bull Shit" way to use gentle coercion to get a confession or admission. (Pardon the language but really can you think of a more blunt way to say it??)

What do I mean? Well, the ADAs are promising to listen to them, but in reality, the ADAs want to convict them (I know DA Brown will say that isn't true but if that were the case, why not let them speak to their own attorneys first and then let the lawyer decide if is in the best interest of the client to speak to the prosecutor. After all that is how they show it on Law and Order.)These ADAs are overcoming arrestee's will to assert their rights by promising something may happen for them if they do not assert their rights.

Remember where these people are when this is done. They are completely at the hands of the government. They have no advocate of their own there and are not entitled to one. If they don't speak to the prosecutor they don't have to, but they aren't going to see a judge until they have gone through this little ritual.

Holding pens in NYC hold defendants for 24 hours or more. After a few hours smashed in with 20 other people, with nowhere to sit without access to family or lawyers, these folks will do anything if they think it will get them out faster.

One Queens judge has threatened to look into the ethics of this behavior. The Honorable Joel Blumenfeld has a decision coming that may discuss among other things the legal ethics of a prosecutor saying and doing the things that the prosecutor says in Queens County NY. Now Courts look at ethical issues all the time, but DA Brown doesn't want Joel Blumenfeld, a former criminal DEFENSE Attorney to rule on that issue. So DA Brown has brought an order to show cause against the good judge to stop him from discussing the ethics behind the activity IN HIS JUDICIAL DECISION!!!

Unbelievable. Absurd. Legal ethics and violations thereof are perfectly good reasons to suppress evidence. (For example if a defense attorney "Friends" a victim on Facebook by pretending to be someone other than himself, the evidence he gets from that is not usable in the case. That isn't because it isn't good evidence, it is because such behavior is unethical for lawyers to engage in.)

On the up side, it is unlikely a fellow jurist will tell Blumenfeld he can't write his opinion the way he wants. It is supposed to be an INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY!

Oh did I forget to mention, DA Brown USED to be an Appellate Division Judge. I wonder how he would have taken to being told he couldn't discuss an ethical issue in a decision.

As for you readers out there I cannot point out how important it is to get a lawyer for your friends who are arrested or if you are arrested how important it is not to speak to ANYONE without first speaking to your OWN lawyer. Most of the people who give statements give them because they are waiting for LEgal Aid or an 18b lawyer (free lawyer from the court) to be appointed. DO NOT WAIT!! Get yourself a good lawyer right away and have him notify the prosecutor that you or your friend is represented by counsel and may not be spoken to by them without that lawyer being present.

IF you need a lawyer even in the middle of the night, I will take this opportunity to remind you that you can call my office 24/7/365 and speak to a lawyer if you or a friend or loved one has been arrested and is awaiting arraignment. You can reach us at 516-741-3400. DAY OR NIGHT. Weekday or weekend, holidays too!!

Hat Tip: The NY TImes

The Firing of Juan Williams: Liberals & Neo-Cons Two Peas in a Pod. They Only Favor Free Speech of Those With Whom They Agree.

Juan Williams is a reporter and commentator for NPR (National Public Radio). He also tries to provided the "balance" on Fox News Network presenting the so called "Liberal" side of the Fox equation.

The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot," Williams continued. "You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.

Sorry guys you are wrong.

I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.

To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.

I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.

That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.

Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.

Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.

Why Are American's So Dumb?

This post is a rant, so if you don't want a rant, go elsewhere.

I am sick of seeing a bunch of lunatics try to run our nation on half lies and rumor. I am also sick of people trying to use half-wit reasoning and because they bellow the loudest they get treated like they actually know something. Let's have a nation where everyone's freedom of speech is appreciated and coveted and not just the people with whom we agree.

About a month ago, Helen Thomas went nuts in an impromptu interview with my old (like 40 years long)friend Rabbi David Nessenoff. Now David is one of my oldest and dearest friends. He is without a doubt one of the finest and bravest people I know. He was absolutely right to air his interview with the octogenarian Thomas and he was entitled to draw the opinion that Thomas was both biased against Israeli interests and that she maybe hit an age where she ought best to retire. The former opinion could be gleaned from her statements that Israeli's ought to get out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Russia. For this she shows a bias, but she is entitled to her opinion and no one, and I mean no one should have been asked to remove her from her job. She was a op-ed writer and to do that job she has to have an opinion. I am often moved to want to fire Rachel Maddow, Ariana Huffington, Anne Coulter, and a number of other people who think that debate is nothing more than a bunch of sarcastic comments strung together with a ridiculous idea to make one sound as ludicrous as possible. Then when she has insulted the other side enough she is crowned a spokeswoman for her side.

Not one of these people could hold a lamp to a William F. Buckley, Joan Didion, George Will, or John Galbrith. What passes as debate in today's hip-hop world is not the stiletto sharp barbed airing of ideas but the in your face name-calling that neither educates nor leads one to think. It is all pop and no corn. What's worse is that when we don't agree with them, we try to hound them off the air making them inconsequential.

The latest "High tech lynching" is over at CNN. I am speaking about the firing of 20ish year veteran Octavia Nasr.
She dare tweeted that she was sorry that Hezbollah leader Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah had died.

Now personally, I am not all that fond of this guy. He rooted for the destruction of Israel, and blessed the guys who later blew themselves and the US Embassy and a Marine Barracks (killing a number of Americans.) I think he is more terrorist and criminal sympathizer than hero, but I can understand Nasr's appreciation of his pro-women's stance in Islam (now that is something different) and that one may argue that as a Hezbollah leader he has a legitimately obtained dislike for Israel. (Legitimately in that he comes by it naturally having grown up Muslim in the mid-east and didn't come to his position by other choosing).

Of course that "serious" misjudgment that she may have an opinion other than those of her viewers caused CNN to shut her down. Now I get it. We here in the USA like Israel for a number of reasons both good and bad. However to act like a wounded dog and hound her out of a job she did pretty well shows the tolerance of a 3 year old. Freedom of speech with a large part of what makes debate possible. Intelligent debate requires that people who differ and have reasons. I am sure I could make a better case for Fedallah's death than can be made for him being a loving Human Rights figure. That is not the point. Nasr had a right to her views and I a right to disagree. I do not have the right to order her off the air to assuage my feelings.

I am just saying I guess that we aren't going to grow any more smarter just listening to those that agree with our position.

I am just saying...

Of Regan, Kennedy, and Rockwell: TIme To Reflect On Being An American Not a Republicat or Demorican

A very interesting exhibit opened at the Smithsonian Art Museum In Washington DC. this Fourth of July weekend. It is a retrospective of the works of Norman Rockwell, as seen through the eyes of two of America's greatest living movie directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Each has lent parts of their extensive Rockwell collections to the exhibit.

Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."

Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.

In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.

He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.

Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.

Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.

Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.

To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.

I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.

I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.

I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??

I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.

I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?

I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??

I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)

If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.

If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!

I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys of what this is really all supposed to be about.

Hattip: NY Times

San Diego Gestapo...uhhh police...Arrest Innocent Jet Fan

People ask sometimes ask me "what can be worse than the murder of an innocent person by a violent criminal?
For me that is an easy answer: Members of the government allegedly acting on my behalf,and at my expense, who abuse their authority and arrest an innocent person. I am not going to get into the whole thing about allowing 100 guilty men to go free so that one innocent man is not imprisoned, but watching this tape enrages me just as much as the acts of these two idiots in Connecticut.

Thank goodness, a thoughtful fan from San Diego used his camera to record what can only be described as a totalitarian behavior from San Diego's men in blue.

These cops shamed their city, their taxpayers and their badges/uniforms. If I were Mayor of NY I'd be calling for an investigation, and if I were Mayor of San Diego there would be one ongoing right now. A bunch of cops would be on desk duty and a few would be looking at demotions and other discipline! Here is the story in the NY POST

We Are Not The Land Of The Free Until We Stop The Nanny State Bull Hockey

I don't have the time for a long post today. I love America. I believe in its promise. I get frustrated however when I see that we refuse to trust our people with their own money and their own bodies. There are natural consequences from every act, but legal consequences must not be based on someone Else's subjective test of right and wrong.

My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.

Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.


Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.

Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Permit You To Break The Law

Ian Barry is a Seventeen year old who knowingly broke the law to make a point. Ian gave a speech as to why Marijuana ought to be legal to a High School class. During the speech, he lit a joint and by the end of the speech, ingested the joint. Police arrested him. He has been charged locally. He says in this article that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that he is ready to pay a penalty for his actions.

Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.

His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.

It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.

I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.

Judge to School District: "PISS OFF!!" & Let the Kids Play Chess!!

Sometimes I love writing the title of these pieces can you tell? :P

When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)

The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)

Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!

I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."

Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.

I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.

I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?

Thanks, TLD.

Hattip: Raw Story