Tag: Politics

Announcing the Next President of Russia

Not surprising anybody, former Russian president and current prime minister Vladimir Putin has announced that he’ll be running for a chance to be the next president of Russia:

Addressing the ruling United Russia party’s annual congress, Mr Putin and current President Dmitry Medvedev backed one another to switch roles.

The announcements end speculation over which man should run for the top job.

I will give the Russian government credit on one thing, they don’t even try to hide the rampent corruption flowing within its veins. While our government in the United States spends a lot of time trying to appear magnanimous and promote the myth that anybody can achieve a position within the government palaces of power, the Russian government all but outright states there is a de facto monarchy.

More Blatant Ignoring of Ron Paul

Whether you love or hate Ron Paul you have to admit that the media has been doing everything they can to screw the man over. For example take the title of this article:

Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth

So Romney got first, Huntsman third, and Perry fourth… isn’t there a number missing? Who in the hell got second place? Oh yeah, it was Ron Paul which is mentioned only in passing:

The Suffolk University/7News poll found Romney leading with 41 percent of the vote from independents and Republicans. His closest competition is Ron Paul, with 14 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman with an uncharacteristically high 10 percent. Perry, who has topped most national polls since announcing his candidacy, does not even break double digits, getting just 8 percent of the primary vote.

The good doctor is never mentioned again in the article. My friend Jeff summed up Ron Paul perfectly, he’s the 13th floor of the Republican race. The media knows he’s there but they simply ignore his existence and are willing to go so far as to ignore the number two in order to maintain their attempted ignorance.

A Slight Victory Against the PATRIOT Act

United States District Judge Ann Aiken has proven herself to have some competence and has ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is an amendment to the PATRIOT Act, is unconstitutional:

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

This is only a minor victor since, I believe, there are still several levels of appeals courts the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) can take to overrule this decision if they so choose. I would be utterly shocked if the FBI didn’t attempt to fight this decision as they seem to find constitutional restrictions an inconvenience to their mission of arresting anybody and everybody to get their numbers up and make themselves sound impressive.

This court case also exemplifies the need for protections against illegal search and seizures. The target of the FBI’s wrath this time was an innocent man who should have never been accused in the first place as the FBI’s evidence was flimsy at best:

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

How magnanimous of the government to allow Mr. Mayfield the right to challenge the PATRIOT Act. It’s a good thing this ability to challenge was allowed because, as pointed out by judge Aiken, dismissal of this case would have been akin to a constitutional convention:

“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield’s lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general’s office was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so.”

What many people fail to realize is the fact that our courts can act as de facto constitutional conventions by interpreting the bylaws expressed in the Constitution. For example if the Supreme Court had ruled that the second amendment only applied to the federal government they would have basically stripped the right to keep and bear arms from the people as the states would be allowed to make any laws they pleased in regards to firearms. Had judge Aikens ruled that FISA was within the scope of the fourth amendment then the FBI would be allowed to continue secret searches of homes with flimsy evidence (which they may still be able to do if they appeal this decision).

The power to write law is obviously open for abuse but the true power lies in the ability to interpret law.

Patents on Methods to Keep Your Money no Longer Being Accepted

Seldom can any good news be found in a bill with the word reform in the title but alas I’ve found some. Among clauses that will bail out fraudsters there is one decent point in the recent America Invents Act that disallow patents on methods to keep what is rightfully yours:

Under a provision in the far-reaching patent reform bill, it’s no longer possible to get a patent on a strategy for reducing, avoiding or postponing taxes. (See Section 14 of the law, which downloads here as a pdf.) By the time the bill, known as the America Invents Act, was signed into law, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had issued more than 161 tax patents, and another 167 tax patent applications were pending.

The patent system in this country is completely broken and the American Invents Act does nothing to fix the real problems but it’s nice to see a company can no longer sue you for violating a patent on using the complex tax code to your advantage. I know the reason this was slipped into the bill is because the government wants to discourage the practice of using the tax code to your advantage but this may backfire on them. Now when a clever accountant finds a point in the tax code overlooked by the revenuers he can’t file a patent and claim exclusive rights over the practice. This is good news as it may allow more people and companies to avoid a little bit of the theft perpetrated by the government.

We’re For State’s Rights, You Know, Except When We’re Not

It’s funny to watch the inconsistencies of the modern statist movement. On one hand they constantly cite the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution to justify using the federal government to force their agenda onto the individual states and people of the Union. When the coin turns however and the federal government’s force appears to be directed at upholding an amendment in the Constitution to protect the rights of the people the statists all of the sudden become in favor of states’ rights. I’m sorry to inform you statist bastards that you can’t have it both ways, you must be consistent with your message or it becomes meaningless.

Case in point the legislation presently on the table that would make carry permits in one state good in every state that recognizes some form of firearms carry. This case is one of those where the statist believe the individual states should maintain their rights:

Some bad ideas refuse to die. Include in that category an extreme proposal percolating in the House to strip states of their authority to decide who may carry a concealed loaded firearm. This gift to the gun lobby, the subject of a hearing last week by a House Judiciary subcommittee, is nearly identical to a provision the Senate defeated by a narrow margin two years ago.

Every state but Illinois makes some allowance for concealed weapons. The eligibility rules vary widely and each state decides whether to honor another state’s permits.

In other words the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution grant the federal government complete power over the individual states… except when they don’t. The Constitution of the United States of America has a pesky little amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that right has been incorporated through a Supreme Court case. Incorporation of a right is a fancy way of saying an amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the federal and state governments.

Even though a Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court case state that the people have a right to keep and bear arms the statists suddenly oppose using the Constitution to force federal government will onto the individual states. You can’t have it both ways; either the Constitution is a document that is supposed to grant federal power over the individual states or the Constitution is supposed to protect states from federal power. Pick one message and stick with it instead of changing that message whenever it becomes inconvenient to your overall agenda.

Everything Will Be a Felony

One of the arguments I make against prohibiting anybody with a felony from owning firearms is the fact that most felony crimes aren’t violent in nature. While an argument can be made to prohibit a murderer from owing a firearm as they have a history of violence there is no logical argument for preventing people charged with tax evasion from owning firearms. On top of that more crimes are being pushed up to felony level every day including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

In order to step up the prosecution of hackers and scary cybercriminals, the feds are changing a law to make unauthorized access to a computer system a felony rather than just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. That means making a change to something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The article mentions an amendment being proposed to exempt violations of websites’ terms of services from the law but that’s not the point of this particular post. The point is that the government is constantly increasing the severity of crimes and those increases may leave you barred from exercising your rights even though you’ve never done anything violent.

I’m a firm believer in making criminals pay proportional compensation to their victims. This means that punishments should fit and once that punishment is exacted no further punishment should be brought against you. Those who steal from somebody should be made to return the stolen property (or the property’s value if it’s no longer returnable) along with an amount equal to the value of the stolen property. Once that debt has been paid no further punishment should be brought against the criminal. There is nothing proportional about preventing somebody who evaded theft taxes or hacked a computer from owning firearms or voting.

A vast difference exists in violent and non-violent crimes. Many people who are willing to perform non-violent crimes such as speeding or fraud are not willing to perform violent crimes such as assault or murder. The idea that we should prohibit all felons from ever again owning firearms needs to go the way of the dodo. Too many crimes are listed as felonies to make any logical argument that all felons should have their rights removed. Under the current system the government could ban firearms simply by elevating more minor crimes such as speeding and jaywalking to felony status.

We Should Really Get Obama a Crown

I’m a bit conflicted here because I realize getting Obama a crown could further perpetuate his delusions of grandeur I also believe it would better indicate to people his opinion about himself. It’s more apparent every day that Obama believe himself to be an emperor. He’s been making a lot of statements as of late about wanting to get around Congress including one expressing a desire to have a magic wand that would cast of spell of bypassing the legislature:

Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, “I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

Basically he’s saying, “Congress are mean and won’t do exactly as I say! If they won’t do what I say then I’ll just ignore them!” The idea behind having the legislature and executive branch being separate entities was to prevent assholes with desires to rule from being able to accomplish their goals. This separation of power hasn’t work that well in this country because the Congress is made up of spineless cowards who refuse to enforce it. The first time a president used an executive order to create law members of Congress should have started impeachment hearings. Instead they let it slide and continued to let violations of presidential power slide because it’s a convenient way for Congress to avoid having to take responsibility.

Now we have a president who brazenly states that he’s going to find any way to bypass the Congress he can. The presidency is now a de facto dictatorship and each president realizes this a bit more than his predecessor. Even Bush went to Congress for their rubber stamp approval before sending our military off to blow up brown people; meanwhile Obama couldn’t be bothered to do even that.

Florida Judge Overrules Prohibition Against Doctors Asking Patients About Guns

As far as gun bloggers are concerned I feel I’ve been in the minority on the issue of barring doctors from asking patients about guns. I’m never a fan of legislation that tramples one right in the futile attempt of protecting another. Well it seems a Florida judge agrees with my belief that the law preventing doctors from asking patients about guns was a bad piece of legislation:

In August, the Florida chapters of three professional physicians’ organizations, along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, sued on the grounds that the law — a “physician gag law,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called it — violated doctors’ freedom of speech. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami agreed and temporarily blocked the law. It seems likely that the decision will become permanent.

“Despite the State’s insistence that the right to ‘keep arms’ is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. “A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms.”

In my opinion all rights should be absolute because every infraction against a right sets up a precedence for the government to perform more infractions down the road. It’s a case of giving an inch to somebody and seeing them take a mile. Although I sympathize with the supporters of this law I can’t support it. There is the possibility of doctors using your medical records as an underhanded gun registration system but making it illegal for your doctor to ask about guns is a direct violation of their right to free speech.

Ultimately the market can be used to solve this problem. You’re under no obligation to answer any inquires from your doctor so the easier solution to this potential problem is to not answer any questions your doctor asks about firearms. If your doctor continues to insist that you tell him whether or not you own firearms you can go to a different doctor. This is a system known as voting with your wallet and it works quite well (unless the government forces you to pay money to somebody of course).

Although the pro-gun side says this law is necessary to prevent a secret gun registry from being established and anti-gunners claim this law is dangerous because it bars doctors from asking about an actual medical issue I don’t see either argument as the core issue. The core issue here is that this law violates the freedom of speech to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The right being violated in this case is the one that allows us to have open discussion on issues such as the rights of gun owners. I’m not willing to sell one right down the river to protect another and thus am happy to see this ruling.

Presidential Newspeak

It’s good to see Obama’s campaign going all Orwellian before things have even started to really heat up. The Obama campaign as started AttackWatch to suppress any criticism of the president:

Join Attack Wire—and help stop the attacks on the President before they start.

When another unfounded attack surfaces, we’ll arm you with the truth so you can share the facts with your friends and family.

Are those mean grumpy old Republicans saying nasty things about your precious Obama? Never fear! Attack Wire will send you reassuring e-mails filled with doublespeak the facts that will explain how Obama was actually in the right. Instead of having to critically think and come to your own conclusions you’ll be able to mindlessly parrot sound bytes sent to you by Obama’s campaign.

This should make it much easier for those supporting another four years of hope and change without actually having any evidence demonstrating Obama ever brought hope or change to the country during his presidency.

On a side note if you’re looking for some comedy gold I suggest you go to Twitter and do a search on #attackwatch. Thanks to that hash tag I’m learning that there are some extremely funny people on the Internet. I’m also learning that this AttackWatch idea may not have been the most well thought out plan.

Chicago Still Making the Possible Impossible

Although the McDonald vs. Chicago court case forced the city of Chicago to repeal it’s complete handgun prohibition the officials are fighting the decision tooth and nail. First the city said citizens can jump through innumerable hoops to get a permit but one of the requirements would be to receive training. Of course in-city ranges were prohibited so one couldn’t actually get the required training which created a de facto ban. The ban on ranges within the city was struck down so now the officials are looking for a new way to uphold the handgun prohibition and their new scheme is yet another catch 22 situation:

It would require gun range owners keep records of everyone who used their facilities after ensuring each patron had a state firearm owner’s identification card and city firearm permit.

Aldermen are retooling the gun-control ordinance they approved a year ago under Mayor Richard Daley. The measure outlawed shooting ranges within city limits, even as it required firearm training for people before they could get a gun permit.

In order to get a permit you must take a class at a range but in order to take a class at a range you must have a permit. So the question must be asked, what will be the next scheme when this one inevitably fails in court? Perhaps they’ll require a written test but prohibit any pointy objects such as pens or pencils inside the testing center.

A tip of the old hat goes to Days of our Trailers for this story.