Archive for May, 2011
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right toÂ resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court saidÂ if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.
“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police stillÂ can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
Simply stated, the police may break down your door with weapons drawn, throw a flashbang into your bedroom, shoot your dog,Â and wrongly arrest your entire family.Â But it’s ok, because the court system will sort it out eventually.Â Are you fucking kidding me?Â Good luck, Hoosiers.
This ruling means if you hear someone bash down your door in the middle of the night and youÂ grab yourÂ gun to defend your home and family — you’re about to unwittingly commit suicide by SWAT team.Â They will identify you as a threat, murder you and anyone else whoÂ is “resisting”, and charge your corpseÂ with “resisting unlawful entry”…or whatever they feel like.Â I suppose there would be “opportunities to protest through the court system” in that case too — just pay off the murdered victim’s family and keep up the good work.
Don’t think it can happen?Â Google “police invade wrong home” and make yourself a sandwich, you’ll be busy for a while reading the 3,780,000 results.
We have to resist theÂ framework of the police state that is being built up around us.Â Our police are increasingly militarized to the point where evidently every home is just a potential bin Laden compound.Â America is already virtually unrecognizable — if anyone thinks the Department of Homeland Security isÂ on the decline, I’m sorry to say you have a very nasty surprise coming.
The airport fondlings, violent home invasions, “war on drugs”,Â police beatings and general trampling of the constitution are all here to stay until enoughÂ Americans push back.
It bears repeating:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The House of Representatives has approved a bill to reverse president Obama’s offshore drilling moratorium — hooray, we’re saved!
The ‘Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,’ requires the Interior Department to set a production goal of three million barrels of oil per day for its 2012-2017 leasing plan.
By central planners? Shit…nevermind.
Don’t worry, America — this search is perfectly warranted, not to mention constitutional.Â NSA picked up a lot of chatter from the little fella’s cellphone right after bin Laden was killed.Â And his diaper looked a little bulky.
Hey whatever it takes to keep us secure though, right?Â Whatever it takes.
REDMOND, WA – In its latest move to deploy surplus cash and to expand its reach and relevance, tech giant Microsoft has announced the acquisition of the domain name Awesome.com for $50 billion.
The transaction will consist of cash and the assumption of net debt– chiefly a $7.99 payable to GoDaddy for a month-to-month Economy hosting plan. Awesome.com is wholly owned by Skip Willoughby of Maryland Heights, Missouri and according to Microsoft, earns between $10 and $12 per month through “cash parking,” a GoDaddy service which populates a website with context-relevant advertisements.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer remarked,
Microsoft is often derided as a humongous, complacent andÂ incrementalistÂ corporation that churns out uninspired products and couldn’t increase our stock price to save our lives. Well, to our critics,Â I am pleased to announce– we are awesome. Dot com.
There is increasing evidence that consumers are spending more and more time on the Internet. We have been closely reviewing the rise of the Internet over the past 15 years or so and we feel that it is now time to make a bold move– indeed, an awesome move. Dot com.
Today the president said something to the effect of “we need to update our antiquated immigration laws”.Â First of all –Â are “antiquated” laws somehow inherently bad?Â “Thou shalt not kill” comes to mind.Â Â On the other hand, I actually agree withÂ the presidentÂ for once.
Why did we shut the door behind us after the massive influx of immigration from Europe in the 20th century?Â Every new wave of immigrants faced discrimination, poverty and even violence.Â Immigrants who were once considered filthy or sub-human, or at the very least were mistrusted for being foreign, are now part of both our historical and genetic heritage.Â So why, with the benefit of this historical perspective, do we seem to be saying “sorry Mexicans, we’re full up”?Â What would be wrong with the open immigration policies of the early 20th century?
The answer is government intervention.Â The government created the problem and now both the Reds and the Blues are determined to use it to divideÂ Americans and get our votes.Â It is an issue that never should have existed in the first place.Â Some of the common fears and arguments against immigration:
- They’re a drain on the economy!ï»¿
If the government hadn’t created welfare programs offering something for nothing any immigrant,Â and any personÂ for that matter, would have to be productive in order to survive.Â The minimum wage also has a negative effect on employment at the lowest end of the wage scale.Â If an unskilled laborer can only contribute $5/hr worth of labor and the mandated minimum wage is $7.50, he wont be able to find work.
- They’ll take all our resources!ï»¿
In an actual free market, someone can only take as much of a resource as he can afford to buy.Â For example, if an influx of immigration increased the population inÂ a city to an unsustainable level and water became too scarce, the price would rise and intuitively signalÂ to some that they need to move on toÂ somewhere elseÂ where the population is supported by the resources.Â Â Likely though that the government wouldÂ be unable to resist the temptation to declare water a “right”, institute price controls or subsidies,Â and thereby destroy the crucial signalling nature of prices in a free market.
- They’re flooding our country with criminals!ï»¿
True, since anyone who attempts to bypass our unnecessarily byzantine immigration laws by sneaking across the border is a criminal.Â But ifÂ IÂ lived in a place where 30,000 people had died in brutal drug gang wars, I wouldn’t hesitate to step across an imaginary line in the desert either.Â Speaking of the Mexican drug war, where exactly is it that these brutal criminals get their power?Â Should people who smoke a joint worry that they’re complicit in the murder of women and children, as this lovely government “public service announcement” suggests?Â Or is it perhaps government prohibition itself that is the problem, much like the prohibition that made Al Capone one of the most powerful men in America.
- They took our jobs!ï»¿
Could be.Â The labor market,Â and life itself, is competitive.Â More competition should ultimately serve as an impetus for self-improvement.Â Get a more exclusive skill set.
From an article on Reason.com:
â€œWe are spending today more in real inflation adjusted dollars on our military than we spent at any time during the cold war,â€ says Christopher Preble, the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, â€œYet in terms of Department of Defense spending, Pentagon spending, the cost of base budget, and the wars, very, very little of it has helped much in terms of counterterrorism. And itâ€™s probably been counterproductive in many cases.â€
Spending more money on counterterrorism than weÂ spent to defeat the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union?
Allegedy one of the reasons for our military spending during the Cold War was to spend the Soviets into collapse.Â It worked, although one could argue the rotted, self-destructive Soviet state was perfectly capable of bringing about its own demise.
The question is:Â whose empire are we collapsing now?
Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on “The Last Word” last night– and although he insisted on the last word (and first word and everything in between)– he deserves credit for his willingness to debate a political opponent. (The same cannot be said of his MSNBC colleagues Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz or the supercilious toad that was terminated in January.)
Nonetheless, O’Donnell quickly succumbed to the popular meme that the Bush administration knew, or should have known, that there were no WMDs in Iraq. He evenÂ insisted on taking Rice through the ridiculous exercise of making decisions retroactively with new information:
Oâ€™DONNELL: But we now know [Saddam Hussein] wasnâ€™t a threat.
Oâ€™DONNELL: — the threat of a mushroom cloud from Saddam Hussein you now knowÂ was completely false. Do you regret saying that? Would you take that back if youÂ could?
Oâ€™DONNELL: But all that was wrong. He couldnâ€™t have reconstituted anything in aÂ year. We know — why recite things that we know were wrong and have been provenÂ wrong?
Oâ€™DONNELL: When you look at what we now are calling the Arab spring and you lookÂ at these uprisings against the dictators in the region, would have been betterÂ now — knowing what we all know now, would it have been better to have waitedÂ and let history catch up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Do you think we might haveÂ a similar uprising in Iraq today?
I wonder if Lawrence O’Donnell would have gotten those botox shots if he had known– as he knows now, and we all know now– how ghoulishly waxen his forehead wouldÂ look.
Via Ace of Spades HQ.