Yet reason to hate the state - Facebook friend turns into Big Brother

Facebook friend turns into Big Brother: "University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student Adam Bauer has nearly 400 friends on Facebook. He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said.

He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.

The police report said Bauer admitted drinking, which he denies. But he did plead no contest in municipal court Wednesday and will pay a $227 fine.

He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites."

Really? Sounds like the La Crosse Police could use a good round of furloughs and lay-offs.
(hat tip to LewRockwell.com)

Budget Crunch: Tennessee Could Free 4,000 Prisoners in Bid to Cut Costs | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)

Budget Crunch: Tennessee Could Free 4,000 Prisoners in Bid to Cut Costs | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet): "Faced with a demand from Gov. Phil Bredesen (R) that all state agencies slash their budgets by 9%, the Tennessee Department of Corrections has responded with a plan to free somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 prisoners before they have finished serving their sentences. Those eligible for release under the plan would be nonviolent offenders, including drug offenders."

I love a good Depression!!!!

In Memoriam of Peter McWilliams

In memory of a good man who was murdered by the Clinton regime's "Justice Department"
Another victim of Janet Reno.

Cost cutting suggestion to Maryland Governor O'Malley and his response

1. Sell the Governor's Mansion and live in your own house.
2. Give up your paycheck, go back to practicing law, and do governor work on evenings and weekends. You will do much less harm that way.

Bill Cooke

The Governor's response:

Response to your correspondence to Governor Martin O'Malley
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:23 PM

STATE OF MARYLAND

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Dear Mr. Cooke:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on Maryland's fiscal situation and our effort to change and reform our state government to move Maryland forward in these difficult times. We truly appreciate receiving input from citizens like you who offer a wide variety of perspectives on State government operations, services, and programs.

You suggested that staff at Government House be downsized, or eliminated. Government House has been the home of the Maryland Governors for 125 years, is alive with the heritage that has enriched Maryland and its people since the founding of the colony in 1634. Government House has been the official residence of the Governors of Maryland since 1870. Every year, Government House hosts Marylanders from all walks of life. In the course of a year, thousands of Marylanders visits the Governor's official home.

Government House is administered by the Government House Trust which was established in 1980. In 1995, the General Assembly passed legislation to expand and strengthen the role of the Trust in the care, preservation, and interpretation of the public rooms in the residence which has played such an important role in the history of Maryland.

Our State is committed to becoming more effective and more efficient, able to do more with less. As part of that commitment, the O'Malley-Brown Administration has reduced state spending by over $4.3 billion and has eliminated over 3,200 state positions. Our State's mission of offering quality public health, education and safety guides the process, but as you are well aware, we are facing a difficult economic period unlike any in recent years, which has forced the Administration to make some painful decisions.

In order to keep the Fiscal Year 2010 budget in balance, we have reduced spending by $736 million over the last two months. We have reduced or level-funded all but our most critical programs, furloughed State employees, and reduced aid to local governments. And, recently, on August 27th, 2009, we took more than $450 million dollars in budget reductions to the Board of Public Works, a necessary step in order to see our State through to the other side of the recession. The combined result of all of these budget actions is that for the first time in the State's history, General Fund spending is actually less than it was three years ago when our Administration took office.

The difficult decisions our Administration has made has protected Maryland's long-term fiscal stability, evidenced by the fact that we are one of seven States to receive a AAA bond rating by the country's three premier rating agencies.

Again, thank you for your suggestion and your willingness to participate in this challenging process. You can be sure that my staff and I are working harder than ever to put the State of Maryland on the path to long term fiscal health despite our struggling national economy. Thanks to citizens like you we received many fresh, new ideas and will be looking closely at them as we move forward in our effort to resolve Maryland's current fiscal challenge and continue to provide high quality services and programs for the citizens of our State.

Sincerely,

Martin O'Malley

Governor

Taser gun used on 10-year-old girl who 'refused to take shower' - Telegraph

Taser gun used on 10-year-old girl who 'refused to take shower' - Telegraph

Another brave Public Serpent

Crime is crime is crime - Margaret Thatcher

Back in the 80s there were some criminals in prison in Northern Ireland who fancied themselves "prisoners of war" because they committed their crimes for a political reason. However, the British government refused to treat them as POWs because that would have legitimized their criminal activity. A few of them went on a hunger strike. Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of the UK at the time and she resisted their demands to be treated as prisoners of war. She famously remarked "Crime is crime is crime" when questioned about these thugs.

I have been thinking about these remarks in light of the Obama regime's decision to try some alleged criminals in Federal Court for their roles in the World Trade Center murders. Apparently, some Republicans want to legitimize these alleged criminals by treating them as "Prisoners of War" (just like the common criminal Bobby Sands wanted). As much as I hate the Obama regime, it made the right call here. There is no reason to offer these alleged criminals special treatment.

I have heard the objection that because these trials will take place in a civilian court they will have a better chance of acquittal. I don't buy that. The conviction rate in Federal court is well over 90% and it has been reported that these accused criminals want to die for their alleged god. They might just stand up and confess in front of the jury.

I have heard the objection that these alleged criminals will just use their trials as a soapbox. There may be some of that, but I think that any Federal judge would keep them in check.

I have heard the objection that these trials will make New York City a target for terrorists. I'm pretty sure it is already a target.

I have heard the objection that the jurors might not impose the death penalty if they convict. Well, if the people of New York don't want them executed, then why should we object? And why should we so willingly go along with their plans for martyrdom? And if they aren't executed I think we can go on. Turkey suffered over 30,000 deaths from PKK terrorism. When the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan was captured he was initially sentenced to death. But his sentence was commuted to life in prison after Turkey abolished the death penalty. I'm sure that most Turks still wish that they had killed this bastard first, yet life continues.

I hear the objection that they shouldn't be given a trial in civilian courts because they are not U.S. citizens. I must have missed the part of the Constitution that only guarantees certain trial rights for American citizens. I represent people who aren't U.S. citizens from time to time and they are still entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

I hear the objection that these alleged criminals might "get off on a technicality" but even in a military tribunal, due process would still apply.

In my recent book, Justice at Salem , I compare the witch trials of 1692 with the "War on Terror" of today. I note that the colonists then faced a similar threat from Indians and witches (they assumed Indians and witches were on the same team). I wrote:

They faced devastating wars and brutal attacks by the Indians. But much like the people of early colonial New England we sometimes feel that we are under siege from a hostile enemy who doesn’t look like us and who has a faith that we know little about. The Indians had taken out whole New England villages and were a far more serious threat to the colonists than the Islamic terrorists are today. However, if the Islamic terrorists were to gain access to weapons of mass destruction then they could be a bigger threat to us than the Indians were to the colonists. Yet, we easily sit back and condemn the colonists for their public witch trials, but don’t speak up loudly enough about the secret terror trials that our government pushed for.401 We condemn the colonists for the occasional and not widespread use of moderate forms of torture, but are comfortable with our government engaging in torture and outsourcing more extreme torture to other countries.402 We condemn the colonial courts for using spectral evidence and for not following the traditional standards of evidence in most of the witchcraft cases, yet we are happy if our government uses inadmissible hearsay and secret evidence in terrorism cases.403 They knew all of the accused witches, many of who were miserable people to begin with, were guilty. We know that the accused terrorists are guilty.404 We condemn the colonials for bending some of the rules, while we sit back, fat and happy, and smile as the rule of law is destroyed to protect our so-called freedom.

I think we are fools if we think that we are better their our forefathers. We must be careful in how we deal with people who are accused of serious crimes. We should not be satisfied with secret tribunals or courts where the rules are bent to satisfy the wishes of the masses (which is what happened in Salem). We should demand that crime is punished, but just as strongly we should demand that our government follow its laws and see that all people before it are treated equally and fairly.

And yes that is me with Lady Thatcher. That picture was taken in St. Louis in the late 90s.

Legalise drugs and save Scotland £2bn a year, says think-tank - The Daily Record

Legalise drugs and save Scotland £2bn a year, says think-tank - The Daily Record

This think tank has some good ideas, but if you overregulate drugs, new black markets will sprout up.

United Smokers And Drinkers Against Tax Abuse

I just found this blog - United Smokers And Drinkers Against Tax Abuse - haven't read much of it yet, but it looks worth checking out.

Are smoking bans unconstitutional?

Lake County Leader News Page: "“This law violates the Constitution, which gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Gennison said. “My idea of happiness is smoking a cigarette while I drink my beer. Passing a law without a vote on it? I don’t like that.”"

I appreciate the fact that the guy is on my side, but let me clean up his argument a bit so it is correct and more helpful.

First, the guy is quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and that does not have the same force as law. Also, it isn't enough to say that because something makes you happy it must be legal. Some people are happy only when killing prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that that is protected either.

Second, the Federal constitution was designed to restrain the power of the Federal government, not the States. (I sometimes wonder how people in the Federal government sleep at night knowing that they violate their oaths by trampling on the Constitution every day - with the sole exception of Ron Paul. But I suspect that most of them are just too ignorant to realize that.)

Third, perhaps there could be a challenge under the 14th amendment which was designed to make sure that the States didn't violate fundamental rights. But the framers of the 14th amendment weren't concerned with protecting smokers. So there is no original intent argument. Smokers are not considered a protected class under the amendment and smoking is not generally considered to be a fundamental right (although property and free association rights are involved, so perhaps that argument could be made), so the courts would use the rational basis test to uphold the laws. A rational argument (although I disagree with it) could be made to ban smoking inside public establishments. Although, I think outside smoking bans could not pass any rational basis test, unless of course, they are also going to ban cars.

Forth, State constitutions may provide more protections.

Fifth and finally, I think it is a serious mistake to rely on courts to protect our rights. They have failed and continue to fail this country in safeguarding liberty. There is no reason to think that they are going to help us now. It is far better just to assert that we each have the fundamental right to be left alone and to enjoy our lives and that we will actively oppose anyone running for public office who opposes freedom. Perhaps liberty and reason will carry the day once people wake up and realize that using the law to control to criminalize victimless 'vices' is morally wrong.

Universal Soldier