Unreasonable Search and Seizure Okayed in California

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  So says the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Keep that in mind when reading this story from the San Francisco Chronicle.  The story arises at the confluence of modern technology and the Fourth Amendment.  It seems that every human being on the planet these days is carrying a cell phone.  Typically one that does much more than make and receive telephone calls.  Modern "smart" phones contain schedules, photos, video, financial documentation or access to such information, contact lists, call histories, text and data files, music, and much, much more.  So what happens to those cell phones when a police officer confiscates it upon request.  In California at least, the police can seize it and search its contents, without any limit.

That ability has passed constitutional muster at the California Supreme Court.  Dissenting Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar aptly declared that "the decision allows police 'to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person.'"

It is patently, unambiguously, and ridiculously unreasonable for police to search the entire contents of a person's cellular phone or computer without warrant upon an arrest for jaywalking - or anything else for that matter.

Look, I'm no ACLU liberal - and I doubt I've ever before been accused of that.  I don't believe that a drug dealer's Blackberry is sacrosanct.  However, I do believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If the police arrest a bad guy, and he's got a cell phone which likely has specific incriminating evidence on it, no problem.  Get a warrant!  Then have at it.  Without probable cause and a warrant, however, the police need to keep their nose out of folks "effects".

Thankfully, the California decision is not binding nationwide.  In fact, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision just over a year ago that reached the opposite conclusion.  The issue is now quite likely to wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Keep your fingers crossed that the men and women in black robes will do their job and defend the Constitution whenever that time comes.

Obama proposes price-fixing

Since the direct approach at a government takeover of the U.S. healthcare system appears to have failed (though I haven't popped a champagne cork yet), Barack Obama is proposing new regulations to prohibit private businesses from setting the price for their product.  According to this New York Times story, the president "will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies."

Obama is banking, of course, on the fact that the private businesses targeted - insurance companies - have been portrayed as big, bad, and evil throughout the media - the latest national boogieman - following the oil industry, the banking industry, the securities industry, the auto industry, heck - industry of any sort seems to be the enemy in Obama's eyes. 

The reality is that this is [or at least was] a market economy, with competition in the marketplace keeping costs in check.  But now, the government wants to take on that job.  If companies can no longer decide what to charge for their products, is this really a free country anymore?

Looking for a safe bet on your next trip to Vegas? Here's a sure thing . . .

Barack Obama won't carry Nevada in 2012.

Why not?

Exhibit A:  Last year, Obama said, "You cant take that trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on taxpayers' dime."  After those comments, Nevada tourism tanked.

Now, Exhibit B:  Today, Obama said, "When times are tough, you tighten your belts.  You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage.  You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."  (Link to story here.)

What happens when people don't go to Las Vegas and spend money?  The casinos lose revenue, yes.  But so do the hotels, tourist shops, and restaurants.  And the folks who work at casinos, hotels, tourist shops, and restaurants lose their jobs - and their ability to pay their mortgages or save for college tuition.

James Clyburn's words were right yesterday, but his meaning all wrong.  We do have to spend our way out of the recession.  But we is the American people and American business.  Not the American government.  Americans spending money, buying things from other people, churning dollars back and forth between one another, buying goods and services . . . economic activity, and a lot of it, is our only hope.

President Obama should get in the way of government spending and get out of the way of Americans and, yes, American corporations, spending their money in ways that they deem appropriate.

"Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity."

So says Anthony Kennedy for the 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark decision issued today striking down a major plank of the abominable 2002 campaign-finance law known as McCain-Feingold.  (Link to story here.)

I'm amazed that it took this long to strike down that monstrosity.  Though four liberals and questionable Kennedy explain a lot.

I'm also amazed that, with straight faces, can read the First Amendment (quoted here as a convenience for those who may never have - Stephen Breyer perhaps - "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech") and say that the Constitution allows Congress to make a law prohibiting television commercials advocating support of or opposition to a political candidate in an upcoming election.  Liberalism, again, explains a lot.

It is vital to your freedom and mine that the current balance of power on the Supreme Court remains until the next Republican president.  We should all be praying for the health of Chief Justice John Roberts,  and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.  And we should be praying that three years from yesterday, the remaining Justices all decide to take up golf and retire.

Next on the Global Warming Nuts' hit list . . .

Fido.

Pets are now being blamed for carbon emissions and global warming.  I'm not kidding.  Link to story here.

60 votes to push America nearer the edge of the cliff

So far, the U.S. Senate has passed nothing.  The Democrats and "Independents," however, have pushed the country to the brink of socialism with their unanimous vote to break the Republican filibuster on Harry Reid's version of Obamacare.  (Link here.)

Hope is fading.  Soon we'll have to work to restore our freedoms instead of save them.  And such work is far more difficult.

Serve the People . . . Oba-Mao

Souvenir t-shirts from Barack Obama's trip to China.  (Interesting story about the shirts here.) 

The Chinese entrepreneurs understand.  Do Americans yet?

Fight on Judge Dierker, Fight on!

Somebody needs to fight the good fight against the blatantly unconstitutional red light cameras that serve as intrusive cash cows for municipalities around the country.  That somebody is St. Louis City Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr.  

Today, as reported here by the St. Louis Beacon, Judge Dierker expectedly lost the first round of his fight.  Another circuit judge held that the red light cameras in the City of St. Louis were constitutional.  The case will go on.

But, I'm nearly certain, Dierker hoped to lose at the trial court level and hopes to be convicted of such a violation just to have the chance to move the issue up the appellate ladder.  And that's where the fun will be.

This judge is smart, curmudgeonly, precise, thorough, and maybe most importantly, self-assured.  Friends of freedom could not have a better advocate in this cause than Robert Dierker.

Keep up the fight Judge.  

Shocker: Obama wants tax on soda

In a complete surprise, Barack Obama is open to a new tax on consumption of soda and other sugary drinks. (Link to story here.)

Actually, of course, it is no surprise at all. None of us should be surprised that a liberal Democrat stands ready and willing to raise your taxes. The fact that doing so could take a swipe at your freedom to drink what you want to drink is an added bonus. Dealing a blow to American businesses, like Coca-Cola and Pepsico . . . well, that's icing on the cake.

Democrats like to yell and scream about keeping government "out of the bedroom." How about keeping it out of our refrigerators!

"Always love your country - but never trust your government!"

-Robert Novak

May he rest in peace.

Why the rush? Now you know.

On July 15, 2009, I asked why Barack Obama and his fellow liberals were trying to rush their plans for healthcare "reform" (a.k.a. socialized medicine) through before Congress took its August recess. Answering my own question, I wrote, "As with everything Obama, [Obamacare's] popularity is fading fast. And time allows folks to actually read the proposal and see the devil in the details. Typically, members of Congress head home during the recess. Away from Washington, they speak with and hear from real people, constituents, people who don't want the government to manage any more of our lives, including our healthcare system."

Turns out, I was right. (Be sure to keep that in mind when reading the rest of my posts.)

Today comes news that the Obama administration is ready to back away from the so-called "public option" of government run health insurance. (Link to story here.) And, without inclusion of a "public option" Democrats are signaling that this so-called reform effort may die on the vine.

So far, public opinion seems to be Orlando Pace in his prime and Obamacare a hyped and ballyhooed freshman defensive end.

Stand firm for Freedom America.

"Freedom of expression must be limited."

So says Venezuela's Attorney General as Hugo Chavez seeks to clamp down on dissenting media voices.  (Link to story here.)

Thank God and our founding fathers for the First Amendment.

And be ever vigilant.

Eat your vegetables and drink water or pay through the nose!

Signs of the ever increasing intrusion into the lives of common folks are everywhere these days.  What has me riled today is the new linkage between the liberal's concept of healthcare "reform" and the growing nanny state . . . 

In order to pay for the "holy grail" of government-run medicine, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a tax on "soda and other sugary drinks."  (Link to story here.)  So-called "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacco have been cash cows for our governments' (local, state, and federal) for years.  Politicians don't seem to care that the poorest citizens shoulder most of the burden of these taxes because, after all, the items taxed are "bad for you" so Big Brother is really acting in folks best interest by taking more of their money.  (?)

And here we go again.  In order to protect us all from obesity, the government is going to take more of our money . . . and use it to take over healthcare.

Think this doesn't concern you because you don't drink soda?  Guess what . . . it is not just soda that the liberals are after.  The "Urban Institute," whatever that might be, is calling for a tax on everything "fattening" as part of an "intervention" of "tough love."  (Link to story here.)

Liberals are going to go wild over this idea.  It would allow them to accomplish two of their goals . . . take more money to grow the government and socialize medicine.

But really, enough is enough.  Get off our backs already.  It is not the food's fault that it tastes good or that people eat it.  And it is not the government's responsibility to keep me - or anyone else - thin.

The "global warming" guise for "global governance"

I'm not a conspiracy theorist - far from it.  I'm a genuine skeptic.  I do not believe in an international cabal out to build a one-world government.

But I could be wrong . . .  Al Gore is on board.

Speaking at Oxford on July 7, global warming's chief nut happily reported that the cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives will increase awareness of the "crisis" and that awareness will "drive the change and one of the ways it will is through global governance and global agreements."  (Link to story, which has link to video, here.)

Global governance would be the death of freedom.  And, by definition, the death of American sovereignty.

And, just think, its advocate was only a few hanging chads away from becoming president.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em . . . before it's too late

I'm no fan of tobacco smoke.  Far from it.  I cannot figure out how or why anybody lights up that first one.  Have you no sense of smell?  Have you no desire to live a long life?  Without coughing up a lung?  Or two?

But I am a fan of freedom.  Cigarettes are, at least for now, legal.  Yet anti-smoking crusaders are out in force and attempting to ban Americans from conducting a legal activity on their own time and on their own property.

Two such stories are in the news today . . .

First, "experts" at the Pentagon are urging the U.S. Military to ban tobacco use by soldiers, sailors, and marines.  (Link to story here.)  No word on whether or not the ban would apply to the Commander-in-Chief.

Second, and closer to home, West County EMS and Fire Protection District (which serves Manchester and Town and Country) is banning smoking by its employees on district property and when in uniform (I have no quarrel with that) and "Anyone hired to the district after January 1 must refrain from smoking or chewing tobacco while on or off duty as a condition of employment."  (Link to story here.)

Listen, I understand the harmful effects of tobacco.  And I understand the effects of public smoking.  But these efforts to control employees' behavior off-duty is overstepping the bounds of an employer.

What is happening to Americans' freedom to be left alone?

Misplaced Outrage

On the way home from my real job today, I caught a part of Mark Reardon's show on KMOX.  He was talking about KMOV's airing of a video (see it here) showing a mother spanking her young son with a belt.  The incident was caught by a security camera on the parking lot at St. Louis Mills.

Some callers to Reardon felt that this was child abuse.  Others felt that it was normal discipline.  (Listen to them yourself at this link.)  Police are still investigating the incident for possible criminal charges, though the boy was not injured.

The language folks used in this debate is noteworthy.  Those who called it a "spanking" saw nothing wrong with the mother's actions.  Those who thought it was child abuse called it a "beating."  But, that is neither here nor there.

This is an important story but it isn't a story limited to a particular incident.  It is really about the role of government in the family unit masquerading as a debate over corporal punishment vs. child abuse.  

Do you agree with Hillary Clinton and believe that the village should raise the child?  Or should Mom and Dad?  

Should government ban spanking because some, maybe even a majority of people, think that it is bad?  Or do parents have the primary right to go with the responsibility of raising their own children?

I'm no fan of corporal punishment and think that, generally, it is a bad idea.  Other forms of discipline seem effective, more reasonable, and better for children.  But that's my own opinion.  Others believe that sparing the rod spoils the child.

It isn't my place to mandate that everyone else disciplines their children the way I think best.

And, it isn't the place of government either.  No matter what Hillary would say.  The decision is the parents' decision, and the parents' decision alone.

Note that I'm talking about discipline, spanking, corporal punishment, etc.  Abuse does exist and government has the right, even the duty, to protect its people, especially children too young to protect themselves from physical harm.

Too bad government doesn't take that role seriously and allow thousands of its youngest and most helpless citizens to be torn, limb from limb, killed, and thrown out as trash every day.  Where are the outraged talk show callers over that?

The latest "threat" to the planet? Lamb burps.

I'm not kidding.  The global warming nuts are at it again.  Advising Britons to stop eating lamb because the little sheep burp too much methane.  (Link to story here.)  We'd probably better stop wearing wool too.

This is ridiculous.  Lambs aren't destroying the planet . . . but "government advisers" like the U.K.'s Committee on Climate Change are trying to destroy human liberty.

Today, I'd be proud to be a Sooner

First Texas.  Now Oklahoma.  Let freedom ring.

Et tu, FBI?

Not only is the Department of Homeland Security warning that veterans must be watched, the FBI is watching them too.  (Link to story here.)  The Bureau's "Operation Vigilant Eagle" was coordinated with the Department of Defense and aimed to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist terrorism threat."

Welcome home vet's.  Thanks for your sacrifice.  We'll be watching.

Cue the music . . .

Political Profiling - Local and National

We live in weird and threatening times.  Americans elected a new president in November and Missourians elected a new governor.  Both Barack Obama and Jay Nixon are liberal Democrats and since they've taken their respective offices, two law enforcement bulletins have come to light.  Each suggesting that conservatives - because of their beliefs - are potential threats to law and order and eyes must be kept on them.

The first of these political profiles came from the Missouri Information Analysis Center and the Missouri Highway Patrol.  The "Strategic Report" on the "Modern Militia Movement" reads like a college term paper on the subject of domestic terrorism linked with "militia movements" from the 1980's (when "Tom Clancy novels, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and movies such as Rambo glorified combat") to the present.  The report goes on to describe the present state of America as a "lush environment for militia activity" and describes some "motivators" for that activity.  So far, who cares?  No big deal.

Unfortunately, the report didn't end there.  It went on to analyze the ideologies of militia members stating that they "often subscribe to the ideology of other right-wing extremist movements such as:  . . . Anti Abortionists" and folks described as "Anti- Immigration."  And, furthermore, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.  It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material.  These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate:  Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."  Even better, the historic Gadsden Flag, shown here, is described as the militia movement's "most common symbol."

The Missouri report has, thankfully, been pulled.  (Link to story here.)

But political profiling has gone national, thanks to Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security, which issued a threat assessment on "Rightwing Extremism."  What is "rightwing extremism," you ask?  According to our government, "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.  It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."  (Emphasis added.)  Missouri Right to Life anyone?  The report also seems to suggest that veterans are likely to become rightwing extremists and are a greater threat because of their military skills.

The DHS report is drawing heaps of criticism from several directions.  Even Democrats are "dumbfounded" by its issuance.  But Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano is standing by the report.  (Link to Washington Times story here.)

It is appalling and alarming that state or federal government officials would warning law enforcement to keep an eye individuals because of their political beliefs, especially when those beliefs are as mainstream as the Libertarian Party or Pro-Life causes.

Last time I checked, we still had a Constitution.  If Janet Napolitano doesn't realize that, it is time for her to find another job.