- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 1, 2008
I never thought George W. Bush was a fascist. Apparently I was wrong:
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
What does this remind me of? Hm… sounds familiar but I just can’t place it.
Oh yeah, that’s right.
There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
You think?!?! The Posse Comitatus Act is short and to the point:
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
A posse comitatus means as a domestic or local law enforcement body. It literally means “the power of the county” and the act is intended to keep the federal government out of states’ rights. It was enacted after President Grant used troops as poll monitors during Reconstruction.
Unfortunately, many choose to believe that because of other laws passed, that it doesn’t really apply anymore:
But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.
This, my friends, is the definition of “slippery slope”.
Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 1, 2008
I’m a constructionist regarding the Constitution. I believe that words mean things and that there is no esoteric meaning behind the those words in particular. Having said that, I’m getting weary of the constitutional nitpicking regarding Obama’s impending nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State:
Hillary's nomination will be made in the face of the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
That's quite clear. A Senator, such as Hillary, is prohibited from serving in any federal office "created" or the "emoluments whereof" were increased during the Senator's term.
The problem with that interpretation is that it’s not accurate:
The salary of the Secretary of State was increased in January 2008 by an executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute. Because the increase occurred during the time Hillary was a Senator she can not be the Secretary of state.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t in the Senate in the 90’s. It doesn’t matter that Bush issued the order in 2008. Part of the role of the executive branch is to implement the statutes that have been passed by Congress (and usually signed by the President).
Let’s look at the ramifications of such an interpretation. Any outgoing or lame duck president could prevent his successor from appointing any member of Congress to his cabinet by issuing an executive order. It could also prevent any person in congress from being an ambassador, a federal judge or justice. All of this could be done completely out of spite.
Yes, I’m a constructionist. But the critics are overlooking what I feel is the plain and obvious purpose of the clause out of sour grapes. Its purpose is to prevent Congressmen from creating jobs for themselves or lining its own pockets by giving raises for jobs that they will have. The problem is that it was the President that gave this raise based on a statute passed before Clinton was even in congress!
What’s most irritating is sanctimonious attitude of bloggers who refuse to believe that there could actually be a different, but still legitimate, interpretation of the clause:
It is sad to see President-elect Obama, a former lecturer on Constitutional Law, show such a lack of respect for the Constitution.
And I thought I was smug and arrogant!
As an aside, I think that clause in the constitution needs to be repealed by amendment anyway. While I don’t believe that it prevents Clinton from being SecState (as it didn’t prevent Bentsen in 1992 and countless ambassadors), It legitimately does prevent any congressman in office in 2003 from being named Secretary of Homeland Security. That’s unfortunate, because there are indeed some congressmen who would be very good in that position, such as Joe Lieberman or even John McCain.
RedState: Obama to nominate Hillary as Secretary of State Monday despite Constitutional prohibition
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 21, 2008
Courtesy of the Al-Jazeera Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
First:
and then they revised the headline (or more specifically the <title> tag of the post):
But “journalists” will tell you that they only report facts, right? You bet!
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 7, 2008
Proposition 8 in California, a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, passed in California. The überleft is screaming about intolerant conservatives and white people wanting to deny “rights” to gay marriage. But who really passed prop 8?
Exit poll data showed seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed the ballot initiative, while whites and Asians were split.
Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.
In other words, if Obama hadn’t driven up the turnout of those two crucial groups, gay marriage would still be legal in California. As Bart Simpson once said, “The ironing is delicious.” It should be noted that whites were roughly split evenly.
So to all of you liberal gay men in California, I’m sure there are many of you who fantasized about getting screwed by Barack Obama during the election. You got your wish. :)
HT: MM
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
Barack Obama is a big believer in judicial activism. If you’re not familiar with the term, it essentially means that if a court disagrees with what is written in law, they issue an opinion declaring whatever they disagree with to either be unconstitutional or to extrapolate a new right or entitlement that was never in the Constitution to begin with, such as:
- Abortion
- Privacy
- Freedom from religion
- Freedom from discrimination
- Expression
- Fairness
I’m not saying that privacy isn’t important and nobody should suffer through discrimination, but they aren’t in the Constitution. If people want something to be “constitutional” then it needs to be put there. There are ways to do that.
Obama not only supports judicial activism, he laments that it doesn’t exist more.
Obama supports the following new “rights” to be put into the constitution in order to make it more “flexible”:
- Food
- Shelter
- Free education through college
- Free healthcare
- Environmental rights
and the list goes on. You may want some or all of these things, but they aren’t in the constitution. That’s what congress is for, not judges.
Next up: Health Care
- Posted by Christopher Estep on October 29, 2008
My local county board has had its rights affirmed by an appeals court who said that prayer before meetings is fine.
ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld a suburban Atlanta county's practice of allowing clergy to open meetings with Christian prayers.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling on Tuesday allows Cobb County officials to open meetings of its Board of Commissioners and planning commission with invocational prayers from invited clergy.
Cobb County officials said clergy from all faiths are allowed to deliver the prayers, but lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union contended the invocations are "overtly Christian prayers" that send a message that the religion is sponsored by the county.
Read the last paragraph carefully. Notice that the issue isn’t prayer. It’s “Christian prayers”. If they had an Imam there doing the prayers (but not a Rabbi) or a neo-pagan, there would be no problem. The issue is Christianity again.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on September 18, 2008
Over the past couple of years, a few people close to me have been struggling with the notion that another close person has been running an escort service. A myriad of excuses are given, such as "I'm just setting up dates" and "We only put people together, what they do is their business". Of course, the fact that it's prostitution (from the girl's position) and pimping (from by the so-called service) is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge.
So, is it just a dating service? Is it something that only the girl and her "date" set up? Or is it prostitution, plain and simple? A young woman from Tennessee recently had it reinforced what it's all about:
Brittney Mayhew came to Atlanta hoping to make some big money as a female escort.
The 18-year-old from the Nashville area arrived by bus last week, hoping to make $5,000 a week for rendezvous with “lonely men,” she said.
Wow, $5,000 a week just for going on dates? Could she really be that lucky? Are people really willing to spend major amounts of cash just to spend some innocent time with a young woman because they're lonely? I'm sorry, I didn't say that right. I mean "lonely".
Though a Web site, she met a woman who promised Mayhew wads of cash for going out on dates with men.
Wow, money for going on dates. Isn't that fabulous? And to think, people actually pay services like lavalife and match.com to find people for dates. Who knew that you should be getting paid for the dates, not paying someone else?
Mayhew arrived in Atlanta on Sept. 8. Over the next three days, she met with three men — one of those meetings included sexual interaction, she said — before deciding that she wanted to leave.
The news didn’t sit well with her handler, who wanted her to make more money, she said. In a fit of anger, the woman tossed Mayhew’s phone off the 20th-floor balcony of the Hyatt [on Peachtree St. in downtown Atlanta]. It landed in the hotel pool, she said.
Mayhew left the room to call the police, and when she returned, the woman was gone. So were Mayhew’s bags and $700 that she had earned from her escort work.
Her handler? She's a pimp! What do they call dope dealers, undocumented pharmacists?
Let's call things what they are. Mayhew was a prostitute. She got paid for sex. The unnamed woman is a pimp. She arranges for people to get together, knowing the intent is to have sex. And yet, everyone pretends that it's not what it is.
These flesh peddlers entice young woman (and some not so young) with promises of fast and easy cash. And through it all, these (literal) whore-mongers skate by undeterred by claiming the transactions are "dates" and the whores are "models" and that all they are doing is arranging contacts with these so-called models. And yet they claim on their own advertisements and websites that they offer a "real GFE" or "girl friend experience" which is common slang for sex with pretended affection.
We have laws that cover these crimes, yet they go largely unenforced. GA Code § 16-6-11 says that pimping includes whenever someone:
Directs or transports another person to a place when he or she knows or should know that the direction or transportation is for the purpose of prostitution;
Receives money or other thing of value from a prostitute, without lawful consideration, knowing it was earned in whole or in part from prostitution
Aids or abets, counsels, or commands another in the commission of prostitution or aids or assists in prostitution where the proceeds or profits derived therefrom are to be divided on a pro rata basis.
Also, § 16-6-12. Pandering
A person commits the offense of pandering when he or she solicits a person to perform an act of prostitution in his or her own behalf or in behalf of a third person or when he or she knowingly assembles persons at a fixed place for the purpose of being solicited by others to perform an act of prostitution.
Each offense is punishable (as a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature) by up to $5,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. That's for each offense. Further, the pimp's name is to be published in the newspaper exposing him or her to the world. If any of these crimes happened within 1000 feet of a church, school, daycare, or youth recreational center, tack on a mandatory $2,500.
But that's not all. These crimes are not committed in a vacuum.
Are the cell phones they use in the person's actual name or an alias? That's wire fraud.
Are they using a credit card with a false name? Most likely, there's identity fraud taking place.
What about the money? Do you really think that taxes are being paid? That's income tax fraud on the federal and state level.
And since the money is going unreported, is the pimp receiving medicaid? Welfare? Unemployment? WIC?
If the mail is used even for invoices for credit cards or other transactions, that's mail fraud and using the internet also brings in various federal crimes.
I've been threatened in the past for even broaching this topic, which is why I (legally) carry a firearm whenever possible. So tell me, if it's just an innocent dating service, why would I be threatened with bodily harm?
A few pertinent questions. If it's just a dating service:
- who pays $700 just for a "date"?
- why do the girls get arrested and why do you send someone to bail them out?
- why not use your real name?
- why threaten someone for mentioning it?
- why do you get a commission for every "date"?
We can close our eyes and pretend it's something other than it is, but the fact remains that these scumbags are defrauding society through tax evasion while selling the bodies of young women like common whores.
These people need to be stopped.
- Posted by Christopher on August 19, 2008
After a 30 year wait, Dick Heller, the man whose lawsuit led to the SCOTUS affirmation of the second amendment has finally gotten his permit:
The man whose lawsuit overturned Washington’s handgun ban has successfully registered his revolver, ending a more than 30-year wait to keep the weapon in his home.
Dick Heller walked out of D.C. police headquarters Monday, clutching a yellow firearms registration certificate stamped “approved.” He gave the thumbs-up sign, grinned and said, “Victory!”
Heller was among the first people to seek a gun permit under new rules adopted after the Supreme Court struck down the city’s 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Heller was the plaintiff in that case.
Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin
- Posted by Christopher on August 14, 2008
It's a good thing that Mary was pro-life, huh? But if you believe Marc Hill, a professor of Urban Studies at Temple University (can't you taste the Irony? I'd say it tastes like chicken, but someone would call that a racial slur since Dr. Hill is probably black, but I digress...), Jesus Himself would not only support Obama, he would be more even radical in his abortion views:
O'REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion - does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology - as he [Obama] is?
HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.
O'REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, "Partial-birth abortion: No problem"?
HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are --
O'REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?
HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues.
Oooookay. Well, then.
You'll notice that they aren't talking about Choice here, but about abortion. There's a difference. I was made a strong case (in my opinion) that Joseph Smith (the Mormon Prophet) actually could have been pro-choice on the grounds that he taught, "we teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" and that without the option to choose evil, they dont' actually choose good. If you understood Mormon/LDS theology, you'd know that "agency" or the freedom to choose right over wrong is central to our faith. That is, if you offer a man nothing but health food then you can't say that he chose to eat well because he had no choice. But that is the issue of choice. My point was that he may well have been more Libertarian.
But Obama and Hill aren't talking about choice here. They are talking about specific actions not being wrong. Can you see the difference? I believe that conspicuous consumption and opulence is morally wrong, is bad for society and is in itself an evil practice. But I don't believe (like liberals) that the government has any right to take that choice away from me. But by the same token, I don't think that the right to consume and financially succeed gives the wealthy or the capitalist the right to engage in economic slavery or discrimination based on anything that doesn't affect your ability to perform the job being offered. (Note my careful wording there. Sorry, feminazis and gay boys. You still shouldn't be able to force Hooters to hire ugly girls or men. Big breasts (not moobs) and a face that won't curdle milk are requirements for specific reasons. Those reasons may be sexist, disgusting and reprehensible, but you don't have to work there or eat there). The right of the wealthy ends when it infringes on the basic rights of someone else.
As I said, Obama and Hill aren't justifying it by saying they should be able to choose (evil). They are saying that it's a right of a woman, even if the "tissue-mass" is 90% delivered. Obama has argued in the IL senate that a doctor had no responsibility to treat an infant if it was born alive after an unsuccessful abortion. The doctor could literally throw the baby in a medical waste container without liability. His reasoning was that to permit this law would allow abortion to be restricted. As I said, it's not about choice, it's about permitting abortions.
Apparently, Hill thinks Jesus would be just fine with that. That's natural for Hill to assume that, because Obama can do no wrong. If Barry said it, Jesus would go along with it.
And Barack looked over the multitudes, the scribes and the publicans, the physicians and the scholars and said unto them, "Behold, render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's and render unto a woman that which she bears. Yea, though she has conceived, what hath she done, really? Can a woman create life unto herself? I say, nay, for God only creates life. But a woman she creates nothing save more of herself. Yea, though her conception has a beating heart, a working brain, and eyes that can see, it hath no soul and is not alive. Verily, I say unto you, it hath not life until it hath left the woman. Though her conception can breath and is but a moment from birth, it is still part of the woman. Behold, no man can serve two masters and no body can house two lives. Can a woman kill a part of herself? Nay.
Barack 2:18-21
Fortunately, no claim can go untested these days and Dave Pierre at NewsBusters literally destroys any notion that Jesus, being a Jew, would ever have supported abortion and offers a multitude of contemporary writings to back that up.
First-century Jews were unequivocally anti-abortion. (Note to Dr. Hill: Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.) For example:
-- The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50) says, "A woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures."
-- The Sibyline Oracles includes among the wicked those who "produce
abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away" as well as
sorcerers who dispense abortifacients.
There is more and well worth reading.
- Posted by Christopher on August 10, 2008
A few good links over on MM.
Makes you wonder what Edwards is going to do for a living now? Hopefully his wife will clean him out.
In case you are an inquiring mind wanting to know, Overlawyered has the lowdown on Fred Baron, the Edwards’ legal crony who paid for his lover Rielle Hunter’s relocation and housing expenses.
See here, here, and here.
Michelle Malkin » All about Silky’s trial lawyer/hush-money fixer