Rand Paul:”If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.”
The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.
The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.
Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:
Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.
It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.
You should go and read the whole article.
Now I’m in no way suggesting disarming the police. However, as with so many things, this is about mindset. When I took Police Science courses (1973-75), it was about apprehending lawbreakers and protecting the rights and persons of all involved – suspects, subjects, witnesses and police. For some reason, we seem to have lost that. And the term Peace Officer is no longer in use. The doctrine of posse comitatus is no longer in effect. We are no longer worried about the military being used as civilian police. The police have become the military.
h/t Brock Townsend
(in part from PawPaw’s House)
It seems that a bunch of golfers were frisked when Obama showed up at a club to play a round of golf.
Regulars at the Vineyard Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard were gobsmacked when President Obama unexpectedly strolled onto a nearby green and they were immediately frisked. “There was no warning he was coming,” sniffed a guest.
If the President showed up at my club and the members were frisked, I’d be pissed, but I don’t know all the niceties of presidential visits. So, I waited for Instapundit to weigh in. We realize, of course, that Insty is a professor of law in Knoxville.
How come nobody ever tells them to buzz off, and that if the President wants to play golf he can damn well respect the rights of others? The response to the ominous “So, you’re not cooperating?” should be “No, are you assaulting me?”
If the President wants to go out in public, fine. If he can’t do it without assaulting the rights of citizens, then he should stay home. But hey, most of these folks probably voted for him. So: Enjoy!
Citizens of a republic shouldn’t be subjected to frisking or wanding just because the boss shows up.
There was a time when most folks had access to firearms, and one could walk into the White House unimpeded. And nothing happened. Now, not only is visitation severely controlled and restricted, but encountering the Chief Executive on the golf course means impromptu cessation of civil rights.
What if he went jogging? Have an advance team feeling-up all the folks in advance of his running by? (And yes, I know Clinton went jogging – and even he didn’t molest the spectators!)
Just let me know if The President will be in my vicinity. I would leave, anyway, even if I weren’t legally armed.
…tell us what you REALLY think!
(from Cold Fury, in part)
Moreover, as Madison and Hamilton took for granted in The Federalist Papers, which they wrote (with five by John Jay) to urge ratification of the Constitution, taxes would chiefly take the form of import duties or excises on such commodities as whiskey—and these taxes, Hamilton asserted, were naturally self-limiting because if they grew excessive, people would stop buying the overtaxed article, and overall tax revenues would fall. In the unlikely event of an imposition of any direct tax on everybody, or on citizens’ land or wealth, as opposed to these indirect levies, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution required that it be levied equally or proportionally, though scholars debate the meaning of that clause. But one thing the Framers never dreamed of was a tax on incomes. And for generations, they were right.
But in 1913, after 20 years of Progressive-era agitation, the Sixteenth Amendment, passed by Congress in 1909, won ratification. It imposed a graduated income tax—a direct tax that did not fall proportionally on all. Indirect taxes such as import duties and excise taxes, the argument went, fell disproportionately on the poor and provided too unpredictable a revenue stream to a federal government that Americans increasingly thought needed strengthening. Though the income-tax rates were but 1 percent for incomes up to $483,826, rising to a modest 7 percent on incomes over $11.6 million, the now-constitutional machinery for the tyranny of the majority that Madison had feared was fired up and ready to confiscate wealth as surely as the Stamp Act confiscated property. And since in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment—instituting direct popular election of senators—also won ratification, the upper house no longer served, even theoretically, as a brake on the passions of the people.
Today, Madison’s nightmare has become America’s everyday reality.
And, remember folks, 1913 was 101 years ago.
What has happened governmentally in the past 100+ years that has been detrimental to this Constitutional Republic?
I’m thinking A LOT!
Go to the link to see the whole thing.
Protesters in Texas thought that showing up topless to an Open Carry rally to protest the protestors was a good idea.Carrying signs that said, “Boobs are for Babies” they had no idea how big a favor they were doing for the Open Carry folks.These protests for open carry are to draw attention to the issue. Who knew that 4 nipples would bring so much attention.–Too bad the breasts were not nicer looking. (The Miller)
…or Queen. King?
( with apologies to R. Kipling)
“It is so special to me personally and I think that it is very special between our two countries. There is just not just a common language, there is a common set of values that we can fall back on. It doesn’t matter in our country whether it is a Republican or Democrat, or frankly in your country whether it is a ‘Conservative’ and ‘Tory.’ There is a level of trust and understanding. That doesn’t mean that we always agree because of course we don’t.”
SERIOUSLY? A woman whose only claim to fame was to be a dishonored Watergate prosecution attorney, married to a serial rapist, who was from Arkansas, then magically became a United States Senator from New York, then the perennial presidential candidate became the Secretary of State. And doesn’t know this?
And I’m not even mentioning Whitewater or Benghazi…
Vote for HER for president? Not on your life!
(from Brock Townsend)
College Board AP U.S. History: Deletes Pilgrims, John Winthrop, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexis de Tocqueville
High-school history teachers nationwide will give their top students a dark retelling of U.S. history this fall, courtesy of the College Board, a nonprofit college readiness firm led by Common Core architect David Coleman.
The College Board – which administers AP (advanced placement) courses and tests – is rolling out a revised curriculum framework for AP U.S. history, offering the 450,000 students who take AP U.S. history classes a hero-free account of America’s deeply stained past.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, calls the new AP U.S. history framework “a briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past,” one which “weaves together a vaguely Marxist or at least materialist reading of the key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances.”
Conservative author Stanley Kurtz asserts the College Board is “pushing U.S. history as far to the left as it can get away with at the high-school level.”
The new 124-page history curriculum is a dramatic departure from the five-page outline previously supplied by the College Board to guide AP U.S. history instructors. A much more detailed “history from below,” it focuses on how native Indians and Africans suffered at the hands of Europeans in the New World.More @ WND
The “Gestapo” or the “Stasi” never had anything THIS good.
I wonder if peeing on them works to stop them? Oh, wait – that’s for jellyfish stings!
h/t Theo Spark
“It depends on what the meaning of IS is”
We all remember THAT, right?
(from Brock Townsend)
The religious and political Left loves to play word games and if you understand where the Left is coming from you will realize that they use language as a weapon of war and that the words they spout at us don’t mean what we think they mean. That is part of their offensive against us.
Have any of you noticed with the big fuss over illegal aliens coming into this country by the millions how the terminology has changed. Awhile back the illegal aliens were called just what they were.
Then that was shortened to just “illegals.” A short time after that they became “undocumented workers” and they are now being relabeled as “refugees.” There is a pattern to all this, an evolution of the Leftist agenda, if you will.
Most Americans, except for the fuzzy-headed liberal elite, are not really happy with the influx of illegal aliens into this country. They are just old-fashioned enough to have the idea that people ought to come here legally or stay at home. There are some exceptions, but, in the main, this is where Americans have been at. The idea of handing out freebies and all manner of goodies to someone just because he managed to get into your country illegally doesn’t really appeal to most Americans. The feds soak us enough now without them adding anymore freeloaders to the dole for us to pay for.
At this point, I’d like to differentiate. The Mexican illegals that came here during the 1940s and 50s were a whole different breed than what we have to deal with today. Admittedly they came in illegally, but they were looking for a decent life, which they couldn’t get in Mexico, and they were willing to work and work hard to get it. When they got here and found work, in the main, they taught their kids to be thankful for America and they raised their kids to be good citizens. That’s not what we are dealing with today.
Thanks, Rev. Paul, for the reminder!
Reportedly, Senate Democrats are pushing more gun control, TODAY!
CALL CAPITOL HILL TODAY!
|h/t Rev. Paul, GOA|
In a shame that rivals her Mayor being arrested and convicted for drug use, the District of Columbia is FINALLY forced by judicial edict to comply with the Constitution’s Second Amendment!
I’m reminded of a former friend and lawyer who carried concealed in D.C. in the 80’s, when doing so was a major felony. On one occasion he was forced to clear leather against
an armed assailant a misguided youth who confronted he and some female company near the Jefferson Memorial. The youth dropped his piece of rebar and fled the scene.
I asked Lew what if he had been forced to shoot the
bastard misguided youth, knowing the legal ramifications of having to do so. His reply? He would have taken the first available taxi to the Potomac, thrown the offending gun therein, and fled town!
This was a man not only known in D.C., but he had actually practiced before the Supreme Court. But he knew the then ‘law’ well enough to know he had no Constitutional protection of his right to possess and carry in that locale, much less shoot someone in self-defense.
At least, if he were alive today, he’d now have that carry right.
IF he were a legal resident…