The Stout Republican

Just wanted to get anyone else’s take on this prop. Makes no difference to me other than it was voted on previously and then some judges struck down the existing law, which had been voted on and prevented gay marriage, as being faulty. I have a problem with judges that do that unless the law is extremely faulty. In this case I suggest that they over reached their bounds. The people spoke for better or worse ulp NOT sort of thing. Damn the, California Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, damn them all to hell! oh sorry… Read more…

ACLU, California, Dhimmitude, Heretic, Islam, Jihad, Sharia

Invasion of Privacy?

Crime-fighting beats privacy in public places: Americans, by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, support the increased use of surveillance cameras — a measure decried by some civil libertarians, but credited in London with helping to catch a variety of perpetrators since the early 1990s.

Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn’t close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.

So, in a government by the people, and for the people…where is the line in the legal sand. The judiciary has a problem, because there’s a balance that needs to be made between the interests of the many, and the interests of one. London right now has an expansive surveillance network. Statistically, it’s been shown to reduce crime…and common sense says that if you know that you’re going to be watched, you’re less likely to break the law.

Seniors are most apt to support the increased use of these cameras, with under-30s, least so; Republicans more than Democrats; women more than men; higher educated people more than the less educated; and whites more than African-Americans.

Quite an interesting slice of demographic pie. It makes sense that women and the elderly support such systems, because as victims of violent crimes, they’re not able to defend themselves as well as man…

So, if “spying” is shown to reduce crime, and the general public supports it, with numbers enough to convincingly warrant easy law creation if necessary, who bears the responsibility of the margin of life that would be lost statistically if certain Liberties Union of the American Civil type move to bar said “spying”? Constitutionally, there is no right to privacy. We can discuss the ethics of people and privacy, but as legal matter (we are a based on the rule of law, not “feelings”) this is interesting, because it truly is an example of why the judiciary is such a big deal. You could have a 95% support rate for a law in the United States, and ultimately it falls on 9 men and women in robes.

I had a discussion this weekend with some people of the other side of the aisle (yes, the word fascism was dropped in regards to the current administration…go figure), and they expressed concern about the growing power of the executive. While I can understand such concern (I would have been concerned if Clinton did something when he was in office like firing every single US attorney), I think the most powerful branch, with the real opportunity to “f” things up is the judicial. An executive is here for 4 years…a judge is here for life.

Exit question: I do have concern about the government watching it’s citizenry, not for the purpose of protecting it’s citizens…but more in a Hillary “I have an illegal dossier on everyone I disagree with politically“? Can the government keep that line clear? Probably not…

ACLU

I was going to try to ignore the whole Michael Richards fiasco, but after reading about his planned meeting with Gloria Alred and her clients, I had no more blind eyes to turn.

It all really just comes down to money.  Oh, and the media attention doesn’t hurt the media whores Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Gloria Alred either.  The minute a race card is pulled these three muskateers come a runnin’ to the rescue. 

I am not condoning what Richards did.  I honestly was shocked by what he said, and it was deeply offensive.  I understand that.  However, if I sued every person who offended me based on my race, religion or sex, I’d be as recognizable as Sharpton….and Practical Radical would be broke. 

ACLU, Hollywood, Rant

Kenny G continues to make a career…and I continue to hate hold music (musak?).

So very non offensive.

Dooooooo doweeeeeeeeee…

It’s basically what the world would feel like if the ACLU had their way…total control and speech codes…that’s what freedom of speech is right? (*As long as no one is offended*)

ACLU, Rant

• Hugh Hewitt has the full details on the SF Road Rager who ran down 14 (last I heard). One of those situations where I defer to those with the time and skill to comment on what i cannot. All I have to say is, we may have a problem…yep…you guessed it…not the homegrown Islamic fundamentalists who are shooting women in Synagogues…that terrorism shtick is all manufactured by the Jooooos… it’s the neocons who want a cross considered a landmark to be protected.
• Blogosphere Unites in Search of Dumbass – it looks like it’s going to be a Republican Ladies and Gentlemen. This is one of those circumstances (short of real justification, which I doubt) where party sponsored cannibalism should be allowed. Nice to see that both sides of the aisle come together for government ooey gooey goodness.
• Quote of the Week at Woman Honor Thyself
• As a note after watching the documentary “Tarnation” tonight…through the right prism, anyone’s life can be a tragedy.

Off to bed…

ACLU, Blogs and Alternative Media, Link, Terrorism

I thought it was the ACLU, but apparently they’ve wandered into the ICLU category. Since when does the ACLU represent the best interests of Iraq? They are suing under the Freedom of Information act for all files relevant to Haditha…I want to see how they have standing in this legal action, but that’s never stopped them before.

Stop the ACLU has the details of the story. Hot Air has the commentary.

ACLU, Iraq