The recent Supreme Court decision allowing drug sniffing dogs to be used for finding illegal drugs during routine traffic stops is a refreshing breath of fresh air in an era of “soft”, criminal-friendly decisions by the same court. One is almost tempted to hope that they have had a sea-change in their philosophy in the wake of the recent presidential election. The “red state” tidal wave makes it clear that most Americans are in no mood for nonsense when it come to crime and criminals. The court couldn’t have avoided noticing that.
The decision basically says Americans have no “right” of privacy to violate the law. If you buy a dime bag, you have already committed a crime by that very act. The crime occurred when you got the drugs, not when the police caught you during a traffic stop. And law enforcement is not engaging in an unreasonable search when they let their dogs sniff your car. Police dogs, as law enforcement officers, have the right to “observe” you. They do that by sniffing.
Of course, not every action of law enforcement is reasonable. Nobody would approve of letting law enforcement officers wrestle you to the ground, strap a rubber hose around your arm, and draw a syringe of blood while you are strolling peacefully through the public park, even though that activity might catch a few drug users. That would be an invasion of your privacy –to say the least. However, this decision was limited to traffic stops only. It should have been taken further. For example, if while walking their dog through the parking lot at Wal-Mart, the dog signals you have illegal drugs, --you’re busted! Why couldn’t that be justified as follows: An “officer” of the law, using his specialized powers of observation, had reasonable cause to suspect a crime had been committed? In other words, the dog smelled your drugs. Wouldn’t the same officer be within his rights as a law enforcement agent if he visually observed something illegal in your car? Why not if his dog, -also a law enforcement officer, “observed” the same thing.
If you don’t want to be subject to such, don’t buy illegal drugs, --and if you do, don’t take them to Wal-Mart or anywhere else with you. You might get stopped for a broken tail light. If you do, you have nobody to blame except yourself when you get caught with the drugs.
The Supreme Court has said so.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Friday, January 14, 2005
Freedom of Speech? And Equality for All?
Leftist liberals are all frothing at the mouth about George W. Bush’s inauguration. They claim he is spending too much money on it; that it is unseemly during a time of war, that using the Bible and saying “so help me God” violates the first amendment. Of course this is all just a part of the newest leftist craze –bashing religious people like Bush. It’s now OK to bash Christians apparently. It is even OK for some so-called Christians to bash other Christians, as long as the other Christians being bashed are not the darlings of the left. In fact there is a blatant double standard which is very well illustrated by two similar events in the past couple of years.
In December of last year, four so-called Christian preachers were bound over for trial in Philadelphia for “preaching” at a gay-pride event. Most Christians wouldn’t call the confrontational style the “preaches” were utilizing a very prudent or effective method of evangelizing. They are not likely to win many converts among the homosexual community by calling them sinners with huge signs while yelling at them through bullhorns. In fact, they were disrupting the event. They were certainly not expressing the Golden Rule Jesus preached. They were obnoxious, loud, disruptive, and confrontational. But so what? In this country, don’t they have the right to be obnoxious and disruptive on the public square? It’s called free speech. The “gay pride” people were equally loud, vulgar, boisterous and obnoxious. So –we have a standoff of jerks yelling at each other. But that’s not the way the leftist activist judges saw it. They had the obnoxious “preachers” arrested and bound over for trial for exercising their free speech. They face up to 47 years in prison for exercising their free speech! The gays got off Scott free! The obnoxious homosexuals were allowed to escape without consequences! Double standard anyone? Where is the ACLU? Don’t they come to the aid of groups who get into trouble for free speech? That’s what they claim. Why aren’t they supporting the “preachers” this case?
Not that the so-called “street preachers” always get prosecuted for their hateful, obnoxious behavior. It seems to depend on which group they are attacking. If they are going after left-wing icons like the homosexuals or abortionists, they’re in big trouble. They effectively have no first amendment rights. However, if they go after Mormons, well that’s another story. When that happens, the Mormons get arrested and the “street preachers” get off. Their free speech rights are assiduously protected by the left.
Each April and October, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( Mormons) hold their General Conference in Salt Lake City. Tens of thousands of the faithful flock to Salt Lake to attend these conferences. Conference also attracts the “street preachers”, who exhibit obnoxious, loud, rude, hateful and despicable behavior with the huge signs, bullhorns, etc. For example, they openly mock the religious, sacred religious vestments Mormons use in their private worship services by wearing them in public to hold them up to ridicule. They frequently accost young Mormon brides who are exiting the Temple on their wedding day to take pictures and greet well-wishers. They call these newlyweds harlots, whores, and other vulgar names. No matter how confrontational, hateful and disruptive their behavior, the leftist judges in Salt Lake City exonerate them totally, saying they are only exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. But when an outraged member of the Mormon church was moved to snatch away an article of sacred clothing a “street preacher” was waiving about and mocking, he was arrested and jailed. Nobody claimed the “preacher” had incited him to riot. No judge would ascribe any wrong to the “preacher” at all.
If this isn’t an example of a double standard, it’s hard to know what would be. The same obnoxious “street preachers” who are arrested for exercising free speech in Philadelphia, get off without so much as a reprimand while harassing Mormons in Salt Lake City. And the ACLU remains silent. Go figure.
In December of last year, four so-called Christian preachers were bound over for trial in Philadelphia for “preaching” at a gay-pride event. Most Christians wouldn’t call the confrontational style the “preaches” were utilizing a very prudent or effective method of evangelizing. They are not likely to win many converts among the homosexual community by calling them sinners with huge signs while yelling at them through bullhorns. In fact, they were disrupting the event. They were certainly not expressing the Golden Rule Jesus preached. They were obnoxious, loud, disruptive, and confrontational. But so what? In this country, don’t they have the right to be obnoxious and disruptive on the public square? It’s called free speech. The “gay pride” people were equally loud, vulgar, boisterous and obnoxious. So –we have a standoff of jerks yelling at each other. But that’s not the way the leftist activist judges saw it. They had the obnoxious “preachers” arrested and bound over for trial for exercising their free speech. They face up to 47 years in prison for exercising their free speech! The gays got off Scott free! The obnoxious homosexuals were allowed to escape without consequences! Double standard anyone? Where is the ACLU? Don’t they come to the aid of groups who get into trouble for free speech? That’s what they claim. Why aren’t they supporting the “preachers” this case?
Not that the so-called “street preachers” always get prosecuted for their hateful, obnoxious behavior. It seems to depend on which group they are attacking. If they are going after left-wing icons like the homosexuals or abortionists, they’re in big trouble. They effectively have no first amendment rights. However, if they go after Mormons, well that’s another story. When that happens, the Mormons get arrested and the “street preachers” get off. Their free speech rights are assiduously protected by the left.
Each April and October, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( Mormons) hold their General Conference in Salt Lake City. Tens of thousands of the faithful flock to Salt Lake to attend these conferences. Conference also attracts the “street preachers”, who exhibit obnoxious, loud, rude, hateful and despicable behavior with the huge signs, bullhorns, etc. For example, they openly mock the religious, sacred religious vestments Mormons use in their private worship services by wearing them in public to hold them up to ridicule. They frequently accost young Mormon brides who are exiting the Temple on their wedding day to take pictures and greet well-wishers. They call these newlyweds harlots, whores, and other vulgar names. No matter how confrontational, hateful and disruptive their behavior, the leftist judges in Salt Lake City exonerate them totally, saying they are only exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. But when an outraged member of the Mormon church was moved to snatch away an article of sacred clothing a “street preacher” was waiving about and mocking, he was arrested and jailed. Nobody claimed the “preacher” had incited him to riot. No judge would ascribe any wrong to the “preacher” at all.
If this isn’t an example of a double standard, it’s hard to know what would be. The same obnoxious “street preachers” who are arrested for exercising free speech in Philadelphia, get off without so much as a reprimand while harassing Mormons in Salt Lake City. And the ACLU remains silent. Go figure.
Monday, January 10, 2005
The CBS Forged Memo Report
CBS still doesn’t get it. The much anticipated Forged Memo report has been released, finally, by Viacom’s internal investigators. The report is a whitewash. While they did throw a couple of executive producers to the wolves, they totally ignored the real kernel, nub, heart and soul of what happened. Instead, they twisted and spun the report to avoid the most important thing that caused Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and all the others to air forged memos in the first place. This report covered up the real story, --hushed it up, --and papered it over.
The events that occurred are quite simple: Rather, Mapes and 90% of all CBS News associates are left-wing, Bush-hating liberals. They are continually looking for anything which may tend to discredit the President. They were fed a very inflammatory, damning set of memos which purported to be authentic but were, in fact, crude forgeries. Rather and Mapes wanted to believe the content of these memos so much they were willing ignore mountains of evidence which told them the memos were fake, including the opinions of several of the document experts they hired to look at them. They had such an active animus against George W Bush, they were willing to totally set aside any hint of journalistic ethics they may once have had, and they simply ran with a story that they knew, or they should have known was a fraud.
The report goes to great lengths to lead us in every direction and to every conclusion, in its search for an explanation for this lapse in journalism, except to the real and obvious one: Rather hates Bush. That is what blinded him and allowed him to ignore all the red flags, ranging from the experts’ opinions, to the checkered background of the source of these memos. He just threw caution to the wind. No other explanation makes any sense at all.
One other factor is also very important. CBS, Rather and all of his main-stream media colleagues, in all of their arrogance, have most certainly misunderestimated the power of the blogosphere. They have been accustomed to being the only source of mass information for many years. They simply weren’t prepared for the possibility that Web sites such as Little Green Footballs, and others would uncover these forgeries within minutes of their publication. They didn’t understand the reach and power these Blogs have at all. This episode, more than any other in recent history, shows the decline of the main stream media and the rise of the blogosphere. Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, points this out in great detail. Dan Rather and his ilk can no longer rely on the power of their “one source, one-way” media empires. There will always be a hoard of independent media critics in the blogosphere checking and re-checking everything they say. They just can no longer get away with false and biased reporting. No wonder so many of them have retired. It’s no longer fun for them.
Will this change the fundamental nature of the establishment press? No, they will remain virulently left wing, and anti-Bush. But maybe they will be at least a little more circumspect about letting us all see their true colors. We can all hope so.
The events that occurred are quite simple: Rather, Mapes and 90% of all CBS News associates are left-wing, Bush-hating liberals. They are continually looking for anything which may tend to discredit the President. They were fed a very inflammatory, damning set of memos which purported to be authentic but were, in fact, crude forgeries. Rather and Mapes wanted to believe the content of these memos so much they were willing ignore mountains of evidence which told them the memos were fake, including the opinions of several of the document experts they hired to look at them. They had such an active animus against George W Bush, they were willing to totally set aside any hint of journalistic ethics they may once have had, and they simply ran with a story that they knew, or they should have known was a fraud.
The report goes to great lengths to lead us in every direction and to every conclusion, in its search for an explanation for this lapse in journalism, except to the real and obvious one: Rather hates Bush. That is what blinded him and allowed him to ignore all the red flags, ranging from the experts’ opinions, to the checkered background of the source of these memos. He just threw caution to the wind. No other explanation makes any sense at all.
One other factor is also very important. CBS, Rather and all of his main-stream media colleagues, in all of their arrogance, have most certainly misunderestimated the power of the blogosphere. They have been accustomed to being the only source of mass information for many years. They simply weren’t prepared for the possibility that Web sites such as Little Green Footballs, and others would uncover these forgeries within minutes of their publication. They didn’t understand the reach and power these Blogs have at all. This episode, more than any other in recent history, shows the decline of the main stream media and the rise of the blogosphere. Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, points this out in great detail. Dan Rather and his ilk can no longer rely on the power of their “one source, one-way” media empires. There will always be a hoard of independent media critics in the blogosphere checking and re-checking everything they say. They just can no longer get away with false and biased reporting. No wonder so many of them have retired. It’s no longer fun for them.
Will this change the fundamental nature of the establishment press? No, they will remain virulently left wing, and anti-Bush. But maybe they will be at least a little more circumspect about letting us all see their true colors. We can all hope so.
Friday, January 07, 2005
More Roadside Bombings?
The US has the best trained, best equipped military in the history of the world. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to be the victims of so-called roadside bombings on an almost daily basis. This, more than anything else, continues to sap the will of the American public. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many to support the concept of staying the course in Iraq. This military failure (there is no other way to put it) also leads to a very frank and unblinking question: Why!? Why on earth do we continue to lose troops to this relatively crude form of attack? Why, after almost two years, haven’t we figured out a way to stop them!? This stuff is not rocket science. What gives?
Roadside bombs, which are really land mines, are often detonated by wireless remote control. Hasn’t anyone been able to come up with a way to jam the signals? Roadside bombs are put in place by people, presumably at night. Don’t we have patrols with night vision equipment sweeping the supply corridors in Iraq? Somebody knows who is building and placing these bombs. Don’t we have any intelligence sources who can tell us who? when? where? Roadside bombs have to be placed near enough to our convoys to cause a direct blast effect. Don’t we have “secure” supply routes which are off limits to anyone other than our own people? Don’t we patrol these corridors with helicopters and other aircraft? Don’t we make it perfectly clear to all Iraqis that for the duration of our stay there, these corridors are “off limits” to anyone, and anybody who goes there will be presumed to be a terrorist and shot? Since our supplies pretty much go to the same places over and over again, why can’t we secure the supply routes? It’s a very basic requirement of warfare and has been for centuries.
When we have to deviate from our supply corridors are we in the habit of taking the same route over and over? It seems we are. That the roadside bombers would be able to know in advance where we are likely to travel suggests we are stupidly being predictable! Why? We have equipped our army with combat vehicles which are capable of going anywhere. If you travel off road, you’ll never be hit with a roadside bomb! Why would we make it easy for our enemy by taking the same route everyday? It’s hard to explain.
Drive-by suicide bombers are another problem. Why haven’t we made it perfectly clear to everybody in Iraq that any vehicle which approaches within 200 yards of any US Military vehicle will be presumed to be hostile and will be destroyed? We should put out the word that if you see a US military vehicle, you should turn around and drive the other way—or you’ll be shot at. It seems to be easy enough to understand that if the bad guys can’t get close to you, they can’t harm you. Why don’t our forces understand it?
Most Americans are still in favor of staying the course in Iraq. Most Americans understand that unless we stay the course and prevail against these terrorists, the consequences will be intolerable. What most Americans don’t understand is why, it seems, we are making it too easy for our enemies in Iraq to pick off our troops. Our leaders had better figure out a way to mitigate this situation, and quickly, or they may very well have to face the very thing they fear the most: A collapse in the will of the American people resulting in an embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq. The left around in this country and the world would dance in the streets at that outcome. We must take steps, now, to see that it doesn't happen.
Roadside bombs, which are really land mines, are often detonated by wireless remote control. Hasn’t anyone been able to come up with a way to jam the signals? Roadside bombs are put in place by people, presumably at night. Don’t we have patrols with night vision equipment sweeping the supply corridors in Iraq? Somebody knows who is building and placing these bombs. Don’t we have any intelligence sources who can tell us who? when? where? Roadside bombs have to be placed near enough to our convoys to cause a direct blast effect. Don’t we have “secure” supply routes which are off limits to anyone other than our own people? Don’t we patrol these corridors with helicopters and other aircraft? Don’t we make it perfectly clear to all Iraqis that for the duration of our stay there, these corridors are “off limits” to anyone, and anybody who goes there will be presumed to be a terrorist and shot? Since our supplies pretty much go to the same places over and over again, why can’t we secure the supply routes? It’s a very basic requirement of warfare and has been for centuries.
When we have to deviate from our supply corridors are we in the habit of taking the same route over and over? It seems we are. That the roadside bombers would be able to know in advance where we are likely to travel suggests we are stupidly being predictable! Why? We have equipped our army with combat vehicles which are capable of going anywhere. If you travel off road, you’ll never be hit with a roadside bomb! Why would we make it easy for our enemy by taking the same route everyday? It’s hard to explain.
Drive-by suicide bombers are another problem. Why haven’t we made it perfectly clear to everybody in Iraq that any vehicle which approaches within 200 yards of any US Military vehicle will be presumed to be hostile and will be destroyed? We should put out the word that if you see a US military vehicle, you should turn around and drive the other way—or you’ll be shot at. It seems to be easy enough to understand that if the bad guys can’t get close to you, they can’t harm you. Why don’t our forces understand it?
Most Americans are still in favor of staying the course in Iraq. Most Americans understand that unless we stay the course and prevail against these terrorists, the consequences will be intolerable. What most Americans don’t understand is why, it seems, we are making it too easy for our enemies in Iraq to pick off our troops. Our leaders had better figure out a way to mitigate this situation, and quickly, or they may very well have to face the very thing they fear the most: A collapse in the will of the American people resulting in an embarrassing withdrawal from Iraq. The left around in this country and the world would dance in the streets at that outcome. We must take steps, now, to see that it doesn't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)