Monday - April 28, 2008

SCOTUS gets one right

Supreme Court Upholds Law Requiring Indiana Voters to Produce Photo IDs

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,”’ Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Monday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

Well there you go. You want to use a check in the grocery store you have to show ID. You want to sign up for a credit card you have to show ID. You want to get onto a military base you sure as hell have to show ID. You get pulled over by the cops you better be able to produce the right kind of ID for yourself AND your car. What’s the big deal about showing ID for voting? Especially when the ID doesn’t cost you anything to procure.

I wish we had more stringent voter ID here in NJ. All I have to do is sign my name in a book, and have my signature verified by a little old lady who’s nearly blind. I didn’t even have to show a driver’s license, passport, or birth certificate when I registered. Ok, maybe I’m an exception, because the person who registered me is the lady who lives downstairs, and I do handyman work for the nearly blind old lady from time to time ...

Getting a NJ driver’s license is now an involved ID process that makes you come up with “7 points” worth of ID - a passport is not enough, and your old license doesn’t help at all. Not only do you have to prove you’re an American, you also need to provide several kinds of proof that you live at the address you put on the form. And that’s Ok. But voter IDs, especially those with a photo, aren’t Ok? Nonsense. Done properly, a photo voter ID is almost a national ID. While I am against a National ID card, it’s pretty much a moot point. The government already knows who I am, where I live, what I do, where I went to school, who I’m married to, where I work, how much I earn, right down to the color of my car ... and what they don’t know about me the credit card companies do: what I buy, where I shop, how often I travel, etc. And because of gun control laws my fingerprints are on a government record already. Most law abiding, non pistol packing people don’t have their prints on file.

Without voter ID you get illegals voting. Without voter ID you get the dead voting. Early and often. Without voter ID you get people voting multiple times in different areas. Would we still get these things with a photo based voter ID? Well, that depends on the processes in place. If you make absentee voting more difficult - eg, fill out the form a month or so ahead of election day, then hand it over to the government and they’ll check your ID then - the system will be fairly clean. If you keep the voter database up to date, and remove the dead people frequently, that will help too. If the Change of Address form you fill out at the post office also goes to the voting record keepers that would also be a help. There are lots of ways to keep the records accurate.

There are too many holes in the voting system. Plug the holes and you make the results more honest, so that “make every vote count” becomes more like “make every legal vote count”, which actually gives MORE power to the legal voters. The voter registration process can be made more exacting without making it onerous. Just prove that you are an American, and prove where you live. That isn’t hard at all.

Oh, and SCOTUS’ 6-3 split? Hardly surprising is it? The lefty judges took the path of less responsibility. Does this decision show that the court is now Conservatively biased? Maybe, maybe not. It shows me that at least 6 of these people can figure out the difference between right and wrong. SCOTUSblog covers more of the details than you’ll get from the news blurbs, and relates that “Court was ruling on the law only as written” which means this decision says only that Indiana’s process if Ok: it is not a blanket approval of all voter ID laws.

The actual ruling for Crawford v. Marion County Election Board can be found here, where you can also read the dissenting opinions too, starting on page 31. Mainly they boil down to the arguments that 1) getting a copy of your birth certificate costs up to $12, and going to the DMV every 4 years to get a renewed non-driver ID is “onerous” for those who don’t drive; and 2) homeless people have to go to the county clerk after voting and sign and affidavit that they are homeless. Each time they vote. And that’s an “excessive burden”. Uh no, it isn’t.  And that $12 - or even $100 as Souter tries to twist it - is not a burdensome expense, nor can it be considered a poll tax. 

   Monday - April 21, 2008

Psssst. Hey. Yeah, You. Had any S_X lately? When? How much? The gument wants ta know.

AH, don’t we live in interesting times?

Government to quiz households on sex lives and salaries
By Lewis Carter
Last Updated: 3:05am BST 21/04/2008

More than 500,000 people a year are to be questioned about their sex lives and salaries by Government inspectors, it has emerged.

Officials will ask for information about former sexual partners, contraception and how long couples have lived together before getting married.

(when I applied for my Brit visa to come here with my wife, I was asked that very question.)

The 2,000-question survey, which will be carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), has prompted fears of further data security breaches as both names and addresses will be logged by inspectors.

Critics also say the £3.5 million-a-year cost will be a waste of money as people tend to lie about their private lives and begrudge intrusion into personal matters.

Eric Pickles, the shadow communities secretary, said: “Day by day, the liberty and privacy of the British public is being undermined by Labour’s surveillance state. People will be shocked that taxpayers’ money is being spent on intrusive surveys. Now state spies want to log and record who sleeps with whom and how often. Not even the Stasi went this far.”

Inspectors will ask the questions as part of the new Integrated Household Survey.

They will visit 200,000 homes at random each year and question each occupant, meaning that about 500,000 individuals will take part.

One of the questions asks: “Have you ever had a baby - even one who only lived for a short time?”

Interviewers are warned: “Exclude: Any stillborn; Include: Any who only lived for a short time.”

The survey features intimate questions on exact dates when relationships ended, and the precise amount of money people take home.

There will also be 35 questions on contraception, such as whether men have had vasectomies, the brands of Pill women use, and whether they have ever taken the morning-after Pill.

Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at Kent University, said: “When researchers ask about sexual habits there is a very strong tendency for ­people to clam up, or to say what they think they want to hear.

“I would resent being asked these questions and I don’t think the Government should be doing it.”

A spokesman for the ONS said the survey was the most efficient way of meeting the Government’s “information needs”.

He said that all names and addresses would be deleted from the files once they arrived in the main office.

http://tinyurl.com/4jdtjc

   Saturday - April 12, 2008

Tax Time

This is Hell Weekend for a lot of Americans. It’s time to finally face the inevitable and do your taxes. April 15th is Tuesday, and the check has to be in the mail by then.

Some of you have been smart, and have been spending a little time doing them for a month or so now. Others, the few and lucky, who will be getting back a tiny bit of what they’ve paid in, got to work back in January and may have even received their refund checks by now. But tens of millions of us were at Walmart early this morning looking for a copy of TurboTax, or lining up outside H&R Block with a suitcase full of papers and receipts.

My taxes weren’t hard. I’m living close to the poverty line right now, but I’m not on any kind of public assistance whatsoever. And even with my pathetic income, I still had to pay a little bit more to the state and the feds than what had been withheld.

So for those millions who are tying themselves in knots this glorious spring weekend, trying to figure out the cost basis for some damn partial share that was automatically sold because some company they owned a few shares of stock in was bought out by some other company they might have owned a few shares of, my hat’s off to you. I feel your pain, because I’ve been through this myself in the past. Heh, I remember one year when I was in college I had to send in something like twenty forms. I’d worked more than a dozen jobs that year in several states, and the paperwork was amazing.

Many people will have a wake up call today and realize that the Fair Tax would solve so much of this pain. So would some kind of Flat Tax. Other folks just feel a real sense of resentment right now when they realize just how much of their tax money goes to support the lazy and shiftless - and that means people on the dole and the infinite morass of the ever expanding jobs program that is government. If you’re one of them, and find yourself snapping pencils in anger, take heart: Rachel Lucas wrote a great Tax Rant you can read and adopt as your own. I’d give you some excerpts, except that Rachel is in full swing, and it’s hard to find two lines that don’t contain swearing. Go Read. 

   Friday - April 04, 2008

The nicest part of the NJ government is the DMV

It’s true! A certain previous governor revamped the whole organization, even renaming it the New Jersey Motor Vehicles Commission. The attitude is gone. Totally. The people are helpful and friendly. Go figure.

I can get in and out of my local office in Flemington in a matter of minutes. Change the registration, get one of our spiffy new “counterfeit proof” driver’s licenses, new plates, whatever. Half an hour tops, and they’ve got snack machines, soda machines, and an accessible clean bathroom. Plus lots of chairs to sit in, TV to watch, and I don’t even have to bring my own pen.

The state inspection station is across the street and a few blocks down. They open early most days. If I go at an off-peak time I can get through the whole process in 20 minutes. While I wait in a fume free climate controlled waiting area that allows me to watch my car getting worked on. If I go at the busy time they usually have two inspection lines running but will open a third line if there’s a backup. The inspections are paid for with tax money, and the inspections are run by an outside vendor. Granted, they get paid a good buck to do the work, but they actually work, and do try to make the process as painless as possible.

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Go read The Trusted Advisor, who has also been through it and was happy with the results. Of course, Trusted also writes about Customer Service Hell when dealing with the cable company. And that’s the cable company that has just bought up my cable company. Oh joy.

   Wednesday - March 12, 2008

DC to copy Boston’s Dumb Idea

D.C. Mayor, Police Chief Announce New Anti-Gun Plan: Door to Door Home Searches Without Warrants

A week before SCOTUS starts on Heller, Washington DC mayor Fenty announces that the city is going to enact it’s version of Boston’s “Safe Homes” plan. Fourth Amendment? We don’ need no steenkin Fourth Amendment!! That’s right, the DC plan, called the “Safe Homes Initiative” will have the local cops going door to door asking people if it’s Ok if they come in and search your house. No warrants. No Reasonable Cause. No reason at all, but they’ll ask nicely and say “pretty please”. In theory they’re only looking for illegal drugs and illegal firearms, and the whole thing is an “amnesty program”.

No word yet on whether these officers will be issued jackboots ahead of time. Is it true that all such “visits” will be conducted in the middle of the night?

Holly Shiite, we’ve become a police state. And there are people, thousands and thousands of people, who think this is a great idea.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced several new initiatives today aimed at combating gun crimes, including one encouraging residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if the residents have illegal guns or drugs.

The “safe homes initiative” is aimed at residents, such as parents or guardians who know or suspect their children have guns in their home, who want to cooperate with police, Lanier said.

“If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it,” Lanier said. “But amnesty means amnesty. We’re trying to get guns and drugs off the street.”

All seized guns will be tested to see whether they have been used in criminal activity. If they have, police may initiate a criminal investigation, Lanier said.

The program will begin March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington, where officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes. It will then expand to other areas of the city.

In addition to the safe homes initiative, D.C. police are starting to hold monthly meetings with law enforcement partners to identify trends in gun-related crimes.

“We are not satisfied with the number of guns on the streets of the District of Columbia,” Fenty said.

This doesn’t seem like that big a story. But this is now the second city in the USA to enact such a plan in the last 4 months. That’s about the most frightening thing I’ve ever written. This isn’t an anti-gun initiative, it’s a Gestapo move against civil rights. I don’t care if your kid is a mess and you are the worst parent on the planet ... your kid; your problem. Deal. You do not let the cops play door-to-door daddy ever, because they’ll get used to that kind of power in one damned big hurry. Just say NO. Politely. Then close and bar the door. Then call your lawyer.

h/t to Ravenwood’s Universe

   Wednesday - March 05, 2008

IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO BE SOLD OUT ?  STAY TUNED.

It’s 2:25am and I had insomnia. Just had to boot and do some things had nothin’ to do with blogging when I fell across this story.

The ppl were promised a referendum on this subject long ago.  But when the powers that be found out that the people would vote no, they promptly backed off.

So, the politicians have voted and decided among themselves and other vested interests that they are qualified to think for the populous.
They will decide, in spite of promises, for the people.
I think this addresses the comments made by Dr. Jeff earlier on where this country is going.

MPs reject EU treaty referendum

MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to ratify the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.
The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes to 248 - a margin of 63.

The result means Parliament itself will decide whether to ratify the treaty, signed by EU leaders last December.

Thirteen Lib Dem MPs rebelled against the party’s orders to abstain on the referendum vote, with three frontbench spokesmen resigning their posts.

MPs rejected the Conservative amendment to the EU (Amendment) Bill, but 29 Labour MPs supported it. Three Tories defied their party leadership.

Manifestos

All EU parliaments must ratify the treaty before it can come into force. The only country which has committed to a referendum is Ireland.

We hope that in this case the Lords will hold the government to their manifesto commitment

William Hague, Conservatives

Clegg revamp after rebellion

The three main UK political parties promised a public vote on the EU Constitution in their 2005 general election manifestos.

But the constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates later that year. The Lisbon Treaty was drawn up to replace it.

The government and the Lib Dems say the treaty does not have constitutional implications, so a referendum on it is not needed.

The government says most changes are minor and procedural and it has secured “opt-outs” where necessary.

Month-long debate

But the Conservatives, some Labour and Lib Dem MPs and the UK Independence Party among others, say that it is effectively the constitution under a different name - so there should be a referendum.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: “This treaty will now go to the House of Lords.

“It is convention that the House of Lords does not stand in the way of manifesto commitments. We hope that in this case the Lords will hold the government to their manifesto commitment.

“The Liberal Democrats’ position will once again be pivotal. We will see if they follow their three-line whip in the Commons to abstain.”

The Lib Dem leadership, which instead wants a referendum on whether the UK should stay within the EU, ordered its MPs to abstain in the Tory-led debate.

But 13 refused to do so, instead voting for a referendum on the treaty.

Scottish affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael, countryside spokesman Tim Farron and justice spokesman David Heath resigned from the Lib Dem frontbench team.

MPs have been debating the different elements of the treaty over the past month.

http://tinyurl.com/3cshwr

   Tuesday - March 04, 2008

Hurry Up Heller

NJ Legislature Pushes For Gun Rationing




A correct and sweeping decision in DC v Heller can’t happen fast enough!

In a benighted effort to disarm criminal gangs, NJ has passed Assembly Bill 339 out of committee and towards the Senate floor for a vote. Committee members approved the measure 5-1. The bill limits firearms permit holders, who have already passed a thorough background check, to purchasing only one handgun per month.

The bill does not apply to rifles or shotguns. I guess NJ is happy and eager for it’s law abiding citizens to buy them dozens at a time.

Is this bill really necessary? How is this going to stop crime? The idea behind the bill is obvious, and rather insulting. The idea is that people are legally buying pistols in bulk quantities and then “losing” them or having them “stolen” shortly thereafter. The insult is that the government is making the assumption that anyone who purchases several handguns at a time is actually making a de facto straw purchase for criminals and then exploiting a legal loophole to avoid prosecution. Gee thanks NJ. Even after a county, state, and federal background search that proves I am neither a criminal nor a mental patient, the assumption is that I am a crook.

Given the media’s phobic attitude towards guns, is it even possible that one such “crime” has occurred and the story not become major headlines? Has there been a single prosecution of a straw purchase enacted through circumstances of false loss or theft? Not that I’ve heard and this is one of the things I listen very carefully for.

The other possible reasoning behind the bill is equally insulting. This is the Super Nanny concept that says I can own guns, but I can only own so many of a certain type or acquire them at a slow and careful rate. NJ doesn’t want me to get my hands on too many pistols at the same time. They’re probably afraid that they’ll metastasize into some sort of critical mass in my closet and go off on a shooting rampage all by themselves.

NJ bill 339
blurb from the NRA/ILA

   Monday - March 03, 2008

The state of RKBA in a nutshell

The Full History and True Meaning of the Second Amendment, along with the Evolution of Gun Control Law through the ages

Kevin over at the Smallest Minority posts a whopper of an essay; Of Law And Sausages is a 13,000 word read worthy of Bill Whittle and worth the hour it takes to read. Believe it or not, this is tight writing. He could have easily made it twice as big.

Back in May of 2003 when I started this blog, I had just begun a months-long debate with an Irishman living in London. The topic of that debate, unsurprisingly, was the Second Amendment. During that debate he asked me a question: “(L)et’s say a liberal government came to power and wanted to ban gun ownership. It would not be able to, because of the Second Amendment, right?”

That’s the question, alright. When the Supreme Court takes up District of Columbia v. Heller (née Parker v. D.C.) in a few days, we may finally get an answer to it.

After starting out with a “state of the state” that shows the very flawed beliefs held today, he then goes on to investigate the Second, citing many examples of Original Intent, and shows how the evolution of gun control laws have developed, with each one standing on the shoulders of the fallacies built by previous legislation, from the original and legally proper, if not poorly reasoned, reaction of the Kentucky legislation to their loss in Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822, up through Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Cases, and all the way to DC v. Heller which the Supremes will start looking at in a few days.

So from the founding of a nation in which, according to Thomas Jefferson, it is a citizen’s “right and duty to be at all times armed,” a nation in which St. George Tucker understood that the constitution could not be used to “permit any prohibition of arms to the people,” a nation where in 1857 the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protected a right of citizens “to keep and carry arms wherever they went,” where in 1939 the Supreme Court ruled - not on a defendant’s membership in a militia, but on the suitability of his weapon for militia use, we reached the point where the right of individuals somehow became a right of the States - the famous shift from an “individual rights” understanding to a “collective rights” interpretation. Moreover, “no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use.” At least not in the Ninth Circuit (where I happen to live.)

The extinction of the right to arms was almost complete. The meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution was altered without the use of the Amendment process - merely by the repeated death-by-a-thousand-cuts judicial re-interpretation, and the power of stare decisis.

Now we reach today, and D.C. v. Heller. The city of Washington D.C., a Federal District under control of Congress and most emphatically not a “state,” passed what is essentially a complete ban on the possession of functional firearms by its (law-abiding) residents in 1975. Because Washington D.C. is not a state, the Cruikshank and Presser Supreme Court decisions do not have any influence - the Second Amendment applies directly to the city government. A lawsuit was brought against the city under the auspices that the gun ban violated the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Washington, and the case proceeded all the way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered one of the most important circuits in the Appeals Court system for its precedent-setting.

A three-judge panel voted 2-1 that the right to arms IS an individual one (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit) and that the laws in question DID violate the Second Amendment.

The City appealed to the Supreme Court. Cert. was granted. Oral arguments start in just a few days from now.

And we may finally get an answer to the question: “(L)et’s say a liberal government came to power and wanted to ban gun ownership. It would not be able to, because of the Second Amendment, right?”

This is a Most Excellent undertaking on his part. He draws no conclusions at the end, even though we all know what his views are, even though the errors made by poor and specious decisions in the past are readily apparent. I could not have resisted banging the podium in closing, but in truth it isn’t necessary. If you can understand the part of the Second Amendment that says “shall not be infringed” then you can spot the house of cards being built out of whole cloth over the generations. This reference quality piece of work is the best of what blogging can be; Kevin’s essay could just as well be used as an amicus curiae brief for Heller.

A true and proper decision on Heller will overturn 130 years of bogus laws and benighted decisions by the Supremes. Hold your breath. Anarchy and “the Wild West” will not be the result, but a bit of freedom and some honest governing could be. (see? I couldn’t resist giving the bully pulpit at least one whack)

   Sunday - February 10, 2008

THE EU and ENGLISH SOVEREIGNTY, or Lack Thereof

I’ve been working on something else getting away from the usual stuff I bring here, when I found this only by accident today.
Small stuff I suppose to you folks back home, but it has to do with something called “sovereignty”, which many Brits believe they are in danger of losing.
And I think they’re right to worry.

I recall the blinding lights on the cars at home, in the desert in daylight, and could never see the logic in it.  During daylight? 
Also interesting that the govt. opposed the idea saying it would increase emmissions.  That doesn’t seem right tho.  How?  Whatever.
The issue is sovereignty.

b>Daytime car lights to be mandatory
Last Updated: 1:15am GMT 10/02/2008

All new cars are to be fitted with automatic daytime headlights within four years.

The Government previously opposed the idea on the grounds that using lights in the daytime would increase fuel consumption and emissions, but conceded it was unable to oppose European legislation.

The only way I know to interpret the above is, that whatever rule or reg. passed by the EU, becomes the law here in the UK.  Someone, please tell me I’m wrong.

In response to a parliamentary question, Jim Fitzpatrick, the road safety minister, said: “The UK has been successful in arguing against the introduction of mandatory use of dipped headlamps during daylight hours by drivers of existing vehicles.

“However, from early 2011 all new types of passenger cars and light vans will have to be fitted with dedicated daytime running lamps in accordance with the relevant European directive. By summer 2012, all new vehicles will have to be so fitted.”

The move will anger motoring groups, which claim fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions increase by three per cent when drivers use dipped lights.

But the European Commission says that the lights increase fuel consumption by only 0.3 per cent because they use separate bulbs that are less bright than headlights.

The commission wants all European Union states to set a common date to make daytime running lights mandatory. About half of EU member states already require this.
http://tinyurl.com/34tlku

   Tuesday - February 05, 2008

terrorists rebranded, because ya see they really aren’t “terrorists at all.”

Oh I can’t wait to see the comments from you guys.

Islamist terrorists rebranded as ‘criminals’
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 1:54am GMT 05/02/2008

Islamist terrorists have been rebranded as “criminals” in a new guidebook for ministers and civil servants to help them talk about terrorism without offending Muslims.
The book has been issued to all government departments and says that people should no longer refer to Islamist extremism or jihadi fundamentalism.

Instead, they should refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a “confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures”.

Ministers have been using the new rhetoric for some time and no longer refer to the “war on terror”.

The guide states: “This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them.”

The guide was drawn up by the Research, Information and Communication Unit, a new “hearts and minds” outfit in the Home Office set up to counter al-Qa’eda’s efforts to manipulate individuals and groups.

In a speech on counter-terrorism last month, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, declared that violent extremism was “anti-Islamic”.

http://tinyurl.com/38h5rf

   Thursday - January 24, 2008

ANOTHER FREEBE FROM THE NANNY STATE?  WHY NOT?  The Taxpayer has too damn much money anyway.

Check out the link and get a load (no pun) of the photograph but mostly, interesting letters from the citizens on the subject.
They’re talking about spending the equiv. of $100 BILLION on this.

Should fat people be paid to lose weight?Thursday, January 24, 2008
Daily Telegraph

Fat people will be offered cash incentives to lose weight and take exercise as part of a new Government strategy to tackle the obesity epidemic, which could ultimately cost the NHS £50bn a year to treat.

Employers will be encouraged to set up competitions with cash, vouchers and other rewards for people taking up a healthier lifestyle.

Similar schemes have worked in the US, while private medical insurance companies in Britain are already offering discounts to people who regularly go to the gym.

Should the overweight be paid to slim? Should employers monitor their employees’ fitness regimes?

What is the best way to encourage people to lead a healthier lifestyle?

http://tinyurl.com/3dm5kk

   Wednesday - January 23, 2008

Stay involved in government and watch the bastards … every minute. - Allan C. Kelly

"Stay involved in government and watch the bastards in Washington every minute.” - Allan C. Kelly

The Skipper’s famous quote applies to the Several States as well. Keep your eyes open folks, always try to cut through the bullshit, and don’t buy what they tell you until you can prove it yourself. It’s an awful lot of work, but if you don’t, then there’s this old expression about “a new one born every minute” that could apply to you.

The blogosphere is often a circular thing. Information goes back and forth and around and around, and sometimes things just fall into place with a little added input from the readers. Such is the case with reader Bill, who commented on Geek With A .45’s posts the other day on that idiotic NJ electoral vote law. Thank you Bill, and thank you Mr. Geek, for keeping a cool head and using your brains. On the other hand, I posted in full RCOB mode, and damn but it felt good to do so!!
And thanks to Mr. C for bringing it to my attention. The blogosphere is a big place, so I don’t get to visit my favorite places every day.

pasted from Geek With a .45’s blog:

Quote: {emphasis mine}
-----------------
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State 5
of New Jersey:

1. (New section) The State of New Jersey hereby enacts into
law and enters into the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the
President by National Popular Vote” as set forth in this section, and
substantially as follows:
-----------------

From NJ’s new Electoral College law. (pdf), brought to my attention by the Barking Moonbat Early Warning System *.

and

Quote:
----------------
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, ...
----------------
US Constitution, Article I, section 10, brought to my attention by Reader Bill.

Reader Bill points out that the NJ law may be expressly unconstitutional. I’d like to believe that; I think it is too. However, you can expect the legislators to split legal hairs over this, since no other states are actually named, nor is any actual agreement signed. No, they just violate the spirit of the prohibition by making a law that says “when we see other states doing it, we’ll do it too.” So it looks to me like this NJ law, put in place to do an end run around the Constitution, has another Constitutional end run built right into it. Double duplicity? Not an amazing feat from the state that brought you Pay-To-Play and legalized Double Dipping for government pigs feasting at the taxpayer trough.

What say you? Is this an Agreement or not?

PS - I wonder if I’m a triple geek? I’m pretty sure I own 3 .45s if you limit “.45” to only mean firearms chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge. If you open that definition up to include any cartridge using bullets of that approximate diameter then my geek count goes up ... and up ...

   Monday - January 21, 2008

IDIOT LUNACY AS USUAL BUT YA HAVE TO LAUGH

A couple of weeks ago I posted my story on the Health and Safety lunacy and it’s extremes here in the UK.

Well, here’s some more.  It never ends.

Put away your arms, drama group is told
By Richard Savill

Last Updated: 1:43am GMT 19/01/2008

A village amateur dramatic group performing Robinson Crusoe has had to tell police about the use of plastic swords because of health and safety fears.

The Carnon Downs Drama Group, at Perranwell, Cornwall, must lock up its two plastic cutlasses, six wooden swords and a toy gun when they are not in use and appoint a “responsible guardian” for them.The group said it informed police about the use of replica weapons after studying new health and safety guidelines and new legislation to crack down on violent crime.

Later this month, about 700 people are due to attend six performances of the group’s pantomime, featuring several swashbuckling sword fights A co-director, Linda Barker, said: “In some scenes pirates hit each other with frying pans and saucepan lids but there’s no problem with them."We have got several wooden and plastic swords, two plastic spears and a gun that cost £2 from a joke shop. But now we need to keep them locked away.

“The National Operatic and Drama Association said it supported the new policy because “it enables weapons to be used safely and legally in theatrical performances”.

http://tinyurl.com/2p5jww

   Saturday - January 19, 2008

Great, now I’m disenfranchized too.

Virginia is for lovers,
New Jersey is for BRAIN DEAD STUPID ASSHOLES
Silly me, I don’t watch the local news much, or buy the local paper. I didn’t know the people of NJ have been disenfranchised from the presidential election for amost a week now. Did you know this? I didn’t hear anyone screaming. Maybe they’ll save me time, and save the GOP and DNC lots of money, by not even letting people vote. Why bother? Your vote no longer counts FOR ANYTHING in NJ.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009715449

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h8JVYDPMFc1086Y2nkxaLPCjM7wwD8TUNHSO2

you can find more coverage over at Kim’s and Geek’s.

NJ went and passed a law that says the state’s 15 electoral votes are going to be given to whatever presidential candidate gets the most votes nationwide.
Doesn’t matter who you voted for, doesn’t matter how the votes totalled in NJ. Whoever gets the most nationwide, gets all 15 NJ electoral votes.
And it’s completely legal - the Constitution gives states the power to cast their electoral votes any way they choose.

NJ joins MD, who already has this kind of law. Illinois is expected to follow shortly.

I guess this will be called the “me too” law. After all, being popular is all that people want right? What a friggin load of shit.

This horseshit law is brought to you by the morons at the National Popular Vote Movement, who are still pissed off about Al Gore losing the 2000 election even though he won the popular vote. They just can’t wrap their pinhead sized brains around the concept of the Electoral College, and refuse to see that it balances voting power among the states, and actually gives each individual voter the most relative power. Nope, uh uh, get rid of it, cuz my first grade teacher told me “one man, one vote” and that’s all I will ever know. Glue sniffing asshats.

Hey sports fans: The NY Yankees play the Boston Red Sox for the World Series. Baseball, best of 7 games, right?

The scores for the games are
game 1: NY 85 Boston 2
game 2: NY 3 Boston 8
game 3: NY 1 Boston 4
game 4: NY 1 Boston 2
game 5: NY 0 Boston 6
game 6: NY 1 Boston 4
game 7: NY 1 Boston 3

If you applied the NJ law to baseball, the Yankees have won the series. That’s what the Electoral College is all about: winning the most GAMES, not getting the most RUNS. It’s that simple.

You know how long this law will last? It will last until the day after NJ gives it’s 15 Electoral Votes to a Republican candidate, at which point the nanny-state pinkos who make up most of this indigo blue state will scream like raped apes at the top of their shrill little voices ... that THEY were disenfranchised. What a bunch of leftist fucktards.

UPDATE Maybe NJ is just screwing with me?

From the official synopsis of the law:

The agreement becomes effective only after it has been enacted by
enough states to collectively possess the majority of the electoral votes
required to decide a presidential win – currently 270 of the 538
electoral votes.

So in other words, NJ passes a law that won’t take effect unless most (in an Electoral sense) other states also pass such a law. Pussies. Too fearful to boldly stand behind their own legislation, Governor “Seatbelts” Corzine and his Korrupt Krew of Kleptocrats^tm don’t even have the balls to follow the lead of Maryland. Nope, they’ll just wait around until all the other cool kids are playing, then they’ll jump in. Once again, the most important thing in life is being popular. Scaredy little cow teats {udder cowards}.

By enactment, New Jersey joins the efforts in other States to
reform the current system of electing the president and vice president
of the United States, as supported by approximately 70% of all
Americans.

Yeah right, by replacing one “70%” system by another “70%” system (see above link to Geek With a .45).  Or are they trying to say that 70% of all Americans feel that the EC should go bye-bye? Hey, 40% of that crowd of chowder chuckers think 9/11 was an inside job, and 32% are sure they’ve seen Elvis ... driving a UFO.

This agreement ensures that all states are competitive in
presidential elections, makes all votes important and equal, and
guarantees that the candidate who received the most popular votes
nationwide wins the presidency.

What bullshit. What it does, as expressly mentioned on the NPVM website linked above, is come up with a plan to “force” the candidates to come visit the state. Waa waa waa, we’re such diaper rash suffering little crack babies we’re incapable of watching a debate on TV, reading an article online, or perusing a newspaper. We have to have the candidates come visit us personally, or else we’ll hold our breath until we turn blue. Um wait, NJ already IS a blue state. Is that why?

“Makes all votes important and equal”. Eww, what’s this stuck to my shoe? It smells like more NJ Bullshit, and it is!! Currently, each state (and DC) gets 2 Electoral votes, and one more for each Congressman. Among the 10 most populus states (and NJ is wall to wall people), NJ actually has the 2nd lowest number of people per Elector Vote ... which means my vote in NJ counts a little bit more than some voter in California. So in the interests of “equality” NJ is downgrading the power of my vote. Gee, thanks a lot you lechers. In order to take back power from the eviil Federal Government by making a chicken-shit endrun around the Constitution, you’ve managed to give away the infinitesimal power advantage your citizens may have held compared to citizens of 8 other states. The other 41 state’s citizens already have more power, and they ain’t giving it up. Thanks again nitwits.

From the law itself:

(7) If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors
nominated in a member state in association with the national
popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state’s number
of electoral votes

This makes sense ... NJ puts in a clause to play CYA just in case they forget how to count all the way to 15. Holy shit.

, the presidential candidate on the presidential
slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner
shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that
state and that state’s presidential elector certifying official shall
certify the appointment of such nominees. The chief election
official of each member state shall immediately release to the public
all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or
obtained.

Yup, if the NJ folks are truly THAT FUCKING RETARDED, then somebody else should do the picking for them. Hell, somebody else should be wiping their asses for them, then putting them back in their little soft, white, padded, quiet rooms and carefully locking the doors as they leave.

---

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner