You Have to Read This! Guilty Until Proven Innocent
August 13, 2008
Law
If you haven’t read this yet, you need to. You have to. It is a well-spoken reflection of what is happening in America. Read the article here: America’s Troubled House by Patti Davis - a Newsweek Web Exclusive.
…one minute cooking dinner, the next handcuffed on the kitchen floor, inches from the bloodied body of a dog who was part of her family … handcuffed, helpless, forced to kneel in his underwear … not only did the police slaughter their dogs, they tracked blood all over the house in a search that yielded nothing…
Email this Article:
Share this Article:
Florida Gearing Up for 2008 Election Mayhem
Special interest groups such as Florida’s League of Women Voters and AFL-CIO chapter were recently dealt a heavy blow in their efforts to find new and creative ways in which to skew and blur election results for the 2008 election cycle. According to a press release from Florida’s Department of State, on August 6, 2008, Federal Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga in Miami upheld a Florida law which had been challenged by the League of Women Voters and AFL-CIO. These groups challenged that the law’s requirement that voter registration applications collected by such groups be submitted within ten days of collection and by applicable registration deadlines was unconstitutional.
The challenge was brought after fines were imposed on the groups following the 2004 election cycle in which the groups failed to submit collected voter registration applications on time, by associated deadlines, or in some cases failed to submit them altogether. The decision reinforces the strict regulation of groups who organize to act as voter registration agents by requiring them to perform these activities in an ethical manner, or face stiff civil penalties and possible criminal penalties.
Florida’s Secretary of State, Kurt S. Browning said the law will be implemented in the near future, as soon as implementing rules from the courts are in place. According to Browning,
Every voter registration applicant who completes an application and entrusts it to somebody else should fully expect that the application will promptly reach election officials so that the applicant may be registered and eligible to vote. This law does just that and protects the right to vote of all Floridians.
Email this Article:
Share this Article:
HR 5244 Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights - Proceed with Caution
These days, it grows more and more apparent each day that when the government comes forward with some new program to “assist” consumers, it is wise to keep a close eye for the hook. In an article on Sunday from the Washington Post, we learn some details of a Democrat’s proposed bill which has silently and methodically made its way through Congressional committees, “despite significant pushback from the banking industry and top Republican lawmakers,” according to the article.
Of course, it would be no surprise that the “banking industry” would be resistant to any changes in lending practices. After all, why change a policy that can allow for hundreds of billions dollars in losses across said industry without hardly batting an eye, while the average American household would be crippled into bankruptcy by a $10,000 credit bill? As for “Republican lawmakers” who oppose the bill, they see the bill as nothing more than a political ruse - a bill with a catchy name like the “Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights,” which does very little in the way of helping the average citizen.
The bill, proposed by New York Representative Carolyn Maloney, is heralded by Democrats as bringing about solid change like limiting unexpected rate increases on existing credit card debt. Actually, all this change would require is that extra “fine print” be included in the pages upon pages the average consumer who is under the thumb of the credit industry never reads anyway. By including the new fine print, the rate increases then become “expected.” How does this help? It doesn’t.
H.R. 5244 would ultimately change nothing at all, except the language in the fine print of credit card offers, and offer absolutely no added protection to consumers. In fact, the language being proposed by Rep. Maloney effectually widens the leverage credit card companies hold over consumers, as long as the leverage is explained in unintelligible lawyer-speak “in such paragraph” of the fine print.
It really is no surprise that Democrats like the bill, and Republicans don’t. First of all, it puts consumers further into a position of relying on the government to run corporations who in turn run government. Secondly, it works to widen the gap between the “intelligentsia” and average citizens. Third, it will ultimately put consumers deeper in debt while having the sense that they are in fact more protected by the government and corporations who are working so dilligently to screw them.
Thank you, Representative Maloney. We’re sorry to hear you missed a payment, had your own credit card interest rate jacked up, and couldn’t weasel your way out of it. If you can afford the lacquer it takes to put your hair that high day after day, you can afford a higher credit card interest rate.
Email this Article:
Share this Article:
Is ‘Liberal’ the New ‘Conservative’? Schwarzenegger Seems to Think So
As Governor of California, it may seem like an obvious step to toe in with some liberal ideas. California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (of Terminator and Kindergarten Cop fame) signed on late last week to a push from state lawmakers for an outright ban of “trans-fat” foods in restaurants statewide.
This has seriously irked the senses of conservatives who think the government ought to mind its own business when it comes to the choices consumers make, but it is being lauded by overzealous health nuts who feel their own popular opinion ought to be inflicted on others.
So, government entities can dictate when and where you can smoke, what you can eat, when and where you can posess a lawfully registered firearm, how much you can flush, should pass laws to protect men who want to dress like women at work (and vice versa), should encourage homosexuality in the military, and discriminate on the basis of race so long as it benefits those who claim to be in the “minority.”
As Michelle Malkin puts it, “Is this the kind of ‘rebranding’ of the Republican Party Schwarzenegger wants the national GOP to adopt?”
Email this Article:
Share this Article:
ACLU Wants Alabama Felons to Vote - Alabama Should Uphold Law
July 22, 2008
Law
The Associated Press reports today about a shaky law written by some shaky legislators in Alabama that leaves the door wide open to allow a lawsuit being brought from the American Civil Liberties Union requesting that a majority of felons be permitted to vote.
The AP article says that the ACLU is filing suit to restore the rights of all felons, except those convicted of certain crimes, which are listed in the state’s constitution. According to the article, “The lawsuit claims Alabama law is unclear on the subject, citing a bill passed by the Legislature in 2003 that says felons can vote unless convicted on ‘crimes of moral turpitude,’ but never defines those crimes.”
Now, to be clear, Alabama’s State Legislature website is a travesty of technology in our modern era (no big surprise - it is, after all, Alabama). Even so, our team did a bit of digging around and discovered that Alabama relies on six different state Constitutions as the framework for their legislative code. We did some searching through the antiquated website, and found some really great legal wording that ought to be in effect, if it isn’t.
Unfortunately, it isn’t clear from browsing the website if this information is actually up to date. However, we did find this statute as part of the Alabama Code of 1975 (the most current legal compilation from which current legislation is enacted):
The Code of Alabama 1975
Section 17-3-30
Qualifications of electors generally.
Any person possessing the qualifications of an elector set out in Article 8 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as modified by federal law, and not laboring under any disqualification listed therein, shall be an elector, and shall be entitled to register and to vote at any election by the people.
So, after some more painstaking searching, we found Article 8 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, which says this about being qualified to vote:
Alabama Constitution 1901
Article 8 - SECTION 182
Certain persons disqualified from registering and voting.
The following persons shall be disqualified both from registering, and from voting, namely:
All idiots and insane persons; those who shall by reason of conviction of crime be disqualified from voting at the time of the ratification of this Constitution; those who shall be convicted of treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude; also, any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp, or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any person as an elector. (We added the emphasis)
Now, according to the AP’s report about the ACLU lawsuit, they claim a 2003 legislation adopts a list of 15 crimes which disqualify a person from voting. By our count, according to the legal code available from the State of Alabama online, there are 26 crimes that disqualify a person from voting.
Maybe the Alabama code online is outdated. Maybe the AP got the story from the ACLU wrong. Maybe the State of Alabama doesn’t even know what it’s constitutions say, which by all accounts of the information online, would not be surprising.
No matter. It just goes to show that legislators in 1901 had more sense than those of today. We say, let’s adopt a federal law, based on the 1901 Alabama Constitution, and put up signs at the entrance of every voting presinct across the nation from this day forward: NO IDIOTS ALLOWED!
Email this Article:
Share this Article:
-
Did You Know?
One third of Americans identify themselves as 'Independent' when it comes to political affiliation. Don't let the Red and Blue fool you. It's okay to be Independent!
-
Sponsors
-
