I’m sitting in the airport and CNN has coverage of a rally at the Baltimore city hall. I just heard one girl say “We are not thugs.” You know, I agree with her. The people who are actually rallying and not burning down businesses and not looting and peacefully (albeit loudly) protesting, are not thugs. They are not the ones I have a problem with.
The people I have a problem with are the ones who reinforce the negative stereotypes.
I’ve covered this before but, again, the DHS Secretary is wrong. Jeh Johnson claims during the 2015 RSA security conference that law enforcement needs access to encrypted data for public safety reasons, but he fails to consider that the Bill of Rights addresses this issue already. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” Courts have also ruled that this includes a variety of electronic communications. Back in 2009 Missouri also passed a Constitutional amendment to affirm the electronic right to privacy.
Why should the government be given basically unrestricted access to our personal belongings? The 4th Amendment already permits the issuance of warrants for searching ones belongings, but it seems DHS wants to eliminate that step. If communication is encrypted then it is up to the government to find another way. That is the nature of how our government is supposed to work. We should not be required to give up our privacy. Benjamin Franklin once made a statement along the lines of “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” I would argue that without knowing the future, this is the exact type of situation Franklin was referring to.
(h/t The Blaze)
This week the US Senate is expected to vote on Loretta Lynch for US Attorney General. Her confirmation has been delayed for about five months after Democrats did not confirm her and Mitch McConnell refused to proceed with her confirmation until the passage of an anti-trafficking bill.
I am against her nomination for one reason. She supports the Obama and Eric Holder policies on illegal immigration. (The Blaze) During her confirmation hearings she did seem to claim many of the same stances that I do regarding same-sex marriage, marijuana, etc), however, she based on those stances on existing Department of Justice policies and not on Constitutional grounds. That implies that her stance will change if the policy changes, which likely would if Obama were to direct her to make such changes.
Further, if she supports the current illegal immigration policies then she supports violating the law and Constitution. I want an an Attorney General who will enforce the laws that exist and will encourage Congress to make appropriate changes to laws he or she believes should be changed. I do not want an Attorney General that will make up the rules as they go along as Obama and Holder have.
I encourage my Senators to vote against Loretta Lynch, but I don’t expect either of them to. Claire McCaskill is almost guaranteed to vote for the confirmation given she solely plays politics and could care less about what confirmation would mean for the enforcement of the laws. Roy Blunt is likely vote with the Republicans, but given he is nearly a Democrat himself it wouldn’t surprise me if he were to vote for her confirmation. Neither of them will vote in support of the rule of law and the Constitution.
As most things I post here, this is ridiculous. This article from The Blaze describes a situation where police were issued a warrant to search a woman’s house on the basis that her son argued in support of marijuana during a school event. The school then called child protection services and the police were included. Prior to receiving the warrant the officers would not allow the woman to enter her own house, which I understand and do not disagree with in general, but this is an example where a warrant should have never been issued. Yes, the woman had cannabis oil in the house, but that should be inadmissible because that search warrant should not have been issued in the first place.
My chief complaint about this whole ordeal revolves around that warrant and how “probable cause” was obtained. It was not because she had been caught buying the cannabis oil. From the article it was purely based on her sons pro-marijuana argument at school. Obviously we do not know whether or not he said there was items in their house, but that still shouldn’t matter because that was the *only* thing they had against her. Courts that actually follow the Constitution and laws would not have considered that to be enough.
Back in 2013 the Missouri Department of Revenue (DoR) was accused of collecting information on concealed carry weapons licensees. Eventually, it was found that they were actually collecting this information for everyone and submitting it to the federal government for compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005. This is obviously a problem considering Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed HB 361 into law on July 13, 2009, which prohibits the DoR from complying with the REAL ID Act. Collection of this data also potentially placed CCW licensees in danger as the concealed carry endorsement was maintained by the DoR.
Fast forward to April 9, 2015 when I simply attempted to update the address on my drivers license. This was not a planned trip, so I’ll admit that I did not bring any documentation with me. Upon arriving at the S. Fremont location in Springfield there was a sign stating I would need proof of residency with some examples, such as utility bills. I was in luck because I receive all my bills in electronic format and could access them from my phone, including my utility bill. Having been through this process before, I knew I needed a physical address in lieu of my usual PO box. The utility bill had the PO box listed, as well as my physical home address below.
Upon my number being called I notified the attendant that I needed a change of address. She stated I would need proof of residency, so I provided her my drivers license and was prepared to show my electronic document. I was informed electronic documents were not acceptable according to state law because they needed proof that I would receive mail at the address. The problem is I don’t receive mail, other than junk mail, at my physical address because all my bills are in electronic format. I even pointed out that if the bill were in paper form, the mailing address on the document was my PO box and not the physical address, thus keeping me in limbo. Despite multiple inquiries, I was never shown where the documentation was limited to paper copies only. A supervisor attempted to help, but also could not direct me to such information. I requested contact information for someone higher and was given a DoR customer service number. I also requested names of the two people, of which one was Jessica, while the supervisor walked away and into a back room as I attempted to ask her. She did not return. I did take note of the customer service line for this third-party location, but it was disconnected. I continued on my journey and contacted the DoR customer service number. During this call I was told the same thing, that electronic documents were not acceptable, but the rep was helpful because she attempted to find where the requirement was in state statue. Of course, there was no requirement. She proceeded to tell me the same information about how I needed physical mail to verify residency. If anybody had been able to show my where electronic documentation was not permitted, I would have given up and provided physical documents. That never happened.
I called again on the 10th and received a completely different response. This time the agent, who seemed new, told me electronic documents were not acceptable because copies of the documents would need to be made. That was concerning because the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo) 302.065 expressly prohibits the DoR from making copies of any source documents except as expressly permitted by law. This was enacted in 2013 after the data collection described earlier. I requested a supervisor contact me to discuss further, which she did. During that call she very clearly stated electronic documents would be accepted as long as they were digital representations of the paper documents and not an account summary type of page. I was also told to have the office call their help line if they refused to accept my document.
After an hour of waiting, I made my second attempt to make a “simple” change of address. I was, once again, told I needed a physical document. I explained that I had been in contact with DoR in Jefferson City and that I was to have them contact their help line. I stepped aside while they did. A few minutes later the supervisor (who made the call) asked if I could have printed the document prior to returning to their office. Of course I could have but, as I stated, it wasn’t necessary because the electronic document was acceptable. This also contradicts their previous statements that I needed something mailed to me because a printed version of the electronic document was acceptable. She left and eventually returned saying they would accept it this one time. If an exception can be made, it likely isn’t a violation of state law as I had been told the day before. I eventually did receive my change of address using my electronic documentation.
Upon further review of state statutes, as far as proof of residency, there is no requirement that the document be physical or not. In fact, the type of document (utility bill, mortgage paperwork, etc) is not specified either. The only statement in RSMo 302.171 relative to the rules says “The director may establish procedures to verify the Missouri residency or United States naturalization or lawful immigration status and Missouri residency of the applicant and establish the duration of any driver’s license issued under this section.” This is very vague, but certainly does not require physical documents as I was told.
Things get even worse for the DoR because while I was searching for this information I found RSMo 302.181. “All licenses shall bear the licensee’s Social Security number, if the licensee has one, and if not, a notarized affidavit must be signed by the licensee stating that the licensee does not possess a Social Security number, or, if applicable, a certified statement must be submitted as provided in subsection 4 of this section.”
Believe me when I say I prefer to not have my social security number on my drivers license but according to 302.181 the DoR is required to use social security numbers and not the generated numbers that they currently use. This appears to be another state law that the DoR does not abide by.
At what point did the DoR become the decision maker in what laws it would follow and the ones it didn’t need to follow? If I am required to follow all of the state laws, the state departments should be required to also. I believe 302.181 should be fixed to eliminate the requirement for social security numbers, but until then they should be following the law as it is written and not as they desire it be written.
UPDATE 4/11/2015:
After some discussion with members of the Locke & Smith Foundation, the Social Security number issue is solved. Something I either misread or misinterpreted was section 4, “The director of revenue shall issue a commercial or noncommercial driver’s license without a Social Security number to an applicant therefor, who is otherwise qualified to be licensed, upon presentation to the director of a certified statement that the applicant objects to the display of the Social Security number on the license. The director shall assign an identification number, that is not based on a Social Security number, to the applicant which shall be displayed on the license in lieu of the Social Security number.“
This is a screenshot of a portion of an article from TheBlaze about a guy who hit a toddler. The original video was taken down and this is what replaced it.
The final tally is in. Springfield citizens voted to repeal the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity ordinance. I am glad to see this result. Many people are already saying it is because Springfield citizens hate gay people. Their tolerance has become very intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I’m not against people in the LGBT community. I may not agree with their lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to get married or anything else I can legally do. Even with that view, I do not believe the SOGI ordinance should exist. Not because I hate the people it would apply to, but because I believe in the opposite approach.
For one, I believe same-sex marriage laws are unnecessary. Not because I think same-sex couples should not be able to get married, but because I believe ALL marriage laws are unnecessary. Marriage is a religious act. By enacting same-sex marriage laws you discriminate against those who believe in other arrangements, such as polygamy. As far as government is concerned, “marriage” should be a contract between two or more people. Government should have zero involvement unless there is a dispute, which would be handled in the same manner as any other contract.
The second thing is that anti-discrimination laws should not even exist because the private business owners should be allowed to make that decision. Some will argue that by opening your business to the public you then become a public business, but that is not true. If it were, no business should pay taxes just as a public (governmental) organization does not pay taxes. A private business can be privately owned while being open to the public. Now, back to the anti-discrimination laws, they shouldn’t exist. Private businesses should be allowed to implement their own policies, even if they discriminate against others, because we have a system called a free market. If people disagree with a businesses discriminating against a group, they don’t have to do business with them and can take their money elsewhere. While it is possible that “white only” or “straight only” businesses may do well, it is likely that discrimination free businesses would do just as well or better. If a city or region fully supports such businesses then those who discriminate will likely cease to exist. A former coworker of mine would say “that’s the cost of doing business.”
Those who claim to not be discriminating are often doing just that. We already have the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion (not freedom *from* religion), so those who choose to not participate in certain acts because of their religion are allowed to do so. It’s not because they hate people. In many cases, the businesses are more than willing to provide services to those they disagree with, but are not willing to “endorse” the act that is the base of the disagreement. The act of forcing them to perform services against their religion is, in fact, discriminating against them because of their religion.
Lastly, I recently saw an article where Rick Santorum asked if a gay print shop owner should be required to print banners for Westboro Baptist Church saying “God Hates Fags”. It is an interesting question given the current climate. No, they should not. The problem is that this, as Santorum said, “is a two-way street.” If a Christian bakery is forced to participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake acknowledging that marriage then a gay print shop owner should also be required to print banners that say “God Hates Fags”. It’s not one or the other.
I do not expect this to be over. There will be court battles for years to come, but that would have happened even if the ordinance had remained. I also foresee supporters of SOGI continuing to attack those who are against the ordinance and will never attempt to understand the reasons why people might be against it unless it supports their narrative that they hate gay people.
This is a great segment. It has very crude humor, however, it is accurate and a great way of putting surveillance into perspective.
Earlier I described how the Obama administration traded Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban terrorists claiming we don’t leave our men and women behind. The problem was that Sgt. Bergdahl deserted the Army to join the Taliban.
Where is Obama now when there is a Marine being held in an Iran for espionage? Amir Hekmati has been in an Iranian prison since 2011 when he visited family. He was eventually found guilty of “cooperating with hostile governments”. Where is Obama now?
Then you have Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi who was held in a Mexican prison for eight months after accidentally entering Mexico with firearms. How do we know it was on accident? He called 911 when he was at the border stating he possessed the firearms and admitting he had accidentally missed his turn.
Obviously, either of these Marine’s could be lying about their situation, but why does it matter? Obama traded someone who ran away from the Army to join a terror group, but ignored two Marine’s who were in good standing. What kind of Commander-in-Chief leaves behind two men who protected their country, but saves the one who supports an anti-American terrorist group?
Luckily, there is someone who is standing up for them. Montel Williams, who is a Marine veteran himself, was heavily involved in the release of Tahmooressi and is working to help Hekmati be released. While I applaud Williams for his involvement, it is sad that the person who is there for these two men is a former television host and military member instead of their Commander-in-Chief.
Ref:
Montel Williams Is Leading the Charge to Get U.S. Marine Freed from Iranian Prison – The Blaze
Mexican Judge Orders Immediate Release of Jailed U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi – The Blaze
About a year ago we all heard about the trade with the Taliban of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban members who had been held in Guantanamo Bay. Obama said “we don’t leave men and women in uniform behind.” I agree, but that doesn’t give the whole story.
If we had not made the trade with the terrorist organization, would we have been leaving him behind? My opinion is that we would not have been. There were initial reports of this happening, but now, a year later, an NCIS reports indicates he deliberately left the US Army in 209 to join the Taliban. In other words, we didn’t leave him behind, he left us.
Some of the five Guantanamo detainees immediately returned to terrorist activities and while the trade agreement said the five would remain in Qatar for a year, it does not seem there was any ban from involvement with terrorist activities.
What happened to the US not negotiating with terrorists? I guess it doesn’t count if you trade five experienced terrorists for a single inexperienced one.
My Political Stand 