Photographer and gun rights activist Oleg Volk nails it with this photo and graphic. Take a look:
Individual Freedom--What a Quaint Notion
(It took me about 30 minutes to notice anything but the model, though).
(And I'm not talking about the gun).
Showing posts with label individual rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individual rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Individual Rights Take a Beating in South Carolina
The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that the city of Greenville, SC is within the law in enacting a smoking ban. The Greenville ordinance had been challenged by a group of business owners in the city.
At least a dozen other towns and cities in South Carolina were awaiting word from the state Supreme Court before enacting proposed smoking bans.
It appears that what was once a bastion of individual rights has become a mecca for the meddling nanny-state gestapo. Rather than rule that the decision to smoke is an individual one that is no one else's business, not to mention that business owners should be allowed to decide on their own whether or not to allow smoking on their own private property, the Supreme Court in the state threw its weight behind the purveyors of the Big Brother Nanny State who seem to believe they have the right to tell other people what to do.
Government in the United States was not established to save people from themselves nor to force people to do things 'for their own good.'
Apparently neither the citizens nor the Supreme Court in South Carolina are even vaguely aware of this concept.
I would have expected such a ruling in California or Massachusetts, but not South Carolina.
Thus, the march to beat individual rights into the ground continues....
Sieg Heil!
At least a dozen other towns and cities in South Carolina were awaiting word from the state Supreme Court before enacting proposed smoking bans.
It appears that what was once a bastion of individual rights has become a mecca for the meddling nanny-state gestapo. Rather than rule that the decision to smoke is an individual one that is no one else's business, not to mention that business owners should be allowed to decide on their own whether or not to allow smoking on their own private property, the Supreme Court in the state threw its weight behind the purveyors of the Big Brother Nanny State who seem to believe they have the right to tell other people what to do.
Government in the United States was not established to save people from themselves nor to force people to do things 'for their own good.'
Apparently neither the citizens nor the Supreme Court in South Carolina are even vaguely aware of this concept.
I would have expected such a ruling in California or Massachusetts, but not South Carolina.
Thus, the march to beat individual rights into the ground continues....
Sieg Heil!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Supreme Court May Decide on Parker/Heller Tues.
In what was formerly known as 'the Parker case,' the District of Columbia v. Heller was presented in conference on Friday for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the petition to hear the case. The high court may release an announcement as soon as tomorrow (Tuesday) concerning whether or not they have agreed to review Heller.
The NRA posted the following last Friday about Heller at the Supreme Court:
'The U.S. Supreme Court is in conference today to consider the petition for the District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly known as Parker) case. The Court may have an announcement as soon as next Tuesday as to whether they will review the case. If they choose to hear it, the case will likely be heard in early 2008. If the Court refuses to hear the case, the lower court's decision, which struck down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional, will stand.'
In other words, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case would be a victory for gun rights in this country. Their declining to review the case would mean that a lower court ruling, which stated that D.C.'s anti-Second Amendment laws are unconstitutional, will stand, and thus, the District of Columbia would be forced to rescind it's gun ban ordinances.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, everything is up in the air. While one can take some comfort in the fact that conservatives and one swing vote have a majority on the Court, one must also remember that this is the very same Court that has basically ripped to shreds the private property rights of American citizens--rights that are also clearly delineated in the Constitution.
While it would be right and proper for the Supreme Court to once and for all clearly state what the Founders believed and wrote about gun rights, thus putting to rest the debate over individual rights in this nation, it may well be better under the circumstances if the Court refuses to hear the case and let's the lower court ruling stand.
That would also be a victory for gun rights.
The NRA posted the following last Friday about Heller at the Supreme Court:
'The U.S. Supreme Court is in conference today to consider the petition for the District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly known as Parker) case. The Court may have an announcement as soon as next Tuesday as to whether they will review the case. If they choose to hear it, the case will likely be heard in early 2008. If the Court refuses to hear the case, the lower court's decision, which struck down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional, will stand.'
In other words, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case would be a victory for gun rights in this country. Their declining to review the case would mean that a lower court ruling, which stated that D.C.'s anti-Second Amendment laws are unconstitutional, will stand, and thus, the District of Columbia would be forced to rescind it's gun ban ordinances.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, everything is up in the air. While one can take some comfort in the fact that conservatives and one swing vote have a majority on the Court, one must also remember that this is the very same Court that has basically ripped to shreds the private property rights of American citizens--rights that are also clearly delineated in the Constitution.
While it would be right and proper for the Supreme Court to once and for all clearly state what the Founders believed and wrote about gun rights, thus putting to rest the debate over individual rights in this nation, it may well be better under the circumstances if the Court refuses to hear the case and let's the lower court ruling stand.
That would also be a victory for gun rights.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
An Interesting Constitutional Question
Liberal jurists have often referred to the principle of 'strict constructionism' with regard to Constitutional interpretation as 'old hat.' The notion that 21st century Americans must be bound by a document that was written within the context of the 18th century seems to them to be stale, antiquated, and unsuitable for modern times.
Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.
For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.
Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.
The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.
Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.
Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'
The same could be said for freedom of speech.
And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.
Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.
It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.
Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?
Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.
For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?
Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.
Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.
Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.
But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.
One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.
The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.
This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.
How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.
The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.
The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.
The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.
The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.
This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.
Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.
For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.
Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.
The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.
Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.
Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'
The same could be said for freedom of speech.
And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.
Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.
It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.
Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?
Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.
For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?
Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.
Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.
Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.
But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.
One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.
The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.
This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.
How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.
The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.
The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.
The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.
The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.
This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.
Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Monday, May 07, 2007
SHOCKER! Liberal Professors Begin to Support Gun Rights
Washington, DC (TLS). As they say, politics often makes for strange bedfellows. Who would have thought that liberal law professors in some of the top law schools in America would now be supporting gun rights?
For years the prevailing wisdom at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other bastions of legal liberalism was that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only preserves a 'collective right' rather than an individual right. In other words, many legal scholars maintained that gun rights refers only to society as a whole in maintaining a militia rather than protecting an individual's right to own a firearm.
Apparently a few significant members of the leftwing intelligentsia have seen the light and taken note of the entirely illogical basis of that position within the context of the Bill of Rights, which specifically protects individual rights.
Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of Harvard, who for years held that the Second Amendment pertained only to a collective right, stated that his earlier views on the subject were shaped by consensus and political preference rather than a serious consideration of the amendment's text, history, and place in the structure of the Constitution.
By considering these key, crucial components of understanding the intent of the Constitution, Tribe states that he came to embrace the Second Amendment as an individual right.
'My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,' said Tribe. 'I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.'
How could a group of men so thoroughly revered be so thoroughly wrong?
The key to understanding the transformation is in Tribe's own words. Earlier in his career, taking a serious look at the text itself, the history of the text, and its place in the construction of the Constitution, was not considered important. The only two issues of utmost importance were consensus of legal opinion in the present, and one's own political bias.
In that one sentence alone, Tribe has shot to bits the contention on the part of many liberal law professors at some of the nation's top schools that they do, in fact, consider original intent as the most significant component of Constitutional interpretation.
Obviously, someone is lying.
Tribe has openly admitted to the fact that his NEGLIGENCE in considering the text itself, its history, and its place in the construction of the Constitution is the thing that led to his earlier conclusion that gun rights do not apply to individuals. Only when he seriously considered original intent did he come to the conclusion that he had been very wrong, and that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun.
Of course, those of us who have studied Constitutional law for years knew all along that Liberal law professors discount original intent. This is the ONLY explanation for their blatant disregard for the words of the Founders on the subject of firearms, and for their propagation of an interpretation of the Second Amendment that was so totally foreign to the mindset and convictions of the men who penned those words.
Professor Tribe, and others like him, are to be heartily commended for having the courage and integrity to admit the errors of their youth and to publicly embrace the fact that the Second Amendment refers to individual rights just as surely as does the First Amendment.
For years the prevailing wisdom at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other bastions of legal liberalism was that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only preserves a 'collective right' rather than an individual right. In other words, many legal scholars maintained that gun rights refers only to society as a whole in maintaining a militia rather than protecting an individual's right to own a firearm.
Apparently a few significant members of the leftwing intelligentsia have seen the light and taken note of the entirely illogical basis of that position within the context of the Bill of Rights, which specifically protects individual rights.
Professor Lawrence H. Tribe of Harvard, who for years held that the Second Amendment pertained only to a collective right, stated that his earlier views on the subject were shaped by consensus and political preference rather than a serious consideration of the amendment's text, history, and place in the structure of the Constitution.
By considering these key, crucial components of understanding the intent of the Constitution, Tribe states that he came to embrace the Second Amendment as an individual right.
'My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,' said Tribe. 'I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.'
How could a group of men so thoroughly revered be so thoroughly wrong?
The key to understanding the transformation is in Tribe's own words. Earlier in his career, taking a serious look at the text itself, the history of the text, and its place in the construction of the Constitution, was not considered important. The only two issues of utmost importance were consensus of legal opinion in the present, and one's own political bias.
In that one sentence alone, Tribe has shot to bits the contention on the part of many liberal law professors at some of the nation's top schools that they do, in fact, consider original intent as the most significant component of Constitutional interpretation.
Obviously, someone is lying.
Tribe has openly admitted to the fact that his NEGLIGENCE in considering the text itself, its history, and its place in the construction of the Constitution is the thing that led to his earlier conclusion that gun rights do not apply to individuals. Only when he seriously considered original intent did he come to the conclusion that he had been very wrong, and that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun.
Of course, those of us who have studied Constitutional law for years knew all along that Liberal law professors discount original intent. This is the ONLY explanation for their blatant disregard for the words of the Founders on the subject of firearms, and for their propagation of an interpretation of the Second Amendment that was so totally foreign to the mindset and convictions of the men who penned those words.
Professor Tribe, and others like him, are to be heartily commended for having the courage and integrity to admit the errors of their youth and to publicly embrace the fact that the Second Amendment refers to individual rights just as surely as does the First Amendment.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Justifiable Outrage
Durham, NC (TLS). Despite the excellent news that all charges against the three Duke lacrosse students falsely accused are being dropped, including a strongly-worded proclamation of innocence by the North Carolina Attorney-General, there is no celebrating in Durham on the part of the lives disrupted and nearly ruined by the fiasco.
Instead there is outrage. And this outrage is justifiable.
Three innocent young men--David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann--were dragged through the absolute worst nightmare of their lives by being accused of crimes they did not commit, thus robbing them of a full year of student life, normal activity, and the pursuit of future professional employment. Their good names and reputations were not only sullied but dragged through the mud as an entire community it seemed united behind proclaiming them guilty.
And this was not even a case of guilty until proven innocent, as tyrannical as that is. They were proclaimed guilty, and in the minds of many there was no use in even having a trial at all. The court of public opinion had already issued its verdict--guilty no matter what the evidence or the facts say.
Certain special interest groups with a very well-known agenda came together with local personalities and entities as co-conspirators in this miscarriage of justice--Mike Nifong and the Durham D.A.'s office, the Durham Police Department, the Durham criminal justice system, the Durham Democratic Party, Duke University, the infamous 'group of 88' faculty members of Duke, the NAACP, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and certain members of the press and certain websites devoted to stirring up the pot bangers.
All of them now have egg all over their faces, in spite of their frantic attempts to appear delighted that the three students were proclaimed innocent.
Some of the co-conspirators, however, are still spouting their hateful venom. At least they are consistent if not very smart.
The fact that this entire affair has now been shown to be a hoax from top to bottom is a chilling microcosm of the state of the criminal justice system in America today. As devastating as this has been for the three young men and their families, who have suffered unfathomable emotional and financial loss, think of what would have happened had the three students come from families of meager means. They would have been totally overwhelmed and swallowed up by a system engaged in a legal equivalent of the story of David and Goliath, except in this case Goliath would have smashed David with his foot.
Had the accused been from a poor or lower-middle-class background, the massive machine of the North Carolina justice system would have engulfed them whole.
This is precisely why those who were adversely impacted by this hoax must take action--not only for themselves but on behalf of those who may not have fared so well had they been accused.
The State of North Carolina, as Mike Nifong's employer, is a co-defendant in this case. Nifong represented the state. His actions carried the weight of the state of North Carolina into any case he decided to prosecute. The same goes for Durham County. Government entities that are implicated in this hoax by the mere fact that Nifong acted in their name should bear some of the responsibility for this shameful display.
Thus, the outrage of the friends and family of the three students should be channeled into legal action. Each government entity involved in this case should be sued. The former accused students and their families are owed a massive bounty from the state of North Carolina and Durham...at least a million bucks a piece to each of the falsely accused.
Criminal charges should be brought against Mike Nifong and some within the Durham Police Department for perpetrating a heinous crime--that of falsely accusing and framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit. The criminal charges should be followed by civil suits.
The only way we are going to prevent this kind of horror from happening again and again is to make the penalty so severe that corrupt government officials will think twice before engaging in such charades.
In fact, the Duke lacrosse rape hoax is a perfect example of government run amok, of unfettered government power and the very real danger it poses to innocent citizens.
This is a golden opportunity to beat back the creeping crawl of government power and to win a big one for the rights of individual citizens. But in this case, it won't be Goliath who wins. 'Little David' will be the one who sends a stone hurling into the monster of big government, right between the eyes.
Such a moment is long overdue.
Instead there is outrage. And this outrage is justifiable.
Three innocent young men--David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann--were dragged through the absolute worst nightmare of their lives by being accused of crimes they did not commit, thus robbing them of a full year of student life, normal activity, and the pursuit of future professional employment. Their good names and reputations were not only sullied but dragged through the mud as an entire community it seemed united behind proclaiming them guilty.
And this was not even a case of guilty until proven innocent, as tyrannical as that is. They were proclaimed guilty, and in the minds of many there was no use in even having a trial at all. The court of public opinion had already issued its verdict--guilty no matter what the evidence or the facts say.
Certain special interest groups with a very well-known agenda came together with local personalities and entities as co-conspirators in this miscarriage of justice--Mike Nifong and the Durham D.A.'s office, the Durham Police Department, the Durham criminal justice system, the Durham Democratic Party, Duke University, the infamous 'group of 88' faculty members of Duke, the NAACP, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and certain members of the press and certain websites devoted to stirring up the pot bangers.
All of them now have egg all over their faces, in spite of their frantic attempts to appear delighted that the three students were proclaimed innocent.
Some of the co-conspirators, however, are still spouting their hateful venom. At least they are consistent if not very smart.
The fact that this entire affair has now been shown to be a hoax from top to bottom is a chilling microcosm of the state of the criminal justice system in America today. As devastating as this has been for the three young men and their families, who have suffered unfathomable emotional and financial loss, think of what would have happened had the three students come from families of meager means. They would have been totally overwhelmed and swallowed up by a system engaged in a legal equivalent of the story of David and Goliath, except in this case Goliath would have smashed David with his foot.
Had the accused been from a poor or lower-middle-class background, the massive machine of the North Carolina justice system would have engulfed them whole.
This is precisely why those who were adversely impacted by this hoax must take action--not only for themselves but on behalf of those who may not have fared so well had they been accused.
The State of North Carolina, as Mike Nifong's employer, is a co-defendant in this case. Nifong represented the state. His actions carried the weight of the state of North Carolina into any case he decided to prosecute. The same goes for Durham County. Government entities that are implicated in this hoax by the mere fact that Nifong acted in their name should bear some of the responsibility for this shameful display.
Thus, the outrage of the friends and family of the three students should be channeled into legal action. Each government entity involved in this case should be sued. The former accused students and their families are owed a massive bounty from the state of North Carolina and Durham...at least a million bucks a piece to each of the falsely accused.
Criminal charges should be brought against Mike Nifong and some within the Durham Police Department for perpetrating a heinous crime--that of falsely accusing and framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit. The criminal charges should be followed by civil suits.
The only way we are going to prevent this kind of horror from happening again and again is to make the penalty so severe that corrupt government officials will think twice before engaging in such charades.
In fact, the Duke lacrosse rape hoax is a perfect example of government run amok, of unfettered government power and the very real danger it poses to innocent citizens.
This is a golden opportunity to beat back the creeping crawl of government power and to win a big one for the rights of individual citizens. But in this case, it won't be Goliath who wins. 'Little David' will be the one who sends a stone hurling into the monster of big government, right between the eyes.
Such a moment is long overdue.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Democrats Trash the Secret Ballot
Washington, DC (TLS). In a move designed to make it easier for workers to organize Unions, House Democrats passed a measure that would allow Union organizers to conduct a vote on unionization without the use of the secret ballot.
Score one for the big Union bosses at the expense of American businesses and taxpayers.
Up until now, employers could require Union organizers to conduct votes among workers by secret ballot. With today's measure passing the House, big Union bosses are one step closer to claiming a majority vote for unionization by workers, WITHOUT secret ballots to prove it.
The secret ballot is a cornerstone of our constitutional, democratic republic. The Founders demanded the secret ballot to prevent not only peer pressure but pressure by the forces of tyranny.
With this vote today, the Democrat-controlled House just proved it doesn't care about the principles symbolized by the secret ballot, such as the power of the individual, individual rights, one man one vote, etc.--all foundational principles of a free society.
If this terribly imprudent bill becomes law, Union bosses can claim a majority vote by acclamation or some other strong-armed scheme to cajole individual workers into voting to unionize. This will result in a renewed spread of unionization in areas where historically it has not been popular. One of the main reasons for the massive financial expansion and the explosive population growth of the sun-belt is the LACK of unionization. In today's society wherever Unions go, companies raise prices to pay for Union demands. Inflation ensues. Companies have difficulty meeting their bottom line.
Talk to any honest person in the world of finance and business, and they will tell you that the main reason U.S. automakers are having such trouble keeping up with Japanese companies is the fact that our automakers are unionized, meaning that the bulk of the price of one car goes toward the Union-mandated pay-scale and benefits of workers.
Thus, Detroit and other cities located in what was once a bustling industrial complex have experienced a mass exodus, and cities located in the sun-belt that frown on unionization have flourished.
The Democrats today made it clear that they wish for the fate of Detroit to fall on Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and Phoenix.
Thanks a lot.
Score one for the big Union bosses at the expense of American businesses and taxpayers.
Up until now, employers could require Union organizers to conduct votes among workers by secret ballot. With today's measure passing the House, big Union bosses are one step closer to claiming a majority vote for unionization by workers, WITHOUT secret ballots to prove it.
The secret ballot is a cornerstone of our constitutional, democratic republic. The Founders demanded the secret ballot to prevent not only peer pressure but pressure by the forces of tyranny.
With this vote today, the Democrat-controlled House just proved it doesn't care about the principles symbolized by the secret ballot, such as the power of the individual, individual rights, one man one vote, etc.--all foundational principles of a free society.
If this terribly imprudent bill becomes law, Union bosses can claim a majority vote by acclamation or some other strong-armed scheme to cajole individual workers into voting to unionize. This will result in a renewed spread of unionization in areas where historically it has not been popular. One of the main reasons for the massive financial expansion and the explosive population growth of the sun-belt is the LACK of unionization. In today's society wherever Unions go, companies raise prices to pay for Union demands. Inflation ensues. Companies have difficulty meeting their bottom line.
Talk to any honest person in the world of finance and business, and they will tell you that the main reason U.S. automakers are having such trouble keeping up with Japanese companies is the fact that our automakers are unionized, meaning that the bulk of the price of one car goes toward the Union-mandated pay-scale and benefits of workers.
Thus, Detroit and other cities located in what was once a bustling industrial complex have experienced a mass exodus, and cities located in the sun-belt that frown on unionization have flourished.
The Democrats today made it clear that they wish for the fate of Detroit to fall on Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and Phoenix.
Thanks a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)