Fucking hate nosy neighbors.

We have, as people who read my Saturday posts know, a dog.  She's a Scotty dog, a small, noisy dog, who has a small pen inside the back yard (which wouldn't hold an arthritic basset hound, with how many gaps there are). 

We also have nosy neighbors.  Nosy neighbors who have twice called the cops out of "concern for the dog's well-being." 

The dog hates being inside.  Hates it to the point where she's not trustworthy outside her crate.  She's smart, and she believes that if she's obnoxious enough (i.e., can chew up enough furniture, kids clothes, rugs, toys, and/or clothing; can piss or shit on the carpets while staring right at us; can chase the cats and/or the kids enough) she gets put out into her pen, where she's happy.  Her favorite thing to do is to pretend to be Snoopy and sit on top of her house to watch everything that goes on. 

She has a double dish that I keep full of water.  I refill/wash out as needed.  I bring her inside, happy about it or not, when there's no more shade in her pen, and don't put her back out until she has shade. 

However. 

Somebody has called the cops about her pen.  Twice.  And this latest prick told us that refusing to let him in the house was obstruction. 

Guess our dog is going to have to go live with my mother until we can find a place out in the country.  And I guess I can't let the boy go outside and play by himself anymore, since we won't have our noisy alarm system in place.

Incredible.

If the whole "furlough" of "non-essential" federal employees hasn't been bad enough, there's tons worse: scenic view pull-offs in South Dakota have been blocked off with orange safety cones to prevent people from pulling over to take pictures (not that that would actually stop someone really determined), and people have been evicted from their homes because they're technically vacation homes set up on federal land. 

So.  The "chief executive" who is the park department's highest point in the chain of command has shown how petty he is.  Now, let me show y'all a little bit more:

Intimidation tactics on full display.  More here.  Because we all know that those Vietnam vets are just explosions waiting to happen, and if they can just trigger one attack...

More petty, meanness on display here.  We must do what the Spoiled Brat wants!  The shutdown is hurting the children!

How about doing his damnedest to scare the shit out of Grandma by threatening to let her starve and freeze on the streets?

The worst, I think, is here.  This page was the Amber Alerts page.  You know, the page where the alerts issued by states were displayed, permitting people all over the country to potentially recognize a kidnapping victim, and get help. 

So.  Petty, mean, and evil.  What more do we need to know about the "leader" of our nation?

Never trust a cop.

There is no way to tell the ones who will not violate your constitutionally-protected rights from those who mistake bottled water for alcohol, or those who decide your house is the perfect stake-out for your neighbor's house...or from those who will shoot you because they think the hose nozzle you're holding might be a gun. 

I do know some good cops.  Some. 

I also know cops who refused to investigate allegations of child abuse, molestation, and various other things, because the accused was one of their buddies, and a good guy, and "wouldn't ever do that to his own kids."

I am disinclined, through incidences in my own past, to believe that law enforcement sees me as anything other than just another target.  And current headlines and stories aren't doing a damn thing to change my mind.

Honestly?  I'm more than a little scared.  When my point of view ceases to be a minority amongst the law abiding, there's trouble.  And more and more people are looking at cops as jack booted thugs to be dealt with when the time comes. 

Y'know...

I've been staring at this blank page, on and off all day, trying to come up with something uplifting...and I just can't.  Our nations is so very, horribly divided, not between the haves and have nots, but between the productive and the parasites (the worst of which are in government on local, state, and federal levels). 

All of my life, I've been so proud of our nation, and our system of government.  Lee Greenwood nailed it in my opinion--or, at least, that used to be the case.

Now?  Now, we have the government on all levels getting so intrusive and vindictive that I no longer say what's on my mind (not even here).  I no longer trust that the government works under constraints set out more than two hundred years ago by men much smarter than any I've ever met today.  I no longer believe I live in a free country.  Why?

PRISM. 

SWAT. 

NSA, DEA, BATFE, DHS, DFS, and all of the other alphabet soup organizations. 

I will admit: we have it nowhere near as bad as places like Egypt, or Somalia, or Cuba or Venezuela or Argentina...yet. 

I pray to God that it never gets to that level.

But, I haven't been able to write an uplifting post over what America means to me, and what it should be to the world. 

Because the America I grew up believing in?  The one I thought existed?  Yeah.  It died.  I'm not sure how, or when, but it's gone.

What's left?

Something is rotten in Denmark

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war...  --Amendment V, United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, but an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.  --Amendment VI, United States Constitution

In other words, anyone charged, whether on a local level by local law enforcement is entitled to a trial by jury, a trial that is both speedy and public--not held in secret--in the district where whatever crime the accused is being charged with was committed.  

Federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor... Washington Post

There's the first problem.  Snowden is not in active service, neither in the military, nor the militia.  He's an independent contractor--thus, he is entitled to a grand jury trial.  A public one, with all charges publicly available.  Not sealed.   By pursuing a sealed criminal complaint, Snowden's Constitutionally guaranteed rights are being violated by the government that is required by law to uphold the Constitution.

Big shock, right?

The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered and a district with a long track record of prosecuting cases with national security implications....Snowden flew to Hong Kong last month after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii... Ibid.

...And here's violation number two.  The "crime" of shining a spotlight on the government's ass-raping of the Constitution with a sandpaper condom and no lube happened in Hawaii.  Not Virginia.

Again, big shock.  It's not like the federal government has the collective reading comprehension of a two year old.  If they did, they'd realize that their jobs are clearly defined and firmly limited in the Constitution, and that the rights of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not rights granted by government, but by God.  If they had the reading comprehension of a retarded lemur, they'd realize that the Bill of Rights is there to inform the people of what the government is supposed to be legally restricted from doing to them.

Then again, I don't know more than a couple dozen people who have read the Constitution in its entirety.  And none of them is a government official.

Next time you buy a house?

Pay cash.  In full.  You never know who might end up owning your home, otherwise.

Best yet?  You cannot shake off debt to a government agency by filing bankruptcy. 

Wow.

When ex-KGB commander Vladimir Putin is saying that the current administration is doing bad things with the phone records, and invading citizens' privacy a bit too much...you know there's a real problem. 

Poor idiot.

I admire Edward Snowdon's courage, but not his intelligence, in shining a spotlight on what the government is doing in ass-plowing the fourth amendment.  He's going to wind up dead.  Whether it's by assassination when they can't haul him back through extradition, or murdered by an inmate (who then immediately gets turned loose as a reward) will depend on which country he manages to flee to. 

I honestly can't see a way for him to survive, since he came out publicly, rather than handing over the information anonymously.  Not with the regime administration tyrants government we currently have in power.

FFOT: public school policies

Public schools in general and these three schools in specific can fuck right the fuck off.

First: how the fuck does a kid get fucking traumatized by a fucking plastic toy gun about an inch long?  Even if it is a fucking evil black rifle?  Simple: he doesn't.  The fucking pansy-ass leftist panty wad bus driver is so shit scared of guns he (or she) can't stand to see a little green army man's gun.  Betcha he'd be just as scared if he saw a real penis with testicles still attached, rather than removed, bronzed, and sitting on someone's mantle. 

Second: the teacher was right to teach the kids about their fifth amendment rights.  Every student has a right to refuse to take a survey--especially one that has their name on the top.  The fucking school does not have the fucking right to fucking punish him for doing his job.  His job is to teach.  So fucking what if he used their fucking illegal survey asking questions about criminal behavior?  What, were they planning to turn the surveys over to the police (probably)?  Even better for him to have taught them that they have the right to NOT FUCKING ANSWER THOSE FUCKING QUESTIONS!!!

Third: WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK?  WHOSE FUCKING BRILLIANT FUCKING BRAIN FART BIRTHED THIS FUCKING ABORTION OF A FUCKING IDEA???  WHO THOUGHT SCANNING KIDS' IRISES WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT WAS A BRILLIANT FUCKING PLAN?  I DON'T FUCKING CARE THAT IT WAS FUCKING DONE IN THE NAME OF SECURITY--THAT'S FUCKING TREATING CHILDREN AS IF THEY WERE FUCKING FELONS, AND FUCKING FINGERPRINTING THEM, AND STORING THEIR FINGERPRINTS IN A FUCKING DATABASE!!  EVEN FUCKING BETTER, THE FUCKING BRAINLESS, MOUTH-BREATHING FUCKING MORONS AT THE SCHOOL FUCKING HIRED A FUCKING OUTSIDE COMPANY TO COME IN AND DO THE FUCKING SCANS?  HOW DOES THE FUCKING SCHOOL KNOW THAT NONE OF THE FUCKING OUTSIDE COMPANY WAS ON THE FUCKING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS LIST? 

The wheels are coming off this country.  And it's nowhere more apparent than in the education system.

Uh-huh. Felons, all of them.

Who?  Why, the federal government, of course.  They break the laws set down to restrict their actions against us daily.  Remember this?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.--Amendment IV, United States Constitution

I do believe this violates both the spirit and the letter of that particular law restricting government from looking for things to convict us of, without any suspicion that we're actually breaking the law to begin with. 

And I also believe the government and government goons that are trampling on the citizens (as in: equals who hire government to run the country, NOT subjects controlled by a government) may go fuck themselves.  Go ahead and get my phone records.  I rarely talk to anyone other than my mom, or a couple of friends.  I don't give a damn if they've got them, and I will not comply with anything they demand while insinuating that they've got my phone records. 

After all--I receive a copy every month.  In the mail.  I've never been under the impression that any form of communication other than face to face with NO cell phones, computers with microphones, or any other sort of sound recording capable device present.

I have an idea...

Let all the gun-grabbers who live in free states congregate in a small state...like Connecticut, who's just passed wet-dream anti-gun laws.

Then we build a fence around it.  People can move to the state, but people living there have to take a mental health test consisting of one question before they can move out.  The question shall be: "Do you want to pass common sense gun control laws wherever you live?"

If the answer is no, they can leave the state.  If the answer is yes...well...have you seen what happens on Monty Python and the Holy Grail bridge of death scene when someone answers the three questions wrong?

Imagine...

Imagine having $100,000 in the bank.  It's a nice, secure feeling, isn't it?  Enough money to pay all of your bills, perhaps for more than a year, depending on your expenses and where you live.

Now, think about this: your government has declared a bank holiday, with no prior notice.  Checks will not go through, and your debit card will not work. 

This is happening because the government is siphoning $40,000 out of your account.  They've stolen almost half of the money you worked hard for.  Nice, huh?

That's what's happening in Cyprus. 
CYPRUS: Banks still closed; depositors to lose 40%...

Apparently, that was only the first domino to fall.  It's not the last one. 

EUROZONE CHIEF: Personal savings accounts in Spain, Italy will be raided to save euro...


Now, think about this: how long have they had that plan in the works?  How can they possibly have had everything in place to do this without the people governed noticing?

How much of the buildup to Hitler's Final Solution did people miss?  And why was it missed?

Could it be because nowhere else in the world has enshrined in their governing documents that the press is not to be silenced? 

How long will it be before our first amendment is either ignored or stricken from the law of the land?

The answer is simple: pretty much immediately after the second amendment is successfully overturned. 

They'll come for our guns.  Then, our open discussion of events.  Then they'll take our money without even trying to hide what they're doing.

After that?  Who knows.  You'll have to ask the Jews at Auschwitz. 

Umm...what?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Amendment V, U.S. Constitution

Simple.  Clear.  Concise.  You don't kill U.S. citizens without the due process of law, including a trial in front of a grand jury. 

In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”--EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Something seems to be...wrong, here.  And, yet again, King Putt's administration proves that it cannot comprehend the written English language. 

Or, maybe, Mr. Holder just subscribes to Orwell's doublethink and Derrida's ideas that words mean the opposite of what they say.

And they wonder why we don't trust them.

An illegal executive order won't change reality...

...but then again, radicals on both the Right and the Left don't seem to have a real strong connection to reality.
 

Idiots.

My right to own guns is what protects your right to scream for the government to take my guns.  The second amendment is what keeps all of the others from being abrogated.

And Mr. Foxx?  You are a racist hypocrite, but you may well have a good point.

People need to shut up for a while, and let the nation grieve the loss of the children in Connecticut. 

"...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This is a dangerous precedent. 

A federal judge has just told a family that they have to go against their beliefs by offering the morning after pill and the week after pill to their employees.*  The family believes that preventing the implantation of the embryo is as bad as abortion. 

The federal government is telling them, through Obamacare, that private individuals' rights to act on their beliefs is not Constitutionally protected, despite the clear language of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law...regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That does not apply to churches alone.  That, despite the cowardly** idiot judge's interpretations, also applies to individuals, and individuals who own businesses. 

Were I the Greene family, I would either immediately divest my family holdings in any company employing enough people to fall under Obamacare's unConstitutional restrictions, or I'd cut each and every employee back to 26 hours per week. 

I'd expect that the next target will be individuals' rights to worship as they please (with the exception of Islamofacists), and then the churches.

That's the usual order of actions taken by Marxist governments against those who believe in a higher power than government.

*I disagree with their beliefs about the morning after pill--preventing implantation.  However, the week after pill is a bit more problematic.  An embryo implants between three and five days after fertilization, on average.  And after that sucker's implanted, it's a baby.  After that, it's murder, not contraception--but is still between a woman and her conscience.

**The judge's excuse is that the plaintiffs didn't cite any court cases where the "free exercise thereof" applied to a business, instead of a religious organization.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, but an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.--Amendment VI, The Constitution of the United States.

This guarantees to United States citizens their God-given rights of liberty (you know, part of that lovely triad of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness") by preventing them from being arrested and held indefinitely.  It's rarely infringed upon for our citizens--most notably, in cases where people call child illfare's anonymous child abuse hotline ("to be confronted with the witnesses against him") instead of the local police who are supposed to be the first in the door to determine if an investigation is needed--but it also happens when a war on (some) drugs "sting" gets too arrest happy with people who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

While this amendment isn't abused often against those whose rights it's in place to protect, it is abused by being applied to those who are not United States citizens. 

No one who is not a United States citizen is entitled to any protection by the U.S. Constitution, nor by any of its amendments.  Sure, it's nice that most of the time, anyone on U.S. soil can speak their opinions freely, or attend the church they want to.  However, that's a visitor's privilege.  Act up on our soil, and they really should lose that privilege: detain them and put them on the first flight heading back to wherever they came from, at the very least.  It is their God-given right to speak and to believe as they wish, yes, but without being citizens of the United States, they shouldn't have that right protected by our government.  

Especially not in cases where the individual claiming Constitutional protection attacked this nation.  Not one terrorist deserves protection under the fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth amendment--unless born or naturalized as a United States citizen.  And those are few and far between.*  Either lock them up somewhere with no amenities (unlike Guantanamo Bay), shoot them in the head and be done with it, or put them on a plane back to whatever pestilent shithole spawned them.**

*For now.  As far as we know.


**Were I in charge, I'd tell the pilot and crew to bail out, then take it out of the sky in a lovely fireball...with a missile coated in pig fat.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Amendment V, The Constitution of the United States

This amendment has been through the wringer.  Badly.

First up: compelling someone to be a witness against herself.  Yes, the judge may well have given the police a warrant to search Fricosu's computer for the incriminating evidence that the prosecuting attorneys were sure was there.  Yes, that gave the police and the prosecuting attorney the right to look at the files and read through the woman's life.  However, when they opened up the laptop and found it encrypted, what they should have done was find an expert that could decrypt it.  Forcing Fricosu to turn over her password was forcing her to give evidence against herself. 

Next: depriving people of property on a bare suspicion.  I'd recently heard about a case, in this instance, in Wisconsin, where a police department told the family to bring in cash for bail, had a drug dog sniff it, and stole the entire amount from the family in a "legal" move called asset forfeiture.  It took me a minute to find that particular story, because I searched the terms "cops" "bail money" and "confiscated", and came up with several other stories--this one is notable because the victim of legalized theft is getting his money back.

Asset forfeiture is a dirty move in which anything suspected of being connected to drugs--cash, jewelry, land, cars, or anything--can be confiscated.  In a quick internet search, I found several million results discussing this move.  And most of the time, even when someone is able to prove their innocence, their property is not returned, nor are they reimbursed.  Often, the asset seized is large amounts of cash, despite studies that have shown that the majority of cash in circulation is contaminated by enough cocaine to cause a drug dog to alert. 

Last: private property wrongly seized under eminent domain.  Kelo v. New London.  Need I say more?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.--Amendment IV, The Constitution of the United States

This hasn't really been violated...yet.  In my opinion, the no-knock raids so popular with police department SWAT teams comes close, but since they always have warrants (even if no one is allowed to see them ahead of time due to the nature of the raid), it doesn't quite cross the line. 

Except in cases of getting the wrong address when kicking in the door and killing the homeowners'/apartment renters' dog, but that's a simple case of human error--and everybody makes mistakes, right?  It's not the fault of the SWAT teams kicking in the door that they can't read a fucking map.  Nor is it their fault when a law-abiding homeowner, mistaking their tactics for a home-invasion robbery, gets filled with lead. 

Each and every one of us has a God-given right to be safe in our own homes.  Each and every one of us has a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to know that our homes and belongings are safe from officious busy-bodies whose sole job it is to see crime.

Each and every one of us has that right attacked every time some dipshit judge signs a no-knock warrant permitting the police to use Gestapo tactics against those they are sworn to serve and protect, criminals and law abiding alike.  

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  --Amendment I, The Constitution of the United States of America.

Hear that?  "shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise..." of religion.  That means the latest kerfluffle trying to force the Catholic church to provide contraceptives through insurance to all employees/students is...illegal.  Unconstitutional.  Would not stand up before a Supreme Court that actually did its job. 

"...shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...;" means the latest attempt to regulate the internet in the name of stopping internet music/movie/etc. piracy (most of which doesn't happen in the U.S., and wouldn't be prosecutable under our laws, anyway) is...again, illegal.  Unconstitutional.  Would not stand up before a Supreme Court that actually did its job.

"...shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" means that the whole listing of groups that protest government actions without one arrest for any crime as "terrorist groups" and targeting them with legal harassment is...yes, illegal.  Unconstitutional.  Would not stand up before a Supreme Court that actually did its job.

However, that all depends upon three things: a population that is well enough educated in their rights to know what they are, a population that cares enough about their rights to know that they have to fight for the same rights for others whether they agree with them or not (pro-lifers, I'm looking at you.  Pro-abortion proponents...Yeah, you, too.), and last, a judiciary that understands that they don't fucking MAKE the laws, nor yet enforce them, but determine whether or not a law does not infringe on rights granted by the Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution, and whether or not a law was broken, and to what degree.

And if we fail on the last, we must depend on the first two...backed by the Second Amendment.