Category: Civil Liberties

I guess it’s hard to get upset about police state tactics when there’s no easy way to blame George W. Bush for it:

“I’ve been (Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario’s) longtime supporter, but I tell you what, to send a SWAT team down there was just absolutely over the hill,” he said. “Inappropriate is not nearly strong enough a word. It was gross irresponsibility and stupidity. … Is this Russia? I don’t know what we’re coming to when they think your kid needs medical help and they send a SWAT team.”

You think? Tam has more. So does Uncle.

UPDATE: Other sources are indicating to me that the state isn’t entirely insane here:

A search warrant and order for medical treatment says there was good reason to believe Jon needed treatment. It states that two social services caseworkers tried to explain to Tom Shiflett they believed the boy needed medical treatment after observing injuries including a “huge hematoma” and a sluggish pupil. They offered to pay for treatment, and said they would have to obtain a court order for treatment if they couldn’t get Shiflett’s consent, the warrant says.

That would justify the warrant in my opinion.

“Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better ‘bring an army,'” the warrant states.

A first responder with West Care Ambulance wrote in an affidavit that she and others in an ambulance crew also believed the boy needed medical treatment.

The responder wrote that paramedics left the residence for fear of their safety after Tom Shiflett refused to let them treat his son and became “verbally abusive” to the ambulance crew.

OK, that probably warranted sending out a few officers to serve the warrant, but the SWAT team?

Liberal Fascism at its best in California.

Via a press release from State Representative Daryl Metcalf:

 On November 8, 2007 a panel discussion was held in Philadelphia by The National Association of Women Judges entitled, “Separation of Powers: What Does It Mean?” Governor Rendell’s wife, a federal judge and member of the panel, made a shocking statement that should have made headlines the following morning. Following her comments lamenting that there are issues that are not going to be resolved legislatively because they are so difficult, issues such as health care, immigration reform, social security and a national gun law, Judge Rendell stated, “Gee, a benevolent dictator would really be good right about now to, to put in health care and to put in some of these policies that we all want, but somehow the gridlock within the legislature makes it impossible.”

It should be noted that Midge Rendell was placed on the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, than elevated to the third circuit court of appeals by President Clinton in 1997.  There are exactly the kind of people the Clinton’s like.  That’s why you can count me in the anybody but Hillary crowd.

This is not an appropriate sentiment from a federal judge.  God help us if the Clintons get another eight years of appointing the likes of Midge Rendell to the federal bench.

When I am President, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content.

– Hillary Clinton

When Fred Thompson is President, I’m hoping he’ll work hard to protect our Republic from Hillary Clinton.

MADD is not just a group out to stop drunk driving, it is the latest incarnation of the temperance movement, that’s gone way beyond it’s original mission.   Look here:

Also, as of Saturday, people can lose their driver’s licenses for providing alcohol to anyone under 21. The penalty is important because many underage drinkers get alcohol from friends or family members, said Craig Lloyd, the executive director of the North Carolina chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The law means that, theoretically, parents could be punished for giving a glass of wine to their 20-year-old son or daughter, even if the 20-year-old never gets behind the wheel.

Lloyd said that’s not excessive.

“It’s a zero-tolerance policy,” he said. “Breaking the law is breaking the law.”

It’s busy body meddling in something the state has no business meddling in.  I make it no secret that I believe denying 18-21 year olds the choice, as adults who are free to make choices, the freedom to imbibe alcoholic beverages is unjust.  I’ve always believed if you’re old enough to die for your country, you’re old enough to buy a beer.  I definitely don’t think the state should further criminalize a father who wants to share a beer with his 20 year old son.  Lower the drinking age to eighteen, and I may have fewer problems with this, but as it stands now, MADD can go to hell.

I anxiously await Governor Schwarzenegger’s signature on California’s soon to be passed “Assault Matches Ban“

Tam posted something a few days ago on “Pedophile Acres”, a name given to a trailer park in Florida that is heavily populated by sex offenders.   I pointed out in the comments:

I’m with a lot of the other readers. Most people think “sex offender” means someone who rapes children. Not so. I had a friend got nailed for being topless on a deserted beach, and plead to disorderly because indecent would have labeled her a sex offender and required registration. Nor do I think it just that the life of a 19 year old is ruined forever because he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, which can happen in some states. My father was concerned when he found out a sex offender had moved into the neighborhood, until he found out his offense was mooning someone… got charged with indecent.

The government has blown all credibility on this issue with me. I don’t favor sex offender registries anymore, because I wouldn’t be surprised to found out that most of the folks on it are not really any danger so society.

Well, today, Glenn linked to a piece that basically details exactly what I was talking about.  If the states were using these registries to mark truly dangerous people, I wouldn’t have as much of an issue with it, but they aren’t.  This has become one more way for politicians to look like they are getting tough on crime, without actually accomplishing anything.  People hear “sex offender” and automatically assume the worst, and the worms in charge are only too happy to capitalize on it.

From Scott Adams:

I keep wondering why I don’t get mad about the government chipping away at my freedoms in the alleged interest of fighting terrorism. I used to think it was because I thought the tradeoff was worth it. But I suspect the real reason is that losing a few more freedoms would just get lost in the rounding.

Sad but true.

It’s time we had a serious debate in our society about why so many minor and trivial offenses are felonies.  Historically, felonies were reserved for only the most heinous offenses, and were typically capital crimes.

I would be much more open to the blanket idea that all felons lose their right to bear arms if it weren’t for the fact that so many minor crimes are felonies.