Friday, July 3
Today we declare our independence!
Independence Day memories
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying that a revolution is needed every twenty years. How long has it been since the people were revved up enough to care about something (excepting the caring about the current particular brand of "change"). Will American citizens ever rise up again and take back their country?
Friday, June 26
Vote NO on HR2454!
My friends, family, and fellow citizens,
The United States Congress is voting on HR2454 today, and we must all do our civic duty and urge them to vote NO.
HR2454, or the Waxman-Markey Bill, is a piece of socialist horror that will not only raise gas prices and the unemployment rate, but the majority of the taxes collected under it will go to special interest groups, and not the government.
According to The Heritage Foundation,
"Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill will:
-Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,
-Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,
-Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,
-Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,
-Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,
-Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and
-Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation. "
I don't think it needs to be said that this bill must be defeated. Here is a link to contact your Congressman. Call him, fax him, email him, do whatever it takes to convince him that he (or she) needs to vote NO on HR 2454.
Thanks from the bottom of my libertarian heart,
Kat
Thursday, May 28
Is the nitpicking worth the effort?
I think we're going to have to accept that Sotomayor will be seated. Unless a background check turns up literal skeletons, there's not much about her that's objectionable. She's pretty lukewarm. The thing that concerns me most is that, while she seems to be competent at her job as a judge, both trial and appellate, she is by no means outstanding. She hasn't written anything groundbreaking, hasn't put forth an opinion that changed anything significantly. She hasn't written anything that would give us a clear picture of how she would decide future rulings.
What types of decisions will come to the Court in the future (or, rather, will they bring upon themselves, with their writs of certiorari)? Will she overturn Roe? Unlikely, but who knows?. What about Heller? I hope not. If Olson and Boies's suit gets to the Court, how would she decide? I don't know. I don't know how fruitful it is to speculate on any opinion she would give once she got there. Souter was nominated by Bush I, but he's consistently written more left opinions than right. Similarly, Blackmun, nominated by Nixon, was expected to be a strong conservative, but drifted more and more to the left during his tenure; he wrote the majority opinion for Roe. Her record thus far seems to be full of straight, quiet opinions, nothing brash, nothing that stands out. Who knows what'll happened when she's seated on the bench?
Wednesday, May 27
I must have been sick that day in law school
Judge Sotomayor at Duke Law School in 2005:
There's a lot of talk going around about prospective Justice Sonia Sotomayor and speculation about how she'll act if she gets approved. One comment I've seen made consistently is not concerning her views, but about the blantant manner she expresses them.
From Brad at TLP:
From our newly-named nominee to the Supreme
Court:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Three problems with this:
1) Who is to say that the experiences I have, as a white male, aren’t rich?
2) Why do the proper adjudication of questions on law change based on the “richness of experience” of the judge?
3) What is a “better conclusion”? According to whom?
About the only way that such a statement makes sense is if you assume that the role of a judge is more “nuanced” than simply to apply the law dispassionately and predictably, but rather to enforce “social justice”. I am, of course, not surprised by such a conclusion from one of this administration’s nominees. But I’m a little surprised that it’s stated this blatantly.
I am not sure yet what this says for the future of our judiciary. Considering the way the rest of the government is turning, it's getting pretty scary to contemplate.
Sunday, May 24
But is it a good catch?
Perverted Justice workers create usernames and profiles for underage girls and attempt to catch men who are trolling for sex. These people are very good at what they do. They tout themselves as the "largest and best anti-predator organization online." They have a good track record.
Dateline sets up a house rigged with cameras and Chris Hansen lurking behind curtains, with a barely overage decoy to welcome the men into the house. When the men leave the house they are pounced on by the local LEOs. Some of them cop to it, some of them claim they don't know what's going on. But by virtue of their being there, they all get busted. And, unfortunately for them, most of them are too stupid to shut up. Only a couple get a lawyer, and only a couple invoke their 5th amendment rights.
I am no stranger to child molesters and pedophiles. I've been studying pedophilia for about 4 years. I've read psychological studies and books and criminological studies and books. Despite all of my scholastic efforts, I still have not decided for myself whether I believe pedophilia to be a mental disorder or not- maybe it's another orientation, like homosexuality? I don't know. I may ride this fence forever.
Regardless of my feelings about pedophilia, though, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of "To Catch a Predator," or with organizations like Perverted Justice, or similar units within municipal agencies. It seems like the profiles that are set up are purposefully enticing, so that men who may be struggling with temptation would go over the edge with a little encouragement. I'm not saying that men preying on vulnerable young girls online is ok, or that it's not heinous. Of course, it's heinous. But in these situations, the situations on the show, these men aren't preying on vulnerable girls. They're talking to adults who are posing as kids. Where's the victim? Where's the crime? Does intent matter? Isn't it entrapment?
I understand the desire to "clean up the internet," and I'm not naive enough to say that the only thing that needs to be done is that parents need to watch their kids better. Something needs to happen, yes. But I don't think that entrapment is the answer. If it is entrapment. If pedophilia's actually not an orientation.