Hello hello, welcome to the post. It’s an interesting mix of stories today that I’m bringing you from a slightly slow news day. As I’ve mentioned before I have some major things coming up over the next 3 weeks that are completely unrelated to this site, so bear with me if the post times start getting a little erratic. I will do my best to maintain the standard of the stories and a fairly consistent sending time as I strive to make this a go to spot to get your news for the day. With that out of the way, let’s get down to business. Here are the 5 stories you should know about:
1. Chicago Police Superintendent Testifies That Illegals Guns Are The Problem, Not Legal Guns
That link has the quotes from his testimony, mainly that he has never seen someone with an FOID (Firearm Owner’s ID card) commit an illegal gun offense. His worry is illegal guns, he has no concern with legal guns. By the way, here’s the video that starts at the quotes if you want to hear it yourself. Lest you think that he’s a pro gun guy, he recently (last month) was at the White House to discuss the reasonableness of gun control laws, wants to pass similar laws to Obama’s proposals, and will fight conceal and carry permits in Illinois. So how does someone testify and say those things and yet push for control laws on legal guns? Beats me. Then we have Democrat Diane Feinstein from California, the personal spearheading the "assault rifle" ban in Congress. She said "The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare.” Remember my piece on individualism vs. collectivism? Here it is in plain view. She’s equating owning rifles to personal pleasure and making the case, by asking a misleading question, that it isn’t as important as the collective safety. Remember what I said in that piece, in collectivism the government does not trust you to manage your own life and tries to legislate mistakes out of society. The collective good, in this case a false idea of safety, is placed above your "personal pleasure" which I like to call my Constitutional right. This is one of the clearest examples of that difference that I can show you and I try to point it out to you when I see it so that you all understand it better and see it in action. It will be a huge factor in the present and future with political arguments and you need to know how to spot it and point it out and argue your side intelligently.
2. Federal Court Says Florida Testing Welfare Recipients For Drugs Is Unconstitutional
This is a really interesting story for a couple reasons, and I hope you share in my fascination with it. The link above is from a liberal blogger who trots out a very false and tired story line that conservatives "are motivated by a cruel desire to bash and denigrate the poor, without regard to evidence or civil rights." I encourage you to read his short post to get a view of how the left argues, it’s pretty informative. The one thing that was missing from his post, which I found odd, was the reason why the law was unconstitutional. It’s not in his cliche laden post. So I read the actual legal opinion of the court, which is hideously tedious at times. I want to preface this by saying I am not a legal scholar or a lawyer or involved in any legal profession at all, I will at least admit those before going on. The case is a man who applied for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Need Families) and was informed that one of the requirements for receiving the financial assistance was to pass a drug test. You had to pay for the drug test, and if you passed it, the government would reimburse you that money for the test. This was one of the requirements to receiving this assistance. The court ruled that this was unconstitutional because of the 4th amendment, a crucial piece of information that the liberal blogger did not include for some reason. Here is where he and I separate in our analysis and where you actual benefit far more than his readers ever will, if I do say so myself. :)
Let’s look at the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…" It goes on but this is the part the court refers to when it ruled the Florida law unconstitutional. They said that the drug test is an unreasonable search and that it violates this man’s right to be secure in his person. I first read that decision and was stuck, because it actually did make a bit of sense when I first read that. As it often happens for me, the common sense of something seems at odds with the Constitutionality of it when I first look at it. Then I kept reading and it suddenly hit me. Here is why the court is 100% wrong in my opinion. The 4th amendment protects people from unreasonable searches, that is granted. When the 4th amendment was passed in the Bill of Rights, its purpose was to protect against an oppressive government, formerly Britain, who had "warrants" that basically allowed them to come into houses and take what they wanted without probable cause. That, in a nutshell, was one of the main reasons for this amendment, and the amendment goes on to talk about warrants and probable cause. Now, can you see the one huge difference between requiring someone to take a drug test if they want money, and a forced unreasonable search? (I kind of gave it away in the question) The 4th amendment is to protect searches that you don’t volunteer for, it’s to protect you from the government forcibly searching you and your property unreasonably and without warrant. By making it a requirement to receive money, it becomes voluntary. It is no longer the government forcing this search because the government is not forcing you to receive monetary assistance. It is your choice to apply for money, that is not a civil right nor is it a requirement in the state of Florida and therefore that "unreasonable search" is entirely voluntary. In this case, the court is 100% wrong. Like I said, I am not a legal expert on anything, but the difference between a forced search and a requirement for something you apply for voluntarily is huuuuuuge. The court missed it, the liberal blogger didn’t even care to think about it, and you get the best info here.
3. DHS No Longer Uses Border Control As A Measure Of Border Patrol’s Performance
For a long time the Border Patrol’s measure of performance was based off of how many miles were under "operational control". Operational Control is defined as a mile of border that the Border Patrol could detect illegal border crossers on and actually cut them off and prohibit them from crossing. As of 2010, they had operational control of only 44% of our nearly 2,000 mile southern border. Considering their resources had grown dramatically since the invention of DHS, this isn’t impressive at all. Now, the measure of their performance isn’t based on this but instead is based on how many apprehensions of illegals there are. Here’s why that’s useless. We can measure how many miles of the border are secure and compare it to the number of miles on the border total, that’s an objective measurement. Since we can’t honestly know how many illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s no way to compare how many we apprehend against how many get through, making that measure completely useless. Remember that when you keep hearing how the system is broken. By the way, the US freed a bunch of illegals today because of the sequester coming up, so that’s great. Remember, it’s the system that’s broken. By the way, I will no longer refer to them as "illegal immigrants" because those who claim that people cannot be illegal have a point. I have to admit, they have a point. So instead, I will refer to them by a more proper name and one that people indeed can be. Henceforth, at 5 stories a day, they will hereby be referred to as "criminal immigrants", because people can be criminals. I encourage you all to adopt the same change to be sensitive to those who are referred to as illegal.
4. Fed Chairman Bernanke Has No Target Goal For When To Stop Quantitative Easing
No number of unemployment or economic growth will determine when they will stop the unceasing printing of money. If you don’t exactly know what quantitative easing is, please read this Milk Crate on it. At some point the Fed will stop this and things will start to go downhill. The QE strategy just delays what should have happened a while ago. Notice how the stock market is hitting all time highs? It’s another bubble. It’s high prices propped up on strategies like this and when the day of reckoning comes it isn’t going to be pretty. Keep your eye on this.
5. Democrats Complain About Debt Clock Being Shown On Capital Hill
This is amazing. Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, claimed that the debt clock being present on capital hill was "clearly a political prop designed to message ideologically." Sure, the ongoing accumulation of debt is a "political prop"? Seriously? Maxine Waters, one of my least favorite people in Congress, asked that the debt clock not be on display whenever the democrats spoke. This is the leadership on the left. Congratulations for being petty and detached beyond reasonable measure.
There you have it. I ran a bit long with story #2 but I thought it to be an interesting look into something from the perspective of the left. Anyway, thanks for joining me today and I’ll see you all tomorrow. In the meantime, remember, these are all from just ONE day…