Category: Legislation

Americans have become totally submissive and absurd

September 20th, 2007 · · Illinois, Legislation 3 comments - Tags: , , , , ,

Okay, most of you know that I’m completely without faith in our “leaders” on a federal, state, and local level. The fed spies on us, and we allow it. Our state leaders (specifically Illinois) are corrupt or at least over bearing. The local government largely only cares about helping themselves at the expense of the working poor. That’s my brief summary of those situations.

Now we also are submitting to homeowner’s associations. What kind of stupidity is that? Aren’t laws and their enforcement supposed to be left to our perverted government?

Apparently that is not enough. We have to have these idiotic groups to tell us what color our homes can be, if we can have a mailbox shaped like a tractor, if our kid’s toys can be plastic, or even if our clothes can be dried outside.

Please go read that article. It is absolutely idiotic. I own my land/home (well, the bank does for now), and I’ll do whatever I damn well please on it as long as I’m not hurting anyone else. Somehow I don’t think a clothesline will actually cause harm to someone.

Mount Vernon City Council Continues Aging City Artificially

August 21st, 2007 · · Illinois, Legislation, Mount Vernon 3 comments - Tags: , , , , ,

Okay, we know that more and more Americans are “graying” as the last great population boom gets older. Good for them. Unfortunately, the Mount Vernon City Council sees fit to ignore residents’ pleas and destroy a neighborhood to gain possible monetary increases from a new old folks home.

For months that I have been following this story, residents of the proposed development area have been fighting in every way imaginable to stop this development from being approved. Frequent appearances at city council meetings, petitions, etc.

Now, seemingly as a snub to the very people they are supposed to represent, the council vastly passed 3 measures to allow this  destruction.

For the city, this could mean new income and more old people to drive our average age even higher. For the residents, this will mean heavier traffic, construction in their once peaceful neighborhood, and absolutely no positive outcome.

One comment in an article from the Register-News has Councilman David Wood saying, “… Mt. Vernon has been negative, at best neutral, to developers.” Can you blame them, Davey? Some slick guy comes in claiming to have a great plan to help and grow our town while destroying a neighborhood. How about we build this next to your house, Dave? Better yet, you go ahead and buy one of the homes in that area and tell us how great it is to live there once this development starts.

What happens when/if the old folks don’t buy the condos/apartments and the developer cuts losses? Do we get another remote ghetto? Sounds like a winner to me.

When/if the old folks do come, what do they do for our local economy? Buy breakfast at Denny’s? Yay! More support for minimum wage jobs. Oh no, they’ll go golfing. Okay, I’m sure that the caddy they use can support his family on that wage.

Mount Vernon’s age was tilted to the high side when the 2000 census was taken. I have no doubts that it is even more so now that we have GreenTree. Bad news for council: YOU CAN’T SUPPORT AN ECONOMY SIMPLY ON RETIRED-PERSON’S INCOME.

It just can’t be done that I have seen. Real employment and development needs to come our way, not more retirement villages alone.

I see nothing wrong with retirement homes/apartments/whatever. I do have a problem with city council ignoring the people they were elected to represent and trying to turn Mount Vernon into a retirement community.

Child Support? If she says so. Abortion? If she says so. My kid? If she says so.

July 18th, 2007 · · Illinois, Legislation 3 comments - Tags: , , ,

How many cases of men getting screwed do there have to be before legislation is changed?

Lately there have been at least two high-profile cases where a man was told he was the father of a child and it was later revealed that he was not. In one case, the child is under 18, and the man still has to pay child support because he didn’t dispute it in time. DNA testing? Doesn’t matter. Courts will not reverse the decision in Florida.

The other case involves a man who paid child support for a boy that was not his until the child turned 18. Recently, it was revealed by the whore of an ex-wife that the boy’s father was actually the godfather to the boy. The courts will not let the man recoup any of the money he was forced to pay to raise another man’s child.

Both of these cases point out flaws in our legal system. In theory, if a woman puts any man’s name down as the father of a child, and he doesn’t dispute it within “X” number of days, he is the father. Child support? Insurance? Bet your ass she can take you for all that you’re worth, and you may not even know her except from chatting at work.

There needs to be some major overhauling done of this legislation.

Oh, and another point that irks me – abortion. The woman can kill a baby (if it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant) or have it, and the man has no say so. However, the man has to pay for the child to be raised? She chose to have sex just like he did, shouldn’t the father have some say in what happens to the child? Not according to today’s judicial system.

I’m sorry, you can’t have freedom of the press. It might be inconvenient to the Feds.

June 26th, 2007 · · Legislation, Technology 3 comments - Tags: , , , ,

Apparently Bush’s administration has problems with all sorts of news/information dissemination (reported on by CNet here). Not only is a vast amount of information missing from their emails and other communication, but there is opposition to a recently proposed law to shield the press in responsible reporting.

The argument I believe they are using is that too much protection is afforded to the press. In REAL national security matters, I agree. There are reasons I could see for the shield to not apply. Fortunately, the constitution framers thought about this when they created this amazing idea of “checks and balances”.

Unfortunately, under the “George-Bush-States-of-America” these systems of balance have been forgotten.  How many signing-statements is W up to these days? How many times has he acted in direct defiance of the very legislation he signs? How well-planned is his withdrawal from Iraq?

Now, I agree that everyone in power gets knocked, and Klinton wasn’t any better with his “Executive Orders”. I just think that W is going waaaaaaaaaaay too far during his presidency.

Our ever-evolving communist-States of America

June 19th, 2007 · · Legislation 3 comments - Tags: , , , , ,

I’m sure I will be a first-round pickup for this post, if I’m not already.

A principal from Des Moines, Iowa was denied her constitutional right against “unreasonable search and seizure” by the Transportation Safety Administration. As a general rule, I accept x-ray scans as reasonable. This situation makes me reconsider my stance though.

This woman was returning with some students from a class trip in California when a dulled sandwich knife was noticed in one of her carry-on containers. The TSA confiscated the “weapon” and advised the woman of several “facts”:

  1. The woman will now be placed on a “terrorist watch list” (probably leading to more illegal acts by our government to spy on her and her contacts)
  2. She will be fined $500
  3. Her knife was confiscated
  4. She had no constitutional rights since she was not arrested

I can’t really protest the list. Lists are universal and everywhere, although it sounds like profiling which is illegal according to case law, I believe. Either way, a list is a list and everyone has one of some type.

The fine seems excessive and wrong. Not only was the incident unintentional, but it was also stopped before she got on the plane. She didn’t carry any weapon onto a plane, it was stopped well before she reached the plane. What was she guilty of, making a mistake? Does she get a trial?

Why was the woman not given a receipt for the knife that was stolen from her by the TSA staff? Are they now allowed to steal from people with no recourse?

Perhaps someone can point out the fault in my logic, but I do not recall anywhere in the United States Constitution where the Constitution is suspended in airports. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures citizens’ right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” The amendment goes on to set forth the conditions under which a warrant may be issued: “no warrant 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.”

It seems to me that this was definitely unreasonable seizure, and the use of x-ray technology in this case makes me think that it is unreasonable search since it removes my being secure in my person, effects, and “papers”. I also think that “papers” could be expanded in today’s world to include laptops, cellular phones, etc.

Am I off my rocker on this? Yes, Dave, I know you’ll have a large rebuttal.