Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Does ANYONE in D.C. actually READ bills or laws anymore???

liberalism

Today I stumbled on a Left-leaning, Right-Bashing blog site called Sensico (making sense of things)

It has some articles of sense, however there are a lot that are nothing but Leftwing bash pieces on anything perceived as “conservative”, as such they contain about as much truth as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

One piece in particular that offended against reality was one on the Arizona illegal immigrants law.  Now I am not sure this law will end up working out, but I do not think it is even close to being unconstitutional. It certainly isn’t what the Lefties are portraying it to be, some kind of white paper to stop and ID anyone who is not as “American” looking as Andy Griffith!  Here is my response to the madness…

Can it be that you really do not understand the law?
Let us break it down to the key sentence in your quote…

“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY”

The LAWFUL CONTACT comes FIRST! The cop will have to show that BEFORE he/she had suspicions there already had to be Legal CONTACT. You know how hard the defense attorney will fight to keep this a HIGH bar to clear. Without something like a dash-cam of speeding or some such it will be VERY hard to get by this first hurdle.

“…WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,”

Another hurdle here BEFORE any ID check can be made aimed at immigration status, a double one too! REASONABLE SUSPICION not only of a person not being “born here” but that they are here ILLEGALLY. Frankly I am not sure WHAT might pass this test in court. Certainly it will not be a trivial hurdle.

“… A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE,”

Another hurdle, this lets cops know that it is not acceptable to go around Murphy’s barn to get the info needed, if the proper computer is down when a cop checks someone at a traffic stop it would not be reasonable to arrest them to be held until the check can be made. This law is loaded with hurdles and qualifications.

“… TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”

I am not sure what would constitute “cause to suspect illegality”, this law appears to merely make the law enforcement people DO SOMETHING when they DO have good reasons to think that someone is illegal AFTER coming into contact with them officially FIRST.

Given that a total lack of English could be excluded as proof of possible illegality by a good lawyer, without some other confirmation, such as uncertainty about answers regarding when they entered the U.S., or where they were born if they claim to be a citizen.

NOT ONE WORD of this law would seem to me to open the door for someone to be stopped for nothing and checked out merely for LOOKING foreign! To claim otherwise is to deny that you understand simple English…

Strange Days Indeed!

NOWEIRD

It is very strange when the weirdest state (I lived there for 8 years; and no, it is not MY fault, I am just observing that I saw it first hand!) makes a rather sensible move.  It is like stern Aunt Imelda suddenly grinning from ear to ear; a bit un-nerving even if welcome. Hat tip to Jihad Watch for the link:

“Libel on tour: James Gill

By James Gill
April 28, 2010, 6:10AM

Within minutes Monday a legislative committee repudiated both Islamic and British law.
Neither, perhaps, represents an immediate threat to justice in Louisiana, but it was not entirely an alarmist and xenophobic stunt when the committee approved two bills by Rep. Ernest Wooton, R-Belle Chase. Mostly, but not entirely.

One of Wooton’s bills, which provides that no foreign law shall be applied here if it violates a right guaranteed by the American Constitution, is by any rational measure superfluous. But it is not unknown for immigrant litigants to invoke the tenets of Sharia to which, the committee was told, the Maryland courts deferred in a child custody case.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has so far insisted that cases in America are settled according to American law, but the committee figured it was wise to commit future jurists to that sound principle.”

Read the rest…

LiveJournal Tags:

There IS Hope for the Left in Europe!!!

By Neil Clark
Anyone who argues that, as a political force, socialism is dead, ought to visit the Netherlands. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP) is the fastest growing political group in the country.

They won 25 seats in the last general election – an increase of 16 seats – and made huge gains in last year’s local elections. They are now the third largest party in Holland in terms of members and could well replace the Dutch Labour Party as the main alternative to the Christian Democrats.

Why are they so successful? I would suggest that it is because they are a socialist party that actually has socialist policies. They oppose the privatisation of public services, advocate higher taxes on the very wealthy and have condemned the “the culture of greed” caused by “a capitalism based on inflated bonuses and easy
Agnes Kant, leader of the Socialist Party of the Netherlandsmoney”. They oppose war and Nato and the nascent European superstate. They were the only left-wing Dutch party in Parliament to oppose the new EU Constitution in the 2005 referendum.

Of course the fact that they have one of the most charismatic – and photogenic – of all of European political leaders in the 41-year-old epidemiologist Agnes Kant does them no harm.

Part of its popularity with the voters lies in one particular policy which differentiates it from British or other European parties of the left: they oppose large scale immigration. The SP see the ‘free movement of labour’ as part of the neoliberal globalist package – something which benefits big business but not ordinary people. Their opposition to immigration is not based on racism – as tends to be the case with the BNP and other far-right parties in Europe – but on their socialist ideology.

A recent publication by the SP asserted that labour migration in the EU was making “more acute the contrasts between rich and poor and competition between different groups of workers within the EU”. Instead of lauding the free movement of labour as other parties on the left do, the SP calls for policies “to make migration unnecessary” and for the EU funds to be used to enable poorer regions of the continent to be self-supporting.

The SP’s opposition to large-scale immigration is not a recent development. In the 1980s, the party’s booklet Gastarbeid en Kapitaal (Migrant Labour and Capital), denounced the migration of foreign workers into the Netherlands as a capitalist ploy to drive down wages and destroy working class solidarity.

This is a far cry from the traditional position of the British left – which despite overwhelming evidence that large-scale immigration does reduce wages – still clings to an the ideology of open borders. In doing so, they are not only complying with the wishes of big business, who for obvious reasons welcome the influx of large numbers of people from low-wage economies onto their labour market; they are also espousing a policy which is unpopular with large swathes of the electorate and which is likely to become even more unpopular as unemployment grows.

The success of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands shows that there are lots of votes to be won by an unequivocally left-wing party which has the courage and sense to oppose large-scale immigration on non-racist, anti-capitalist grounds.