A long read, but very important to understanding our "rulers".
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
Set aside a few minutes to read this - and an hour or two to let it sink in.
Knowledge is power.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Zoning laws
I wrote this a few years ago, after moving to Beloit from Cary, Illinois. Somehow, I thought moving out here would allow more freedom. Silly me.
Zoning laws and Freedom
By
Charles A. Kuecker
03/28/06
I have in front of me an incomplete copy of the “Town of Beloit General Zoning Ordinance”, revised, and adopted August 5th, 2002.
In reading this document, I am struck by how far we have strayed from the visions our founders had for the way people live in this country.
Almost every aspect of life is regulated through this document. I am particularly concerned about the rules for agricultural land. The law has essentially made illegal the traditional family farm through rigid rules and definitions that seem to have been copied verbatim from some master document without any regard to the effect they will have on the community.
Following these rules, our country will never again see a traditional farmhouse, or a true Victorian “painted lady”, or a barn constructed by traditional methods. All of these have been outlawed in various ways.
It is illegal to open a small business on your property and “hang a shingle” letting your neighbors know that you are open for business – these activities now require a separate building in an area zoned for that purpose. Never again will we see a craftsman making furniture or an artist painting in their homes – because it violates the letter of the law.
It is illegal to have a second dwelling on your property in agricultural zoned areas. Say goodbye to a “mother in law” house, or giving your newlywed child a home on the family farm, so they can help out and preserve the farm.
It is illegal to have any employee on an agricultural plot, if the employee lives on site. You are prohibited by law from having a live-in nurse, farmhand, groundskeeper, or anyone else that might enable an elderly farmer to continue farming, or even living, on his own property.
It is illegal to store any “goods” for a “home occupation” on the property. One cannot pursue any trade that would produce a product, regardless of whether it would affect the quality of life in the neighborhood.
It is illegal to have a second story, or loft, over a garage, or to have an “accessory building” (read, barn) with a hayloft.
One cannot erect an antenna tower – such as used by radio amateurs – without first obtaining permission from the Town Board – who can refuse such permission as they feel fit. Simply stating rules for setbacks and maximum height is not enough – more control is required.
It is illegal under the law to post a political campaign sign in your front yard, again without a written permit from the Town Board. What ever happened to freedom of speech and our right to engage in political discussion?
A catch-all provision – Section 2.03 B 3 – prohibits “Undesirable Objects or Structures” – which directly prohibits a child’s tree house or playhouse, personal auto repairs if they cannot be performed within a garage, and anything else that the Town Board decides not to enjoy seeing. This gives those in power carte blanche to lord it over the people whom they should be responsible to, in any way that they see fit. In particular, this clause gives those in power a huge stick to quell political dissent, lest the dissenters be found in violation of this clause and fined, or imprisoned.
It is interesting to me that this document is rife with improper references – a Xeroxed copy of a list of amendments refers to sections that do not exist in the copy of the ordinance provided to us, and many things mentioned in the ordinance are not present – such as maps and included tables. The document is not available on-line, although the Town of Beloit has a beautiful web page describing the beauty of a housing development that was undertaken by the Town of Beloit without proper authorization by the people – a development that has lost the Town much money, and resulted in a lawsuit by some of the people supposedly served by the Town. The lawsuit was, of course, defended against using tax money – and the plaintiffs were ultimately bankrupted in their effort, as might be expected.
Since this document is not openly published on-line, it is impossible for citizens to read and understand it unless they go to the Town offices during business hours to purchase a copy. The Town of Beloit has not seen fit to provide a copy of the law to the local library – as any prudent person would expect them to do.
This last fall, an officer of the Town Board – charged with ferreting out violations of the ordinances, visited our property and issued a warning notice because we had several collector vehicles parked off a driveway, behind a garage – out of the public view – but illegal by the letter of the law that requires a “hard parking surface”. The officer bragged to my wife of issuing “over 400” tickets for violations – each of which would result in a fine of at least $100 for the property owner if not corrected in short order.
One neighbor has 10 acres of land, zoned agricultural, and was told he cannot keep “construction equipment” on his property, even though he runs a construction contracting business and was using the machinery on the property. None of his neighbors have ever raised an objection about this storage – but it’s against the letter of the law.
Another neighbor got a ticket for parking their own vehicle next to their driveway with a For Sale sign showing – because the car was resting on grass, not on the driveway. This was not a case of a pickup truck on blocks in weeds three feet high – this was a clean vehicle being sold by it’s owner – but again, in violation of the letter of the law.
Other neighbors were prosecuted for having a small two-wheel trailer, because it had no license plate – which is not required under Wisconsin law – parked on the grass next to their garage. I have a similar trailer I kept parked behind my garage – on the grass – next to that collector car I mentioned earlier. The enforcement officer neglected to mention it in his warning letter.
In my opinion, zoning laws are much abused and overweening in their scope, and a serious effort should be made to trim them back to the minimum required to preserve the quality of life in our community.
Zoning laws and Freedom
By
Charles A. Kuecker
03/28/06
I have in front of me an incomplete copy of the “Town of Beloit General Zoning Ordinance”, revised, and adopted August 5th, 2002.
In reading this document, I am struck by how far we have strayed from the visions our founders had for the way people live in this country.
Almost every aspect of life is regulated through this document. I am particularly concerned about the rules for agricultural land. The law has essentially made illegal the traditional family farm through rigid rules and definitions that seem to have been copied verbatim from some master document without any regard to the effect they will have on the community.
Following these rules, our country will never again see a traditional farmhouse, or a true Victorian “painted lady”, or a barn constructed by traditional methods. All of these have been outlawed in various ways.
It is illegal to open a small business on your property and “hang a shingle” letting your neighbors know that you are open for business – these activities now require a separate building in an area zoned for that purpose. Never again will we see a craftsman making furniture or an artist painting in their homes – because it violates the letter of the law.
It is illegal to have a second dwelling on your property in agricultural zoned areas. Say goodbye to a “mother in law” house, or giving your newlywed child a home on the family farm, so they can help out and preserve the farm.
It is illegal to have any employee on an agricultural plot, if the employee lives on site. You are prohibited by law from having a live-in nurse, farmhand, groundskeeper, or anyone else that might enable an elderly farmer to continue farming, or even living, on his own property.
It is illegal to store any “goods” for a “home occupation” on the property. One cannot pursue any trade that would produce a product, regardless of whether it would affect the quality of life in the neighborhood.
It is illegal to have a second story, or loft, over a garage, or to have an “accessory building” (read, barn) with a hayloft.
One cannot erect an antenna tower – such as used by radio amateurs – without first obtaining permission from the Town Board – who can refuse such permission as they feel fit. Simply stating rules for setbacks and maximum height is not enough – more control is required.
It is illegal under the law to post a political campaign sign in your front yard, again without a written permit from the Town Board. What ever happened to freedom of speech and our right to engage in political discussion?
A catch-all provision – Section 2.03 B 3 – prohibits “Undesirable Objects or Structures” – which directly prohibits a child’s tree house or playhouse, personal auto repairs if they cannot be performed within a garage, and anything else that the Town Board decides not to enjoy seeing. This gives those in power carte blanche to lord it over the people whom they should be responsible to, in any way that they see fit. In particular, this clause gives those in power a huge stick to quell political dissent, lest the dissenters be found in violation of this clause and fined, or imprisoned.
It is interesting to me that this document is rife with improper references – a Xeroxed copy of a list of amendments refers to sections that do not exist in the copy of the ordinance provided to us, and many things mentioned in the ordinance are not present – such as maps and included tables. The document is not available on-line, although the Town of Beloit has a beautiful web page describing the beauty of a housing development that was undertaken by the Town of Beloit without proper authorization by the people – a development that has lost the Town much money, and resulted in a lawsuit by some of the people supposedly served by the Town. The lawsuit was, of course, defended against using tax money – and the plaintiffs were ultimately bankrupted in their effort, as might be expected.
Since this document is not openly published on-line, it is impossible for citizens to read and understand it unless they go to the Town offices during business hours to purchase a copy. The Town of Beloit has not seen fit to provide a copy of the law to the local library – as any prudent person would expect them to do.
This last fall, an officer of the Town Board – charged with ferreting out violations of the ordinances, visited our property and issued a warning notice because we had several collector vehicles parked off a driveway, behind a garage – out of the public view – but illegal by the letter of the law that requires a “hard parking surface”. The officer bragged to my wife of issuing “over 400” tickets for violations – each of which would result in a fine of at least $100 for the property owner if not corrected in short order.
One neighbor has 10 acres of land, zoned agricultural, and was told he cannot keep “construction equipment” on his property, even though he runs a construction contracting business and was using the machinery on the property. None of his neighbors have ever raised an objection about this storage – but it’s against the letter of the law.
Another neighbor got a ticket for parking their own vehicle next to their driveway with a For Sale sign showing – because the car was resting on grass, not on the driveway. This was not a case of a pickup truck on blocks in weeds three feet high – this was a clean vehicle being sold by it’s owner – but again, in violation of the letter of the law.
Other neighbors were prosecuted for having a small two-wheel trailer, because it had no license plate – which is not required under Wisconsin law – parked on the grass next to their garage. I have a similar trailer I kept parked behind my garage – on the grass – next to that collector car I mentioned earlier. The enforcement officer neglected to mention it in his warning letter.
In my opinion, zoning laws are much abused and overweening in their scope, and a serious effort should be made to trim them back to the minimum required to preserve the quality of life in our community.
Let the impeachment begin!
Mr. Osama is pissing on our country again. He's been appointed the chair of the UN Security Council, in clear violation of the Constitution.
Article I, section 9.8 "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State."
Did Congress approve this?
So, let the impeachment begin. He would be charged with high treason - IF our government was not almost as corrupt and inept as the UN...
Correction - he may be inept and evil, but he's not a traitor:
Article III Section 3.
1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court.
2 The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
So, unless we declare the UN an enemy of the US, he's not a traitor. The declaration of the UN as an enemy of our country is long overdue, in my opinion, but our present politics prevent this from happening.
Article I, section 9.8 "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State."
Did Congress approve this?
So, let the impeachment begin. He would be charged with high treason - IF our government was not almost as corrupt and inept as the UN...
Correction - he may be inept and evil, but he's not a traitor:
Article III Section 3.
1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court.
2 The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
So, unless we declare the UN an enemy of the US, he's not a traitor. The declaration of the UN as an enemy of our country is long overdue, in my opinion, but our present politics prevent this from happening.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Neat stuff
Saw this at View from the Porch:
A powered exoskeleton for the troops. I can see a slew of civilian applications - hell, I could use one around the farm...
Direct link
A powered exoskeleton for the troops. I can see a slew of civilian applications - hell, I could use one around the farm...
Direct link
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Interesting email from the GOP
Usually, I just trash stuff like this - but it's a fun thing, and it pokes fun at the biggest sad clown on the planet:
Try it yourself!
Try it yourself!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Got published again
My letter about the state's attorney not enforcing un-Constitutional laws got published - on the same page as an editorial about the same issue:
Another prosecutor pursues a personal agenda.
WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.
First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.
Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.
WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.
Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.
“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.
He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”
THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.
In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.
The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.
In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.
We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.
The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.
The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.
I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:
Dear Mr. Barth,
It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.
I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.
The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.
Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.
The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.
The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.
In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.
Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.
(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)
The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.
By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
EDITORIAL: Just enforce the state laws
WELL, AT LEAST it can be said that when district attorneys lose their legal bearings about enforcing the law, it’s a bipartisan exercise.
First it was Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth, a Republican, who warned schools that criminal charges might be lodged if the details from the state’s new sex education plan became part of the curriculum. Southworth argued that instructing students about condoms and contraception, prior to the age of consent, could put teachers on the wrong side of the law if the kids subsequently engaged in relations.
Now Jackson County District Attorney Gerald Fox, a Democrat, has drawn his own line in the legal sand. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s gun decision last week, Fox says he no longer will enforce any Wisconsin gun laws.
WHAT DOES the district attorney mean? According to the Associated Press, his statement said Jackson County no longer will prosecute violations of Wisconsin prohibitions on concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns — even carrying switchblade knives.
Fox says the high court ruling makes all of Wisconsin’s gun laws unconstitutional.
“These so-called public safety laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over,” Fox said.
He closes his statement: “Let Freedom Ring.”
THAT’S A POLITICAL argument, not a legal analysis. Ditto the earlier foolishness from DA Southworth.
In the first place, as legal analysis, Fox’s stand would be wildly wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling was an extension of an earlier decision, originating in the District of Columbia, which had established that the Second Amendment included an individual right to own firearms — not just that states could maintain an armed “well-regulated militia.” Last week’s ruling affirmed that the right exists in all 50 states, not just the federally-controlled D.C. zone.
The decision did not strike down, as Fox seems to believe, any and all gun regulations across America.
In fact, sorting out exactly what the ruling really means may keep lawyers busy for years.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, though, such rulings should not give license to politically-motivated prosecutors to superimpose their personal beliefs on the law.
We have no doubt the good voters of Wisconsin put prosecutors in place with the expectation they will enforce the law, not reinterpret statutes to suit themselves.
The simple fact is, though, mischievous prosecutors can pursue their own agendas with relative impunity. Under Wisconsin law, elected district attorneys have wide discretion when it comes to charging. The intent is to permit prosecutors to assess individual cases and proceed in a manner aimed at delivering justice to all parties. But it also can allow an unscrupulous prosecutor motivated by politics or a personal agenda to, essentially, distort the law.
The remedy rolls around every Election Day, when fair-minded voters can send these rascals packing.
I just sent Mr. William R. Barth of the Beloit Daily News this:
Dear Mr. Barth,
It was interesting to see the juxtaposition of your editorial "Just enforce the state laws" and my opinion piece "Go after the real criminals". Thanks for posting my letter.
I think, however, that you have a problem with history and the role of the people and the courts in our society. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, first off, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is null and void. That is fact.
The courts are not pro-active - they don't rule on Constitutionality until a suit is brought challenging a particular law. One might wish for a pro-active court system, but that could cause mischief in the other direction, depending on the political leanings of the judge involved, so I would advocate leaving bad enough alone there.
Anyway, the purpose of a state's attorney, as I see it, is to bring charges against people who are causing injury to the community by their actions, and to use common sense to prevent prosecutions based on faulty laws that would likely cause problems such as large payments of taxpayer's money to people harmed by the attempted enforcement of those faulty laws. I can see why Mr. Southworth warned against schools following the new sex-education law, since its literal interpretation would be corrupting the morals of minors, a crime. Perhaps this was a subtle hint for the Wisconsin legislature to revisit that law and re-write it to eliminate any possibility of teachers being charged with contributing to delinquency of a minor by attempting to follow the law.
The Supreme Court recently incorporated the Second Amendment, an action quite long overdue. This places it on the same level as the First Amendment, which prohibits the government, state, local, and federal, from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. I am sure you would agree that any governmental agency attempting "speech controls" would and should be slapped down quickly and solidly.
The same concept is now attached to the Second Amendment. True, there will be thousands of lawsuits, each aimed at one or more of the 20,000-odd now un-Constitutional laws on the books. The courts will have to try each and every suit and render decisions, which will probably be appealed by officials fearful of losing power, however meaningless and petty that power is.
In America, our citizens are empowered to decide the law as jurors. Sadly, this power has been ignored and actively denied by judges in their instructions to juries. The power of nullification means that the people can effectively overturn a stupid or illegal law without waiting for the courts to rule. I see the actions of Mr. Southworth and Mr. Fox to be similar to this principle. Mr. Fox may be a bit gung-ho about this particular Supreme Court decision - I can understand that, since our Second Amendment rights have been systematically infringed upon starting with the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, and continuing with New York's Sullivan Act, the federal National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (copied from 1930's German law), Illinois' FOID Card law, Wisconsin's Handgun Hotline, and all the rest.
Mr. Fox can see clearly that the Supreme Court's decision has effectively nullified every gun-control law now on the books, even if the courts have not yet ruled on those individual laws. He is trying to prevent his county from having to pay tax dollars to plaintiffs who successfully contest, say, concealed carry in his county. This also has the side-effect of preventing the suit that may well overturn Wisconsin's concealed-carry ban from being tested in courts in his county.
(Looking at it that way, perhaps Mr. Fox did us freedom-lovers a disservice by refusing to prosecute people for violating the useless and un-Constitutional laws on the books - because someone who is not prosecuted for exercising an inalienable right has no standing to bring suit to overturn the law he has not run afoul of.)
The Supreme Court decision does indeed strike down all of Wisconsin's present gun-control laws, but they will not be removed until each and every one is tested in court. There is nothing to fear from these laws being removed from the books - ask yourself, honestly - how many crimes have been prevented, say, by preventing a handgun transfer to someone who already owns six handguns until a waiting period expires, or by requiring federal background checks on law-abiding people before they can buy a gun from a dealer. The honest answer is zero. All these laws have ever succeeded in doing is preventing good folks from defending themselves. Criminals will always ignore the law. Our prosecutors should be lauded for attempting to prevent lawsuits that will cost us money, and should concentrate on prosecuting those who are actually harming others.
By the way - what's with the 'even carrying switchblade knives' comment? You do understand that the only reason for laws regulating knives was politicians in the 1950's getting all worked up over movies like "The Asphalt Jungle" - Google 'The Asphalt Jungle switchblade laws" turns up one typical comment near the top: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=298931 . You do understand that simply carrying something does nothing to harm society - until you pull it out and commit a crime like robbery, rape, or murder with it, right? Sort of like all those shootings in Beloit and Chicago that would never have happened is "gun control" actually worked.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Here we go again!
Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it...
Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern
With Mr. Barack Hussein Osama playing Herbert Hoover...
Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern
With Mr. Barack Hussein Osama playing Herbert Hoover...
Sunday, July 4, 2010
A question
I have a question for anyone who knows something about paved roads and their maintenance. My daughter, the civil engineer draws a blank on this.
So far as I know, south central Wisconsin is unique in "maintaining" the asphalt paved county and township roads around here by spreading a nice thck coat of tar or oil, then a nice thick coating of fine pea gravel. The oil gets on anyone's vehicle who is unlucky enough to have to use the road, and the pea gravel is a special treat to two-wheeled traffic. My daughter came out today on her bike and had to negotiate some curves on a county road so treated - luckily she knows how to ride.
Is there actually any benefit to this technique, aside from making some politically connected people's brother-in-laws rich? It certainly ought to make the greenies happy, spreading all that oil to leach into the ground...
So far as I know, south central Wisconsin is unique in "maintaining" the asphalt paved county and township roads around here by spreading a nice thck coat of tar or oil, then a nice thick coating of fine pea gravel. The oil gets on anyone's vehicle who is unlucky enough to have to use the road, and the pea gravel is a special treat to two-wheeled traffic. My daughter came out today on her bike and had to negotiate some curves on a county road so treated - luckily she knows how to ride.
Is there actually any benefit to this technique, aside from making some politically connected people's brother-in-laws rich? It certainly ought to make the greenies happy, spreading all that oil to leach into the ground...
Appropriate for the Fourth of July!
Just saw this:
Felony charges for reporting within the Gulf spill zone
Just as we are celebrating our country's birth, our Glorious Leader's government does this. Somehow, it's appropriate.
Another link: Gulf of Mexico censorship
Felony charges for reporting within the Gulf spill zone
Just as we are celebrating our country's birth, our Glorious Leader's government does this. Somehow, it's appropriate.
Another link: Gulf of Mexico censorship
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Texas to shutter a bunch of refineries
EPA closes refineries due to some bullshit rule that got bent. Big Dick's Place has the link...
Common sense in a county prosecutor-and stupidity elsewhere
Article in the Beloit Daily News:
Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws
Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.
Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.
Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.
I can dream, can't I?
Just sent this to the Daily News letters:
Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.
We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.
We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?
Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.
Prosecutor says he won't enforce state gun laws
Jackson County, Wisconsin District Attorney Gerald R. Fox is a very intelligent man. He has read the Supreme Court's ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and has done the right thing - he refuses to prosecute people in violation of un-Constitutional state laws.
Contrast this with Little Dick Daley in Chicago, who in response to the same ruling, rushed through new restrictions on an unalienable right.
Lots of lawyers are going to get rich, and the taxpayers of Chicago are going to get poorer. Finally, the people of Chicago will be free - but it's going to take years, and Daley getting ridden out of town on a rail, dripping tar and feathers.
I can dream, can't I?
Just sent this to the Daily News letters:
Jackson County District attorney Gerald R. Fox is the kind of public official we need more of in Wisconsin. He has announced that, in accordance with the highest law of our country, he will no longer prosecute people for exercising their God-given right to self defense under the Second Amendment.
We now need to get our legislators to do the correct thing, and repeal all the un-Constitutional gun laws on the Wisconsin books. The useless 'handgun hotline', the waiting period for gun deliveries, the ban on concealed carry - all of them.
We need more people to take a stand like this. How about Rock County's district attorney being the next to announce he will follow the highest law of the land and ignore laws in violation of it?
Our prosecutors and police should be going after people who are committing real crimes, with or without weapons. Possessing an object should never be a crime. It's what you do with that object that matters, and only the action of harming another person should be prosecuted as a crime.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Osama wants immigration reform?
Another sent to the usual cretins:
NO. We do not need Mr. Obama's version of "reform" - we need the federal government to enforce the LAW as it is written.
What would actually be a true reform would be a law cleaning up the concept of "anchor babies" to limit automatic citizenship to babies born here to parents here legally who have previously expressed a real commitment to becoming citizens themselves.
Why not propose such a bill while telling Mr. Obama to quit fooling around when he's got real crises to deal with? Getting more Democratic voters is not a crisis to be addressed - it's a disaster for our country.
NO. We do not need Mr. Obama's version of "reform" - we need the federal government to enforce the LAW as it is written.
What would actually be a true reform would be a law cleaning up the concept of "anchor babies" to limit automatic citizenship to babies born here to parents here legally who have previously expressed a real commitment to becoming citizens themselves.
Why not propose such a bill while telling Mr. Obama to quit fooling around when he's got real crises to deal with? Getting more Democratic voters is not a crisis to be addressed - it's a disaster for our country.
Kagan nomination
Sent to the usual suspects:
Vote NO on Ms. Kagan. She does not understand, nor does she respect the Constitution of the United States.
She also cannot answer a direct question directly. We've way too many shady politicians in Washington now, without appointing one to life tenure in our highest court.
Vote NO on Ms. Kagan. She does not understand, nor does she respect the Constitution of the United States.
She also cannot answer a direct question directly. We've way too many shady politicians in Washington now, without appointing one to life tenure in our highest court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)