Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 27, 2016, 04:36:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95527 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 195 196 [197] 198 199 ... 275
9801  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 17, 2010, 08:22:17 AM
Still waiting for some sot of concrete policy position......
9802  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: August 17, 2010, 07:25:26 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Homeland-Siege-Tactics-Police-Military/dp/0981865917/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Looks relevant.
9803  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 16, 2010, 09:47:38 PM
Most cops in this country work for small agencies with small budgets. The LAPD does better than most, and Cali agencies from cities with deep tax bases have real nice pay and bennies, although for how long as California implodes?
9804  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 16, 2010, 09:44:03 PM
So shut down the NSA? Get the US out of the intelligence business?
9805  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 16, 2010, 08:32:25 PM
http://www.policeone.com/careers/

http://officer.com/jobs/

Let me know how impressive the pay and benefits look.
9806  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 16, 2010, 08:25:34 PM
The panopticon prisons were failures and almost all in the US are no longer in use.
9807  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 16, 2010, 08:17:52 PM
I'm amazed at what some cops get paid in places like California. In my state, outside of the metropolitan areas, the police wages are very low and the benefits are far from impressive. In much of the state, a entry level officer with a wife and 2 kids is eligible for food stamps.
9808  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 16, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2010/08/unsustainable.html

Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Problem With Petty Officer Gurney


Petty Officer First Class Ethan Gurney will retire from the Navy this fall, after 20 years of service. Critics of the military retirement system say that's too soon, creating long-term fiscal problems for the Defense Department (Stars and Stripes photo).


According to a Pentagon advisory board, Navy Petty Officer First Class Ethan Gurney represents what's wrong with the military retirement system.

Petty Officer Gurney joined the Navy out of high school, and has served honorably as an electronics technician for almost two decades. This fall, after reaching 20 years of active duty service, Gurney will retire from the Navy and begin drawing a retirement check--at the ripe old age of 38.

From the board's perspective, that's too soon. With advances in medicine and increasing longevity, Gurney and his fellow military retirees will live for decades after leaving active duty, collecting billions of dollars in pensions, health care and other benefits.

The Defense Business Board, tasked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to find ways to cut Pentagon spending, says the current retirement system is "unsustainable" and must be fixed. Without reforms, payments for military retirees will grow from $47.7 billion this year, to just under $60 billion by 2020.

As Stars and Stripes recently reported:

The 25-member group of civilian business leaders suggests that the Defense Department look at changing the current system, even hinting at raising the number of years troops must serve before being eligible for retirement pay.

The current system “encourages our military to leave at 20 years when they are most productive and experienced, and then pays them and their families and their survivors for another 40 years," committee chairman Arnold Punaro told board members at their quarterly meeting late last month.

Among the "reforms" being suggested by the advisory panel: delaying payments to retirees, in exchange for earlier "vesting" in the program. One proposal being studied by the board would provide a limited retirement benefit for military members who serve as little as 10 years. Those personnel would receive their pension at age 60 under the reform plan, while those with 20 years of service would begin receiving checks at age 57--almost 20 years after some of them leave active duty.

The hypocrisy of the "reformers" is almost laughable. Board chairman Arnold Punaro worries about a system that "encourages [military members] to leave when they're most productive and experienced, then pays them, their family and their dependents for the next 40 years."

But Punaro hasn't declined his military retirement check. Turns out that Mr. Punaro is also a retired Major General in the Marine Corps. According to Forbes, he currently works as an executive Vice President at defense contractor SAIC, where his total compensation in 2009 topped $2.7 million. That's almost three times what Petty Officer Gurney will collect in military retirement pay, even if he lives to age 80. And we didn't include Punaro's USMC pension in that total, either.

Fact is, the typical military retiree is a lot closer to Gurney than General Punaro. When he leaves active duty later this year, Petty Officer Gurney will receive a gross monthly pension of just over $1,800. By the time you deduct federal and state taxes and allotments for such items
as the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), dental insurance and other expenses, Gurney's "rich" pension will be closer to $1,400 a month.

Indeed, the average person retiring from the military at the 20-year point is an E-6, the same rank as Petty Officer Gurney. Most are married, with kids in school, and (if they're lucky) that $1,400 pension will cover their mortgage payment. Compare that to say, the average annuity for a state employee in New York, New Jersey or California, and tell us
who's getting rich in retirement.

Punaro's critique also misses a pair of critical points. There are two primary reasons the military has always embraced an early retirement system. First, it's a powerful recruiting and retention tool, particularly for mid-level officers and NCOs, who form the backbone of our armed forces. Allowing retirement at the 20-year point keeps a lot of mid-level officers and non-commissioned officers in uniform, ensuring an adequate supply of experienced personnel.

By comparison, if the military allows individuals to earn delayed benefits after only 10 years of service, it would only accelerate the exodus of skilled troops. Individuals with highly marketable skills (including intelligence, nuclear power, special forces and contracting, to name a few) would leave at the first opportunity, further eroding experience levels at the most critical ranks.

Additionally, there's the matter of who's best suited for certain military jobs. No offense to General Punaro, but jobs like Marine rifleman, Army ranger, Air Force combat controller and Navy fighter pilot (to name a few) are best handled by the young. True, experience does improve with age, but reflexes, vision, hearing and physical conditioning tend to deteriorate as we get older. And sometimes, experience is no substitute for the strength, speed and stamina found in younger troops.

Another critic of the current system, Nathaniel Fick of the left-leaning Center for a New American Security, has wondered "Why we're paying 38-year-olds" as they embark on their second full career. Fick, a former Marine Corps officer, made the comment in a recent article published at the Foreign Policy website.

We think the best rejoinder to that argument comes from Petty Officer Gurney, a man who is (supposedly) the poster boy for problems in our military pension system. For 20 years of dedicated and faithful service, Gurney simply expects the Navy to meet the promise it made to him. And he observes that (relatively) few people are willing to meet the demands for that 20-year pension:

"No rational person would put up with 20 years of the hardships that you’re forced to endure if it wasn’t for the brass ring at the end of it all called instant retirement,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Gurney.

[snip]

“The continuous deployments, living conditions, remote and hazardous duty stations are unique to the military,” he said. “This isn’t a civilian company, so any civilian model that you use to compare to the military is impertinent. To do so is irresponsible at best.”

Bravo Zulu, Petty Officer Gurney. Couldn't have said it better ourselves. Unfortunately, Secretary Gates now views the military retirement system as Fiscal Problem #1, so some sort of reforms appear inevitable. Never mind that the current system has served the military well, and payments will eventually decline, as retirees from Korea, Vietnam and the Reagan eras pass on.

One more thing: we find the current fixation on military retirement rather curious, for other reasons. The Pentagon has suddenly discovered that its payments for retiree medical coverage are out-of-control, just months after the Obama Administration pushed through national health care coverage. Gee...doesn't DoD have the option of potentially pushing military retirees into the national plan, saving billions of dollars each year--and creating more "urgency" for preserving the new system? Coincidence? You decide.

Likewise, Secretary Gates (and his bosses in the White House) would like to find other ways to save money at the Pentagon. If they can put off pension payments for years after military retirees leave active duty, so much the better. I'm sure that DoD's actuaries have already calculated the number of personnel who will die during that "gap" between their retirement ceremony and the age of 57 or 60, when the first retirement check rolls in. How much would DoD save using that approach, and where will that money goes? So far, Dr. Gates hasn't answered that one.

Equally galling is the growing demand for the reform of military retirement benefits, while the "big" entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) just keep on growing. Even at the inflated totals cited in the Stars and Stripes article, military pensions represent only a fraction of our annual Social Security payments--and that system will go broke long before the armed forces retirement system. But it's (apparently) more important to fix military pensions, with little regard for the long-term impact on retention and experience levels in the ranks.

Go figure.
9809  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 16, 2010, 11:38:56 AM
I can't comment on firefighters, but for police officers the expectation is that it takes about 3-5 years working patrol (after the academy and field training) to be fully proficient at the job. Working special details, detectives also has a long learning curve involved. There is also such a thing as institutional knowledge from veterans on patrol, but patrol like the combat arms of the military, is a young man's game. You would be fine having a 60 year old detective working a case, but you don't want a 60 yr. old patrol officer trying to run down a mugger.

I've seen conflicting stats on police life spans, but it's not just the line of duty deaths you have to factor in, it's the physical and psychological stressors related to the job. It's the cumilative injuries that add up. Just wearing 20-30 pounds of duty gear every day on your waist results in long term back pain for most everyone. No matter where you work, you see the worst of humanity, you learn the sights, sounds and smells of the ugliest things that can possibly happen. I just finished another series of blood tests for all the wonderful things commonly floating around, having had my forearm torn open by the fingernails of a career offender at work.

The realities of the job are far from glorious, and these days the job just gets worse and worse. The only thing that keeps a minimally acceptable amount of recruits coming in is the bad economy and the fact that there are fewer LE jobs these days.
9810  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 16, 2010, 10:58:00 AM
Pay cops and firefighters minimum wage, no benefits. Let's see how that works out.
9811  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: August 15, 2010, 01:35:15 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/15/california-gets-tough-on-illegal-border-crossings/

Priorities.
9812  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: August 15, 2010, 01:03:52 PM
**I think this article does a good job explaining things.**

http://www.policeone.com/columnists/Charles-Remsberg/articles/1242034-Handling-Protesters-Part-2/

IMPORTANT NOTE: As with any legal advice, be sure to check with your local advisors to be certain that the principles and precedents explained here currently apply in your jurisdiction.

1. Authorities can limit public speech, and the correlative right to protest and demonstrate, to a reasonable time, a reasonable place and a reasonable manner. You'll often see this 3-part terminology in court decisions dealing with 1st Amendment freedoms. These restrictions apply to speech (and protests) in public areas like roads, sidewalks, parks or other sites that are traditionally open for citizens to gather, talk and demonstrate.

Protest can also always be restricted because of its relationship to illegal conduct. Demonstrators do not have the right to trespass onto somebody's private property to protest or to engage in assault or disorderly conduct or any other behavior that violates the law. When free expression becomes illegal conduct, it can always be restricted.

2. Any limitation has to meet these criteria:

a) It must be content neutral, meaning that you don't restrict only those groups whose message you disagree with. In enforcing a quiet zone around a hospital, for example, you are not trying to control the message put forth by demonstrators, you're trying to control the noise that interferes with people getting well. Content neutrality is THE most important factor in keeping restrictions legal.

b) Any limitation must be narrowly tailored to serve an important interest. To continue the quiet zone analogy, the zone must not extend out farther than it has to to accomplish its purpose. It can't be clear across town where it has no reasonable relation to the hospital it supposedly protects. In other words, imposition of a restriction has to closely match the reason for it.

c) Limitations must ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVES. If a person or group is restricted from protesting 1 place, they should have ample opportunity to demonstrate some other place in town.

3. If some group wants to protest across an interstate highway because they think that will have the biggest impact, you can easily deny that. In a recent federal case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals supported a city in Alabama that completely banned tables set up on city sidewalks to distribute literature because they were considered too disruptive to pedestrians. You can deny the right to protest during RUSH HOUR. Many cities have statutes that prohibit demonstrations within a certain distance of a CHURCH during hours of service or shortly before or after because of anticipated traffic problems.

You can also sometimes limit the SIZE of a protest group. If a group of 500 wants to demonstrate in a park that can legitimately accommodate only 100 persons, you can stop that.

Court cases suggest that you CAN'T have a complete ban on protesting in a residential neighborhood. But you can prohibit a group from focusing on a particular resident (called "focused residential picketing"). And you can stop groups from marching through residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night when the noise would disrupt privacy.

In imposing restrictions, just remember the criteria itemized in #2. You must apply objective, content-neutral limitations based on some important consideration.

4. YES, but to do so you have to meet a VERY HIGH STANDARD.

Say you want to deny the Ku Klux Klan the right to march in your town because you're worried that you won't be able to protect against a real bloodbath. Courts have said that the police (or government in combination with the police) must prove that maintaining public safety and order is beyond the reasonable ability of your officers and administrators.

The courts will ask why you couldn't get help from neighboring jurisdictions or other sources. They will ask specific reasons why your doubt of maintaining public order is accurate. They will take a very close look because obviously a lot of jurisdictions would like to say, "Hey, we just can't be safe, so you can't come here."

It is very rare that a jurisdiction is able to place a complete ban on a group's ability to protest. You might be able to move the protest, or limit the size or delay it until you have time to recruit extra help, but a complete ban will very rarely be upheld.

5. If you are faced with a problem group, like the Ku Klux Klan or Operation Rescue, wanting to demonstrate in your community and you are concerned about your ability to maintain order because the group is known for not demonstrating peacefully and legally in other communities, you can probably obtain an INJUNCTION from a local judge that will allow you to impose specific, advance limitations on the group's right to protest/demonstrate. For example, an injunction might specify that protesters can't carry weapons, even if they have permits that ordinarily enable them to do so.

This legal tactic became a very useful arrow in law enforcement's quiver with the U.S. Supreme Court's sanction in the case of Madsen v. Women's Health Center [114 S.Ct. 2516 (1994).] In this important case, the Court upheld for the first time the use of injunctions in regards to demonstrations.

A local judge will likely be sympathetic with your position because he is not going to want his own community ripped apart by the group you're concerned about. Even if it turns out later that the judge shouldn't have issued the injunction, you and your department are fully protected from liability so long as you are acting pursuant to his order.

6. Your LOCAL PROSECUTOR. If the prosecutor doesn't agree with you on the arrests you make, he is going to abandon you when you get ready to go to trial. Be sure he participates in the planning and helps you evaluate the statutes that you may want to use as foundations for your arrests. Your department legal advisor or city attorney can guide you regarding civil liability issues, but a prosecutor's input is important where possible criminal charges against demonstrators or counter-demonstrators are concerned.

Particularly if you haven't had cause to use them for awhile, take a close and critical look at your statutes on disorderly conduct, public assembly and noise (noise can be an especially useful ground for arrest in protest situations, if the statute is specific enough). In some cases, these statutes are old, confusing and vague. The language would no longer pass court scrutiny. With sufficient notice, it may even be possible to get weak statutes updated before the protest goes down.

Once a prosecution strategy is agreed upon, officers must be informed as to what's permissible arrest-wise. When Winston-Salem PD anticipates an event with potentially troublesome protesters, officers are given a booklet clearly delineating elements of the non-routine offenses they might be called upon to arrest for. They are then trained on what they will need to show in order to get a conviction for each offense.

Take full advantage of what your laws will let you do. Your prosecutor should be oriented to telling you what you can do legally, not just hammering at what you can't do.

You also want to review physical control tactics that may be appropriate in handling demonstrators. In many departments, the command staff was trained in the '70s, while line officers were trained in the '90s. You don't want commanders encouraging an obsolete "stomp-and-drag" approach--and then later using inflammatory terminology like that in court--when more currently trained officers may know of more effective, lower profile options.

7. INSULTS, YES; SPITTING, NO.

Where exchanges between civilians are concerned, courts generally have ruled that when 1 person is right up in the face of another, close enough so that fighting could occur, and that person speaks directly to the other in an insulting, threatening, provoking manner, such speech can be considered "fighting words" and can be cause for arrest. [For an explanation of "fighting words", see Newsline No. 68.]

However, law enforcement officers, unlike ordinary citizens, are generally expected because of their professional training to restrain themselves in the face of insulting language. So if you're policing a demonstration and 1 of the protesters gives you obscene gestures and nasty talk, you're expected to have a thicker skin and not punch him in the mouth.

Spitting's a different matter. A protester even preparing to spit is committing assault and can be arrested. In 1 instance, a handcuffed subject was being walked to a police vehicle when he made a gurgling sound as if getting ready to spit. An officer immediately delivered when he later called "a straight-arm stun technique designed to redirect the head," injuring the subject but preventing officers from being spit on. A federal Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit against the officer, reasoning that no police officer should be left defenseless against someone preparing to spit on him and that objectively reasonable force to prevent the spitting does not violate any legal standard imposed by the constitution.

8. One of your highest liability risks--a very, very high risk--is FALSE IMPRISONMENT or FALSE ARREST, stemming from an arrest made without probable cause. This can happen easily in a confusing demonstration situation, where you have many people engaged in various types of behavior and quite likely struggling with you. Adequately documenting who in the crowd actually did what and that you had a specific reason for everyone you took in becomes difficult, especially in mass-arrest situations.

EXCESSIVE FORCE also remains a concern. While courts are becoming more and more cognizant of law enforcement realities, they still hold officers to a fairly high standard. If you're accused of excessive force, you will need to be able to articulate why you felt the level of force you used was required.

There may also be claims that you deprived would-be demonstrators of their CIVIL RIGHTS by imposing unreasonable limitations that made the protest ineffective. Your actions will then be tested against the criteria of objectivity itemized in #2. Courts will give great latitude for your regulation of free speech in public places but they do not look favorably on totally eliminating it just because it is inconvenient, unpopular or expensive, all of which it often is. If you effectively eliminate a person's chance for public expression, you need a very strong reason for doing so.

In some state courts, the accusation of FAILURE TO PROTECT is beginning to be raised. Here the court will look for evidence of a "special relationship" between you and the protesters that gives you an exceptional need to protect. Be careful not to make promises, such as: "Yes, you can demonstrate safely because we'll certainly have enough police officers there" or "We'll be fully equipped and fully prepared to protect you, you don't have to worry about a thing."

Another liability area for administrators that has started to emerge in some states is FAILURE TO PROTECT YOUR EMPLOYEE. An officer who gets injured wants to collect beyond workmen's compensation and argues, "You [the administrator] knew perfectly well you were expecting 2,000 Klansmen and you put me out there with 3 other officers and said, 'Here, guys, hold the line'--without adequate training, proper support, proper communications or proper equipment to handle the job, knowing full well that there was potential for harm to me."

9. Videotape can help you prepare tactically for managing a protest and help you defend yourself afterwards against charges of excessive force.

If you know a particular group is coming to town, contact other jurisdictions where these protesters have been previously and ask to borrow videotapes of their demonstration. Some groups try deliberately to provoke inappropriate responses from officers so they can sue or at least so they can get more publicity for their cause. Seeing some of their tactics ahead of time can help you plan your actions better. You may also be able to go on the Internet and find out what other agencies have learned when dealing with the group you're facing.

It's a good idea, incidentally, to practice and videotape crowd control tactics in role-playing exercises, just as you practice DT moves. Make and critique your mistakes with each other so you don't make them in public. Field-test your equipment beforehand, too.

If you use pain compliance or leverage techniques (like some we demonstrate in the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar) to move people who are blocking an area, you are likely to get allegations of improper force afterwards. If the event has been taped, you can show in court that you used only an amount of force reasonably necessary to get the job done.

Departments and officers win almost all these force cases, unless the force used was clearly outrageous. More and more judges recognize that the way to evaluate an officer's use of force is to put themselves in that officer's shoes. They recognize the officer is in a tense, rapidly evolving, often dangerous situation and that he has to make split-second decisions. Even the Supreme Court has said that not every push or shove that an officer engages in that turns out to be unnecessary violates the law. There has to be room for understanding the dynamics of force confrontations...and videotape can help make the circumstances clearer.

Videotapes you make can be used for future training, too.

10. Generally, NO. Privately owned shopping malls are not considered to be public forum areas (like streets, sidewalks and public parks are) for purposes of 1st Amendment activity. People may have the right to protest outside the mall on public property, but you can keep demonstrators out of privately owned parking areas and the mall interior completely, if owners of the mall don't want people protesting there.

The same can be true regarding private universities. If it's private property it's not public-forum property. Even public buildings, like schools and police stations, are not normally open for demonstrations.

In July, 1997, a MN judge ruled that demonstrations must be permitted inside the Mall of America, the nation's largest, near Minneapolis. But that was because government funds were used in its construction. However, the judge said that the mall has the right to determine the time, place and manner of demonstrations and ruled that some animal-rights protesters must face trespassing charges because they failed to get permission from the mall before demonstrating inside last spring.

11. NO. From a legal standpoint, the media does not have any right of access to any area of public property or to your briefings or planning sessions that the public in general doesn't have. If you set up a no-person zone, with access barred by a police line, for example, the media has no legal right to say, "We're the media, we can come in there." You may decide to let them in, to give them extra access, but that's absolutely your choice.

Sometimes to cover big events, news helicopters will fly over areas where police don't want them for safety reasons. In LA this has been dealt with on occasion by a call to the FAA. The FAA, in turn, has declared the area in question a restricted zone, and news pilots who don't get out of there are subject to losing their licenses.

12. Not really. You can charge the group, but only for the cost their activities directly create. Say you have 50 Klanspeople who want to march down the middle of Main St., crossing 4 intersections. You can charge the Klan for traffic control officers at each intersection (including extra help you bring in from other jurisdictions), provided that you likewise charge other groups comparably for the same service. You can charge the cost of clean-up, but only for the clean-up activities you can actually tie to the activities of the protesting group, not those required because 2,000 onlookers trashed the area. That all has to be absorbed by your community as a cost of doing business in a democracy.

Likewise, you cannot charge protesters for the possible reaction of those observing their protest. In the case of 50 Klanspeople and 2,000 onlookers, if most of your extra resources are to keep the onlookers from bashing in the heads of the marchers, you can't charge for that protection.

Of course you can charge an administrative processing fee for a parade permit before a march-type demonstration is held, provided the fee is set and administered in a non-discriminatory, content-neutral manner. In other words, you must charge the Girl Scouts who want to stage a parade across town the same permit fee as you do the KKK. You don't favor 1 group over another because you like 1 group and don't like the other.

You can have a provision for indigent groups if you wish, but they must meet an objective test for indigence before the fee can be waived.
9813  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: August 15, 2010, 01:00:47 AM
I'm guessing this "John Bush" had no student status on the campus and had been asked to leave, refused to do so and was then arrested as a result. A press pass is not some sort of "get out of jail free" card.
9814  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: August 13, 2010, 05:44:15 PM
This assumes he didn't convert to the religion of pieces.

Not the only scenario. He could be a piquerist. This would be a very interesting case to work.
9815  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: August 13, 2010, 03:31:16 PM
It's an interesting case. I'm curious to see what the investigation brings forth.
9816  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
Wrong. They are not.
huh
You may not want them to be "legal citizens just like you and I" but they are.  They have EVERY right and privilege that you and I do.  That's is clearly the law;
further IMHO there will not be a constitutional amendment changing that law.

**Re-read this until it sinks in:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades. In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S.
9817  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: August 12, 2010, 10:57:46 AM
Wrong. They are not.
9818  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!) on: August 11, 2010, 04:19:18 PM
As someone who took a CAIR/USG "sensitivity" class, all I can say is it was laughable. Sadly, there are plenty of people deceived by such propaganda.
9819  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 11, 2010, 03:18:07 PM
I attended an FBI internet crimes task force presentation about 10 years ago, on a case where a search warrant on a computer in the US yielded images of children being sexually assaulted in real time. The case spanned the globe, and was ultimately tracked down to the UK, where the children were rescued and the perp arrested, by black clad, balaclava wearing, long gun toting tactical cops, no doubt.

Those that traffic in such things use every technique you mentioned. It makes tracking them difficult, but almost never impossible.
9820  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Security issues on: August 11, 2010, 01:32:57 PM
Yellow is supposed to be relaxed, yet alert.
9821  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 11, 2010, 01:24:29 PM
From the start, there was never true anonymity on the interwebs.
9822  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Color Code of Mental Awareness on: August 10, 2010, 01:58:41 AM
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/firearms120

An nice presentation on the Color Code of Mental Awareness.
9823  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 09, 2010, 11:18:06 PM
Although AQ will return to aviation oriented attacks in the future, Beslan style or VBIED attacks are more easily done these days.
9824  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: August 08, 2010, 01:08:53 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/08/kudlow-panic-setting-in-at-wh-over-economy/

Kudlow: Panic setting in at WH over economy
9825  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: August 07, 2010, 10:59:17 PM
Ohoh, time for a new "reset" button!
9826  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 07, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
Yes, I keep my face off the net to avoid mass waves of gastric reflux. 

I wish Ol' Radley would pin on a badge for a while to see that things aren't as simple as he thinks. Until then, he's just a virgin discussing the kama sutra.
9827  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy on: August 07, 2010, 03:01:49 PM
There aren't 14 photos of me on the internet....
9828  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Death by P.C. on: August 06, 2010, 10:36:57 AM
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/08/06/gays-and-blood-donation-sacrificing-public-safety-for-political-correctness/

Take one for the team?
9829  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 05, 2010, 08:25:19 PM
It's a newsfeed carrying media stories of accusations against law enforcement officers/officers being arrested. That tends to demonstrate that LEOs face legal sanction for misconduct, doesn't it?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=648&issue_id=72005
9830  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 05, 2010, 02:37:28 PM
And that final line is why I geneally try and ignore you.  Too bad this bbs does not have an ignore button, every once in a while I get the urge to tilt at windmills..............and end up with the same result a certain Castillian did.

Your outlook is one of the reasons I decided NOT to continue serving the country as a cop, it is definately anti-constitutional and has way too much of the "bully" feel about it.

**If you are opposed to traffic stops, exactly what were you planning on doing as a police officer?**
9831  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Yes FREEDOM is as tangible as that nervous feeling you get in traffic when a cop come up behind you and follows your for a couple of blocks, you KNOW you have done nothing wrong but that feeling is there..........  Freedom is the absence of that.   Right now we are not free.........   

**Well, traffic laws and traffic stops by police aren't going away in the US. So where are you moving to? I hear the tribal regions of Pakistan are lovely this time of year.**
9832  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: August 04, 2010, 02:22:14 PM
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html

Claudia Rosett does some great work here.
9833  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 02:10:18 PM
I don't wander the halls of Langley or Ft. Meade, but I can tell you that for law enforcement there are strict rules and structures in place regarding intelligence systems. I recently did a 5 day course on the topic and they beat us over the head with 28 CFR 23 daily.

http://www.iir.com/28cfr/
9834  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 01:20:06 PM
Oh, Sacco and Vanzetti might not be the innocents you imagine.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5245754

Sacco and Vanzetti were a cause célèbre during the 1920s. Left-leaning intellectuals, including Sinclair, championed their innocence. Their eventual execution in 1927 touched off riots in Paris and London. Upton Sinclair's letter reveals he knew more than he let on about the case. We've invited Upton Sinclair's biographer, Anthony Arthur, to tell us about it.

Hello.

Mr. ANTHONY ARTHUR (Upton Sinclair's Biographer): Hello, it's nice to be with you.

ELLIOTT: So in this letter, Sinclair describes a meeting with Fred Moore, who was Sacco and Vanzetti's lawyer at the time. They're meeting at a hotel in Denver. And he writes, quote, "Alone in a hotel room with Fred, I begged him to tell me the full truth. He then told me that the men were guilty and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them."
9835  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 04, 2010, 01:09:10 PM
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=205937

You might want to read up on the legal liabilities law enforcement works under. It's not how you imagine.
9836  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 12:54:42 PM
I won't go into that in this venue.

BTW, aren't you outraged that fissionable material possessors might get Sacco and Vanzetti'ed by oppressive aircraft with Orwellian radiation detection equipment? Without a warrant, even!
 cry

"First, they came after those with weapons grade fissionable materials, I didn't speak up, as I had no weapons grade fissionable material....."
9837  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 04, 2010, 12:47:19 PM
http://www.policeny.com/esdtrucks1.html

Nothing new.
9838  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 12:15:37 PM
In this scenario, the post-blast analysis shows that the nuclear materials were probably produced by the Soviets in the cold war. What now?
9839  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 04, 2010, 08:49:19 AM
"walk softly and carry a big stick" would mean something more like:  We ignore you as long as you do not come and attack us, however attack us and we will ERASE your government.

So big chunks of DC and Manhattan disappear in a flash. AQ releases a martyrdom video from UK and German nationals claiming credit. Who exactly are you declaring war on?
9840  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 11:18:04 PM
Quote
**I guess there are very good reasons to avoid offering specfic policies, when you have nothing to offer but romantic  sloganeering, devoid of tangible concepts.**

Freedom is not a tangible concept? Interesting.

**Freedom can be very tangible, like not having radioactive ash wafting down on one's head.**

Quote
**So give me the libertarian national security model. Do it all devolve down to the Ron Paul "If we isolate ourselves, the bad people will go away and leave us alone"?

Speak softly and carry a big stick suits me.

You seem to be an all or nothing kind of guy. Is it not possible to want a strong national defense that doesn't do damage to the freedom it seeks to defend? Can one not state that US drug policy has failed without proposing something better? BHO's 2000 page healthcare takeover has yet to be implemented; do we have to wait for it to be irrevocably in place before we can object to it? I know how Stalin would answer these question, will your response be qualitatively different?

No, i'm a pragmatic sort of guy that understands that the real world don't often comply with beatiful ivory tower theory. I'm interested in protecting this nation and ensuring it's survival. We face serious existential threats from many directions and a lack of awareness and apathy from the public for the most part.
9841  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 10:35:54 PM
" Please give me a law enforcement and intelligence model that deals with the current threat profile without offending libertarian sensibilities."

Two ears, one bullet.

I wouldn't have thrown Iraq away; I wouldn't tell the Taliban we're leaving; I'd cut a deal with the Pashtuns to unite Pashtunistan; I'd support the Iranian opposition; I'd get out of the way of Israel's right to self-defense including against Iran; I'd acknowledge that to the extent that Islam seeks theocracy that it is an anti-American political ideology and to that extent not protected by the First Amendment; I'd prosecute those who divulge military intelligence.

That would be before lunch on the first day.

Sounds good, but from the law enforcement perspective, how do you root out and prosecute jihadist cells CONUS prior to them going operational ? Or do we wait for the attacks before we prosecute any left alive?
9842  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 10:33:05 PM
Quote
I'm pretty sure Thomas Jeferson didn't have a conceptual model of a jihadist nuke going off in an American city when he was putting quill to paper, did he?

Yes, there are always very good reasons to embrace despotism, which is why gents like Thomas Jefferson tried to make that impulse hard to realize.

**I guess there are very good reasons to avoid offering specfic policies, when you have nothing to offer but romantic  sloganeering, devoid of tangible concepts.**

We've had many versions of this conversation, and I understand you'll relentlessly embrace authoritarianism regardless of what I say, just as I'll err on the side of the founder's vision of a free society unfettered by bureaucratic scrutiny of any stripe as once you let the authoritarian djinn out of the bottle it's very unlikely it'll get stuffed back in.


**So give me the libertarian national security model. Do it all devolve down to the Ron Paul "If we isolate ourselves, the bad people will go away and leave us alone"?
9843  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 04:00:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Thomas Jeferson didn't have a conceptual model of a jihadist nuke going off in an American city when he was putting quill to paper, did he?

The 4th amd is based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The courts have shaped what is defined as "reasonable".
9844  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 12:28:14 PM
Ok, say you just got appointed Attorney General and BBG is DNI. Please give me a law enforcement and intelligence model that deals with the current threat profile without offending libertarian sensibilities.
9845  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 12:03:42 PM
I don't know that the actual truth is known of exactly what the NSA has or hasn't done. I thought we were discussing the  PATRIOT act hype vs. reality.
9846  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 11:32:35 AM
Not of what I'm aware of, thus far.
9847  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: August 03, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
I'm not talking about NSA, i'm talking about domestic law enforcement.
9848  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: August 03, 2010, 10:32:09 AM

in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Rauf told the newspaper that funding would come from Muslims in the United States and from overseas.

"Imam Abdul Rauf . . . told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Islamic center will be financed through contributions from Muslims in the US, as well as by donations from Arab and Islamic countries," the newspaper reported.

Rauf did not return a call for comment.

In interviews with US media, Rauf has insisted funds would be raised here.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME#ixzz0vYcJGKjZ
9849  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: August 03, 2010, 09:50:40 AM
The mosque is nothing more than a victory lap for the jihadists.
9850  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: States Rights on: August 03, 2010, 09:38:30 AM
The term SWAT was coined by the LAPD in 1968. The use of special units with weapons not normally in routine police service well predates SWAT. A law enforcement agency receiving federal funds does not make the officers federal by any reasonable definition. There is no funding mechanism that requires SWAT call outs to justify federal funds.
Pages: 1 ... 195 196 [197] 198 199 ... 275
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!