» February 26th, 2014
I will have to admit that I am a little mixed on this ruling… I can see both side of the issue and have to say I am more on the side of the dissenting minority.
So, what is the issue? Well basically this case was about when the police can enter a home without a warrant. Both sides of the court ruling agree that no police can enter a home without a warrant unless approved by the resident. However the issue here is the times when one resident refuses and the other approves the request to search.
In this situation the police were trying to find a street thief that ran into the apartment complex. The police heard a bunch of yelling in this one apartment and went a to the door and knocked. The female resident answered while the male resident out of sight yelled he he wouldn’t allow the apartment to be searched and knew his 4th Amendment rights. At this point the police left the apartment, only to return later when the male resident had left. They once again knocked on the door and the female resident answered the door. They requested to search the apartment to which the female agreed. At that the police found the stolen items and some other items from the criminal act. This in turn got the male resident arrest and found guilty.
Now this is where I am a little mixed on the issue because while they had already requested access and was denied access, they came back without a warrant but to avoid the male’s rejection. Why, if they really wanted to search the apartment didn’t they request a judge to sign a warrant? They said that they came back to check on the female who seemed to have been beaten earlier by the male. Well if that was true, why didn’t they then enter the apartment under the possible emergency of a domestic dispute? There just seems to be a few questions that to me don’t add up…
Now what makes me more inclined to be with the dissenting minor on this ruling is that fact of the past rulings. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that a husband was allowed to stand in the doorway and refuse access to his house even while his estranged wife was consenting. So in that case they rules that the fact one of the two people involved was refused meant the approval of the other didn’t matter. But in the current case they rules that both persons must be present for a refusal to matter. To me this really goes against the 2006 ruling because they had already tried and were refused access but waited until the male left.
Now I am very much on the fence on this ruling and can probably be moved to change my mind if given more to think about the issue. So please comment and let me know your thoughts. If your a police officer or a member of the court please let me know how you view the issue.
» February 25th, 2014
From what I read and watched the bill in no way states that a business has to discriminate against anyone. What it does state is that if a Christian business chooses to refuse service due to their Constitutional religious beliefs they can. To me it is simply stating what the Constitution already guarantees, the right to one’s religious views. Now I really don’t believe most business would stop serving gays when this bill comes out.
Now what I do have a hard time with is that people comparing racism to anything that is deems discrimination of gays. Sorry but a person of color can not change their skin or even hide their color when walking through town. But with homosexuality you never know who is or isn’t gay until they tell you so.
Now you may ask, where do I stand on this? Simply with the Constitution and the rights we all have within them. No one person should be forced to serve another person by laws the government creates. Just as the Jim Crow Laws were wrong, so is laws that force anyone person to break their religious beliefs.
» February 24th, 2014
» February 21st, 2014
Once again the issue of the minimum wage has raised its ugly head again. I have more than once blogged about the reason the minimum wage issues is a mistake. I have written that while the people who are on minimum wage would love to see the increase in pay, it really wouldn’t help them anymore than it does now. I have stated before that all it would do is raise the prices of everything and do nothing more than raise the cost of living up. The people on minimum wage would still be unable to afford to buy more than they have now, but those that have better wages will also afford less.
So once again it comes down to the politicians playing games to fool the American people to vote for them. People need to understand that if you’re flipping burgers at the local McDonald’s an increase in your pay will only raise the price of the hamburger you’re making. This also goes for the everything else that you would buy after the increase.
Now if a company on it’s own wants to pay their employees more, then do it. There is no reason for the government to stick it’s evil head into the business of a company’s finances. The fact is that a company must make the decision of what they are willing to pay their employees according to the value it places on the service or product it makes. If no one is willing to pay for their service or product because the price is too high then people are laid off to cut cost. If the customers agree to the price then employees either keep the steady level of pay or maybe get an increase in pay. Plain and simple economics.
Well instead of beating the same horse again I will just link the past stories I have done for you to review.
» February 21st, 2014
» February 20th, 2014
News Story: Democrat wants FCC to stifle Fox News:
While trolling the interact for my daily dose of news I came across this story about Mike Dickinson. After reading it made me wonder just how much this and many more politicians actually know or better yet, believe in the Constitution… Well at lease believe that we all are covered by the Constitution.
What even scares me more is the fact that it doesn’t really matter which party you’re talking about on this subject. If it did then I would have expected the Speaker of the House to have brought up impeachment charges against the current lawless President for at the very least his repeated violation of creating laws without Congressional bills by way of executive orders. Yes, I know the former President Bush also used executive orders, just as many other Presidents. However almost never has one actually did so completely without the Congress challenging them or the Supreme Court rejecting them. Now if you know your history, executive orders were not meant to be used as a way to by-pass Congress but as a tool for an emergency that required fast and reasonable actions that Congress when in session would then create a bill that would either equal the order or give for such an order. But this President has created laws regardless if the Congress has acted or not. He has out right used his pen to create laws that even when the Congress does their job and rejects the law he still moves forward with no one stopping him.
Ok, so I digress…
So going back to Mike Dickinson who is hoping to win the seat of Rep. Eric Cantor. Well he appears according to his Twitter posts to not believe in equal protection of and from the law as he wishes for the FCC to regulate Fox News. Well, as much as you may not agree with Fox News or not they have the freedom of the press just like every single news company in the US. Now this also means he agrees with the current FCC rules that will be placing a monitor in every newsroom in the nation to monitor and inquire how they conduct their jobs. That is, how they perform interviews, write stories, choose the news to run with and etc.. All of which is un-Constitutional and nothing far from the former USSR or China where the government controls the media.
So is he ok with the FCC monitoring all the news outlets? I don’t know, but according the other news stories I heard over the radio this morning…. Well none of the news groups seem to like the new FCC rules and are preparing to fight them.
» February 20th, 2014
post a comment | tags: air force, airmen, America, American, Army, coast guard, family, fighter, Hero, Heroes, Love, Marines, military, Navy, sailor, soldier, troops, USA, Warriors
filed in: Support Our Troops
» February 20th, 2014
Yep once again the actual facts show that his socialism will not work. But does he accept the facts??? Nope not one ounce of facts is accepted. So I am sure he will just write and sign another dictatorial executive order t make it happen…
Now here is a thought… Why not let the actual market fix itself without being regulated to death… If this president would allow the interest rates to raise banks would start loaning money out to more small businesses and even regular people. This would then make money flow more readily…
» February 19th, 2014
What an outrage! This Navy Vet is extremely pissed off with these disrespectful and dishonoring Guardsmen! They all should be removed from any and all Honor Guard positions. To be honest, I would like to see them removed from the service of our fine and honorable military ranks because they DO NOT deserve the honor of being called a Soldier!
I think what really pisses me off the most is that they completely dishonor the men and women who died for this country and are my brothers and sisters! This group I will not claim as part of that family. It is like a relative going to your brother’s funeral while being drunk and spitting on the coffin!
To the families of service members that have died,
As a Veteran I am very sorry for your loss and hope the pictures of these disrespectful people does not cause you any more pain and sorrow. Trust me, these people do not reflect the feelings and sense of family that most veterans feel towards our military family. God bless you.
» February 19th, 2014