Federal Appeals Court Rules Marking Tires for Parking Enforcement Illegal

 

This has to be considered an interesting take on the fourth amendment. The days whereby the police could mark one’s tires to determine over staying in a parking spot appears to be over.

Of course a purpose of parking enforcement is to raise revenue. It is also to keep reasonable access to merchants and control traffic flow. Must we always be tweaking our amendments?

How is marking tires a search? The result of course will be the installation of meters, charging for parking, collecting the meter fees. All and all making life less pleasant.

Apparently our Firestones have more rights than we do…as my data is being sucked up as I type this. Of course the police can always get a FISA warrant now can’t they?

 

 

 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Marking tires to enforce parking rules is like entering property without a search warrant, a federal court said Monday as it declared the practice unconstitutional in Michigan and three other states.

Alison Taylor had received more than a dozen $15 tickets for exceeding the two-hour parking limit in Saginaw. The city marks tires with chalk to keep track of how long a vehicle is parked. Her lawyer argued that a parking patrol officer violated the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court agreed.

The purpose of marking tires was to “raise revenue,” not to protect the public against a safety risk, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

“The city does not demonstrate, in law or logic, that the need to deter drivers from exceeding the time permitted for parking — before they have even done so — is sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the community caretaker rationale,” the court said.

[Taylor’s attorney, Philip Ellison ] argued that marking tires was similar to police secretly putting a GPS device on a vehicle without a proper warrant, which was the subject of a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Here is the opinion in the case

Read more

Advertisements

The Capitol’s Statuary Hall has Johnny Cash moving in. Replacing Confederate Statute

 

 

Johnny Cash

In another politically correct move, Statuary Hall located  in the Capitol will be having a new look. No doubt in a move to highlight the cultural phenomenon that changed Arkansas. Out go supposedly Confederate Statute fellows replaced with musician types. Johnny Cash is coming to Statuary Hall

Look, I got it, with reparations under discussion, the Civil War history needs to be cleaned up and moved out. But Johnny Cash? It is claimed that Clarke, who was once a US Senator, held segregationist views and Rose had sided with the Confederacy. They are moving out. I vote for Rocky Balboa next. Why not?

 

National Statuary Hall

 

According to a report from the Washington Post.

The Statuary Hall Collection comprises 100 statues, two from each state. It was created by an act of Congress in 1864 to allow each state to commemorate “deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services.” Decisions about which individuals to memorialize are made by state legislatures and governors.

The installation of Confederate leaders in the seat of American political power is neither accident nor oversight. In happened in the early years of the 20th century with the emergence of the so-called Lost Cause myth, which idealized and whitewashed the Confederacy’s origins and existence.

 

Each state is allowed to have two statues on display and are permitted to replace them as long as they cover the costs.

Bonus: See earlier post:

 

Thanks to WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

 

They’re coming for our guns, they’re taking our statutes, now our books

 

This no less than from the Library Journal, a professional magazine for Librarians. Read the full screed at your peril.

 

WHITENESS AS COLLECTIONS

Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. They are paid for using money that was usually ill-gotten and at the cost of black and brown lives via the prison industrial complex, the spoils of war, etc.

Libraries filled with mostly white collections indicates that we don’t care about what POC think, we don’t care to hear from POC themselves, we don’t consider POC to be scholars, we don’t think POC are as valuable, knowledgeable, or as important as white people. To return to the Harris quote from above, library collections and spaces have historically kept out Black, Indigenous, People of Color as they were meant to do and continue to do.

One only has to look at the most recent incident at the library of my alma mater, Barnard College, where several security guards tried to kick out a Black Columbia student for being Black.

 

Think it’s not going to happen?

 

Burning The Books – Germany

 

 

Our History:

 

We are already destroying the statues representing our history.

 

 

Now we get rid of the history

History Majors at Universities may soon go the way of the Dinosaur

The University of Wisconsin — Stevens Point could soon drop several majors, including history, because of students’ lack of interest, according to a cost-benefit analysis recently proposed by UW-SP Chancellor Bernie Patterson.

The chancellor proposed that the university “must become a new kind of regional university” by adapting its current programming to better suit the surrounding community and the educational demand of incoming students.

 

[RELATED: Study: top colleges don’t require US history courses for history majors]

 

 

 

 

And this from my stash of old stuff.

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures. A reminder from George Orwell.  This is where we are.

 

 

This is what happens at the end of the least and great cultures. Always. A fascinating history list of how so many cultures devolved and their libraries.

The Burning of Libraries

In one moment, a mob of barbarians can destroy a country’s history, can erase the work of lifetimes of scholars, can inflict a wound on humanity that it will still be suffering 1,000 years later – long after the religion and philosophy and cause of the barbarians is forgotten.

George Soros long fingers in Chicago and DA races, State Secretaries of State

One benefit that has occurred with the Smollett case in Chicago was the name George Soros came to the fore. George has been a very busy man with local and State elections these past years focusing on little appreciated obscure positions in State governments such as Secretarys of State. These are critical positions that handle elections. Lately he has moved on to District Attorneys.

Example A:

Michelle Obama and Chief of Staff Tina Tchen

One Tina Tchen who greased the skids for Smollett via Foxx.

Tchen is a close pal of Obama consigliere Valerie Jarrett and a longtime bag woman for Illinois Democrats

Tchen headed up the “Office of Public Engagement,” a murky outfit overseen by Jarrett that, among other things, had its hands in the Obama’s failed Chicago Crony-lympics bid and was in the middle of Obama administration efforts to recruit artists to advance their political agenda.

I pointed out in November 2009 that Tchen, a high-powered campaign finance bundler for Team Obama who personally raised more than $200,000 while a lawyer at Skadden Arps, is listed in White House visitor logs as having met there with none other than…  George Soros.

From Michelle Malkin

George Soros Spent $408k on Prosecutor in Jussie Smollett Case

Kim Foxx

Then we had State Attorney FOXX. 

Left-wing billionaire mega-donor George Soros donated $408,000 in 2016 to a super PAC that supported Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, whose office prosecuted — and dropped — the Jussie Smollett case

Law Enforcement Today

 

George Soros, the billionaire of progressive-slash-socialist and globalist causes the world over, has been busy buying his way into local district attorney campaigns in the United States. He has found he can get a lot of bang for his bucks in these races.

George Soros

Talk about trying to turn the judicial system into an activist camp for the left.

It’s one thing to exercise one’s First Amendment rights to support candidates with similar political leanings. It’s another thing entirely to try and collapse a limited government republic, from the bottom up, and implement, in its place, a judicial branch filled with people who twist the Bill of Rights into something it’s not, the Constitution into something it was never intended to be, and the rule of law into a mocking tool for far-left gain.

In California alone:

He was referring to the big money that Soros, via his funding of progressive-minded California Justice & Publicly Safety PAC, is tossing into several local D.A. races. In Contra Costa, a Soros-tied PAC has kicked in $100,000-plus to support the leftist candidate; in Alameda County, more than $550,000 of Soros-tied money has gone to a hard-core civil rights attorney fighting for the comparatively conservative District Attorney Nancy O’Malley’s seat. Another $400,000 or so of Soros money’s gone toward the Sacramento County district attorney race.

Washington Times

But the real deal are the State Secretary offices. Think it doesn’t matter? Look what happened with having Mark Ritchie Secretary of State in Minnesota and the Al Franken win. Who is Mark Ritchie?

Ritchie in the 1990s had been a member of the now-defunct socialist New Party.[20] Moreover, he has ideological ties to the Communist Party USA and has been described by communist Tim Wheeler as a “friend” of the Party.

It gave us Obamacare with the 60th vote.

Minnesota’s November election for U.S. Senate, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman finished 725 votes ahead of Democratic challenger Al Franken; the thin margin of victory, however, triggered an automatic recount. With Mark Ritchie presiding over the recount process during the ensuing weeks, Coleman’s lead gradually dwindled due to what journalist Matthew Vadum describes as a long series of “appalling irregularities” that invariably benefited Franken.

As USA Today reported at the time: “The political battle for control of the federal government has opened up a new front: the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”[11]

The Secretary of State Project (SoSP) was established in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of secretary-of-state in selected swing, or battleground, states.

One of the principal duties of the secretary of state is to serve as the chief election officer who certifies candidates as well as election results in his or her state.[2] The holder of this office, then, can potentially play a key role in determining the winner of a close election. Funding included George Soros. Other players were Mark Ritchie.

To establish “election protection” against similar disappointments in subsequent political races, SoSP in 2006 targeted its funding efforts on the secretary-of-state races in seven swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio.[10]

Democrats emerged victorious in five of those seven elections, all except Colorado and Michigan. Politico.com would later characterize SoSP as “an administrative firewall” designed, “in anticipation of a photo-finish presidential election,” to protect Democrats’ “electoral interests in … the most important battleground states.”[12]

In 2008, SoSP supported Democratic secretary-of-state candidates in Missouri, Montana, Oregon and West Virginia; all four Democrats won. These results represented yet another high return on a relatively small financial investment for SoSP.

Read more

All going as planned. George Soros sponsored this little number Foxx as DA. Purpose? To break down the final thin blue line and society as a whole. To create this very angst. It is the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven way. The latest shiny object to keep us off our toes and overwhelm the system.

Other than that, all’s well in the swamp.

Welcome What Finger News Readers. Thanks for stopping by 

Debtors prisons, Family dog seized and sold on Ebay for unpaid taxes

 

Welcome to Charles Dickens world.

For a Saturday Flashback how about we take a look at the return of the debtor’s prison. First though the story wouldn’t be complete without looking at Germany. At least we are not losing our pooches to the tax man. Maybe our Rolls, but not our pets.

A family in Germany has been left brokenhearted after their pedigree pug, Edda, was seized by their town over unpaid debts and sold to a new owner in a controversial eBay transaction.

A wife and mother of three owed her town of Ahlen money, including some in unpaid pet taxes, and the city decided to seize her most valuable asset: Edda the dog.

 

Stock photo

 

The town then sold Edda to a new owner from a private account on eBay for just €750 ($853.53). Edda’s new owner, a police officer named Michaela Jordan, said she expected to pay twice that amount for the pedigree pup, BBC reports.

The situation became even more confusing when it was revealed that Jordan purchased the dog in December after speaking to a member of the Ahlen administration, because she was suspicious of the low price. After being assured that Edda was in good health, she went through with the purchase.

….

In another confusing element of the story, local media outlets originally reported that the town of Ahlen first considered seizing the wheelchair belonging to the disabled husband of Edda’s original owner, as it was first thought to be the most valuable asset the family owned.

More at Fox News

Now an update on how we are doing with non-payment of taxes for a flashback Saturday.

Debtor Prisons returns to the United States

December 19, 2011 Bunkerville

More than a third of all states now allow borrowers who don’t pay their bills to be jailed, even when debtor’s prisons have been explicitly banned by state constitutions. A report by the American Civil Liberties Union found that people were imprisoned even when the cost of doing so exceeded the amount of debt they owed.

Judges have signed off on more than 5,000 such warrants since the start of 2010 in nine counties with a total population of 13.6 million people, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal of filings in those counties. Nationwide figures aren’t known because many courts don’t keep track of warrants by alleged offense. In interviews, 20 judges across the nation said the number of borrowers threatened with arrest in their courtrooms has surged since the financial crisis began.

Federal imprisonment for unpaid debt has been illegal in the U.S. since 1833. It’s a practice people associate more with the age of Dickens than modern-day America. But as more Americans struggle to pay their bills in the wake of the recession, collection agencies are using harsher methods to get their money, ushering in the return of debtor’s prisons.

NPR reports that it’s becoming increasingly common for people to serve jail time as a result of their debt. Because of “sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation,” many borrowers facing jail time don’t even know they’re being sued by creditors.

MORE HERE

 

VA Gov On Abortion: “Infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother desired”UPDATE

UPDATE: Planned Parenthood Donated Millions to Virginia Governor Who Made Abortion Comments
here

The Virginia affiliate of Planned Parenthood threw its support behind Ralph Northam, a Democrat, in August 2017, dropping $3 million and providing close support, deploying canvassers to knock on 300,000 doors and sending mailers to another 400,000 homes.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia confirmed the donation and support to the Washington Post

Roe v. Wade gave women the right to abort up to the point of fetal “viability,” a term that continues to foster debate as neonatal care advances. Physicians generally point to between 22 and 24 weeks as the point at which a newborn baby can survive outside the womb.

Roe v. Wade :: 410 U.S. 113 (1973) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

It is why that Roe V. Wade is ripe to have this to return to the Supreme Court. Settled law? I think not. Now with infanticide looming to be added to the abortion issue, how can it not be challenged?

Unfortunately, the Abortion Committee hearing in VA only received a portion of tape coverage of Ms Tran’s testimony. What is even worse, Ms Kathy Tran, the instigator and creator of the murder bill, dances and obfuscates about what is really in her bill.

I will include the more lengthy portion of the video that really show her own unwillingness to reveal what was really in the bill. For more on what Ms Tran is all about see my earlier post:

VA holds abortion bill hearing allows killing infant at time of birth

Now to the matter at hand.

This week Dr, Hamada was on Fox. I caught his tweet:

Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA @OmarHamada

“I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.”

On 1/30/2019, on WTOP’s Ask The Governor, VA Democrat Governor Ralph Northam defended the VA Dem’s 40-week abortion bill saying, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Governor Northam is a Pediatric Neurologist.

Let me clarify before you watch. The bill does not limit the abortion at time of birth to babies physically challenged. Basically any reason at all. The mental state of the Mother can decide it. The provision of two Physicians approval was removed. In fact, one does not even have to be a Physician to perform abortions. You will hear that in the full clip of Ms Tran.

HB 2491 – Recognizing that women have the constitutional right to make healthcare decisions about their own bodies, this bill aligns with the US Supreme Court decision Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt and eliminates medically unnecessary and unduly burdensome requirements that make it difficult for women to access abortions.

The bill was defeated yesterday. All Democrats voting in favor of the bill.

The more lengthy video of Ms Tran

Kathy Tran Presents Virginia Third Trimester Abortion Bill in Committee

Great Britain vs the European Union – The Troubles

 

This continues the post on the history of this unhappy union from yesterday –

Great Britain vs the European Union … The Background

 

by Mustang   (Our man on the beat in the UK)

 

Germany was happy to partner with France, either owing to its guilt about World War II, or its ability to game Charles De Gaulle for their own purposes.  Whatever the reasons, the EEC finally did extend the hand of friendship to the UK, and in 1973 British Prime Minister Edward Heath was happy to lead his people down the road of romantic idealism.

 

But, if there were differences of opinion among EEC members, it was nothing compared to differences among British people themselves.  On the one hand, pro-European Brits championed this notion of hands across the channel —though giving no thought to the long-term costs of such an arrangement, and on the other hand, anti-union Brits feared the loss of their national sovereignty.  Their (reasonable) fear of high taxation without adequate representation (in what would become the EU Parliament) was, as history shows us, well-founded.  Thoughtful Americans might recall a similar refrain from the days of the British colonies in 1774.

Nevertheless, conservative leaders led the UK into the EEC in 1975 when membership was put to the British people in a national referendum.  At that time, EEC membership enjoyed the support of all three political parties, all of the national newspapers, and 67% of the British people.  The debate was far from over, however, because membership offered no immediate economic benefit to Great Britain.

The UK was plagued with labor strikes, which required the government to cut power from its coal-dependent energy grid, and faced rising oil prices that resulted in double-digit inflation.  Membership in the EEC (soon called simply the European Community (EC) (headquartered in Brussels), not only became a toxic issue in British politics, it also created deep divisions within the political parties themselves.

One college professor observed, “Some might argue that the fundamental conflict in post-war Britain is not so much between the left and right, as between those who believe that Britain’s future lies with Europe, and those who believe it does not.

By 1984, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher recognized that Great Britain received much less in agricultural subsidies than did France.  She successfully negotiated a rebate on its EC contributions.

The 1980s was a period of power struggle between London and Brussels, when French socialist Jacques Delors became president of the EC.  His goal was to achieve a more federalized Europe and a single currency.  Thatcher, in rejecting the European super-state, was uncompromising —even though these positions fueled conservative inter-party warfare.

Eventually, Thatcher’s unwillingness to compromise national principles led to her political downfall.

In September 1992, Great Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, withdrew the UK from the Exchange Rate Mechanism.  To some, “Black Wednesday” became one of the lowest points in Britain’s relationship with the European Union.  Although Thatcher was unable to stop Europe’s march toward political union, her successor, John Major did sign the Maastricht Treaty.  This treaty allowed for a massive transfer of power from Britain to the European Union.

The British did achieve “opt-outs” from the single currency mandate and European Social Charter, but the treaty undermined the British tradition of an sacrosanct sovereign parliament.  The British people were not happy, and this led to a landslide victory for Tony Blair in 1997.  Among the Brits, the greatest enemy of the UK resided within both political parties.  Blair signed his country up to the social chapter, which made the communist left happy, and conservative minded citizens wary of being eventually forced to accept the Euro as their nation’s currency.

In 1998, however, the British economy was doing well; there was no reason for any thinking Brit to support adoption of the Euro.  The plan to accept the Euro was placed on hold and, in time, the British people were proved right to distrust it.  The Euro Crisis put to rest any prospect of the British adopting the single currency rule, and, what’s more, fueled a sense of Euroscepticism that permeated both the conservative party and most British citizens.

Late in 2011, EU leaders attempted to establish new budget rules.  Prime Minister David Cameron demanded exemptions, and when he did not get them, he vetoed the pact.  His critics claimed that Cameron cut his country adrift from the EU, but the Eurosceptics were delighted —and wanted more of the same.

Accordingly, Cameron promised a referendum on continued British membership in the European Union.  Personally, Cameron wanted the UK to remain in the EU and when the British people (by a small margin) demanded withdrawal … Cameron resigned.  It then fell upon the shoulders of Prime Minister Theresa May to figure out how to do it.

Pro-British factions today blame the EU for everything that is found wrong with domestic policies.  This is probably unfair.  Most of what is wrong within the Home Office results from self-serving politicians who —much like our own— are only capable of operating on two cylinders.  Also —like ourselves— the British people are quite easily led by their politicians.

In the 1970s, they followed their political pied-piper down the road to Shangri-La —the land of tariff-free, cross border, social justice happiness.  All that the British people really needed to do to achieve utopia is pay ever-increasing taxes for services enjoyed by the citizens of other countries.  In Spain, for example, extra-wide sidewalks have been divided into three lanes: one for pedestrians, one for bicyclists, and the other reserved for humans pushing baby carriages.

Did the British people understand that their tax dollars were funding such nonsense, or that under EU regulations, Europeans rather than the British would decide who is allowed to migrate to the United Kingdom?

I doubt it. 

Nor did British politicians ever admit to their constituents that a federalized Europe would make culturally incompatible demands upon the insular nature of the British people.  In this, De Gaulle was right —and it does make perfect sense that the European Union should offer legislation that suits the majority of its members, and/or that hardly any of these directly benefit the British people, even though they’re paying for them.

 

Conclusion

 

Brexit won’t be done with for many more years.  The British people were right to demand disentanglement from European politics, and I think that the United Kingdom will, in time, benefit from separation.  It won’t be an easy road, however —most divorces never are— but at least the British will have learned an important lesson: one cannot trust politicians further than you can toss them, and it doesn’t even matte what political party they belong to.  One day we Americans might learn this lesson, as well.

 

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

%d bloggers like this: