Posts Tagged ‘Law and Order’

Mike Huckabee Endorses Mike Cox (R-MI) for Governor

March 3, 2010

Well, in an interesting move that I’m still trying to figure out, former Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R-AR) has endorsed Attorney General Mike Cox for Governor.  Here’s a copy of the press release that I received today.  I’ll give my analysis after the press release:

Mike Huckabee Endorses Mike Cox in 2010 Race for Governor

Huckabee: “Mike Cox best described as Michigan’s Pro-Life, Pro-gun conservative candidate for Governor”

     LIVONIA, MI— One of America’s most respected conservative leaders, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee today formally endorsed Mike Cox in the 2010 race for Governor.

     “Mike Cox is best described as Michigan’s Pro-Life, Pro-gun conservative candidate for Governor,” said Huckabee. “Mike is an innovative, strong leader who is not afraid to take a stand on an important issue. He is opposed to the runaway tax and spend policies we are seeing at the federal and state levels.”

     Cox’s message of less spending, lower taxes and reformed government has set him apart in Michigan’s race for Governor. Cox recently drew a crowd of 1,200 families, activists and community leaders to a Rally for Michigan’s Future in Oakland County and hundreds more last weekend to the Grand Opening of his campaign headquarters in Livonia.

     “Mike Huckabee is one of our nation’s most respected leaders,” said Cox. “Mike Huckabee continues to fight for more liberty and less government. I am proud to have his support and am honored he is standing beside me as we fight to bring jobs back to Michigan.”

     Cox announced Huckabee’s endorsement first today via social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter, U-Stream and conservative bloggers across Michigan.

     Huckabee has been called an early frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination scoring well in many polls including last November’s Gallup-USA Today poll. Mike Huckabee polled ahead of President Obama as recently as January 2010.

     “Mike Cox has also fought hard to protect Second Amendment rights in Michigan,” Huckabee continued. “I am proud to endorse Mike Cox for Governor of Michigan.”

     Cox is the only candidate for Governor to release a comprehensive 92 point plan to put Michigan back to work, including proposals to cut billions of dollars out of the state budget, cut taxes on job providers and families by $2 billion, make government more transparent, reform education, and revitalize our cities. The plan is available at www.mikecox2010.com. The Mike Cox 2010 Campaign also recently announced that it raised $1.8 million in 2009 – with roughly $1.5 million cash on hand. The funds came from over 2,500 individual donors – with roughly 1,000 of the contributors donating less than $100.

     For more information on Mike Cox’s campaign for Governor, please visit www.mikecox2010.com or call the campaign office today at 734-525-5035.

     About Gov. Mike Huckabee: Prior to his 2008 presidential campaign, Huckabee served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996-2007 and as the state’s lieutenant governor from 1993-1996. As a young adult, he served as a pastor and denominational leader. He became the youngest president ever of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, the largest denomination in Arkansas. Huckabee’s efforts to improve his own health have received national attention. He is the author of 6 books, the most recent being “Do the Right Thing,” which spent its first 7 weeks of release in the top ten of the New York Times Bestseller list. He is currently the host of the top rated weekend hit “HUCKABEE” on the Fox News Channel, and is heard three times daily across the nation on the “Huckabee Report.” Huckabee and his wife, Janet, live in North Little Rock, Arkansas. They have three grown children: John Mark, David and Sarah.

#30#

Alright, so my analysis… this honestly confused me when I saw it.  I’ve been wondering for the past few hours why a Presidential candidate would jump into the gubernatorial race here in Michigan.

One thing is for sure, this is by far the biggest endorsement that I can think of for any of the current gubernatorial candidates.  The announcement definitely gives Cox more momentum than he already had (which is quite a bit – he’s been battling Congressman Pete Hoekstra, with both of them leading the polls at one time or another).  But will it help him in the long run?

In the 2008 Presidential Primaries, Huckabee got 16.08% of the vote in Michigan, with Romney winning with 38.92%, and McCain coming in second with 29.68%.  Huckabee did worst in Cox’s area of the state, but better in central and western Michigan, so that might help Cox a little bit, by diversifying his support.  So, I’d say that the best endorsement to get would’ve been Romney’s but Huckabee is still a major player in the conservative movement, and as of now, polling well for 2012.

Now, another thing that I thought about was Huckabee’s stances on law and order issues.  One of the major problems I’ve always had with Huckabee (don’t get me wrong – I like the guy) has been his stances on law and order issues as governor.  He issued a lot of pardons and commutations as governor of Arkansas (most notably, the recent scandal with Maurice Clemons who shot and killed 4 police officers in 2009).  Being an Attorney General, I’m not sure if Huckabee’s endorsement is the best thing for Mike Cox’s law and order record, but I may be reading into this more than I should.

Huckabee’s endorsement will help Cox with social conservatives, a group that may be hesitant to vote for him because of his affair back in 2005, but I think most people have (rightfully) moved on from that issue.  But the pro-life movement in Michigan is very strong, and Huckabee’s endorsement will go a long way for Cox when it comes to social issues.  Then again, with the current emphasis on the economy, social issues probably won’t be the deciding factor in who voters do vote for (although in the Republican primary, it’ll be more of an issue than in the general election).

But the most interesting thing about this, and I’ve been wondering this all day, is why would a Presidential candidate endorse a gubernatorial candidate in a primary race?  There’s 3 answers that I think it could possibly be:

  1. Huckabee has given up running for President (at least for 2012), and is going to focus on his PAC and getting Republicans elected around the country.
  2. He’s gambling that Cox will end up winning, and will help him here in Michigan in 2012.
  3. Huckabee is already counting Michigan as lost to him in 2012, and isn’t afraid of losing a few potential delegates by angering non-Cox supporters.

Option 2 and 3 make the most sense to me.  I don’t think he’s given up on running, but I don’t think Huckabee can win Michigan in 2012 if Romney runs.  Romney’s biggest competition here in Michigan was McCain, and without McCain, I think Romney would’ve gotten close to, if not more than, 50% of the vote in 2008.

He may not be publicly saying it, but I don’t think he plans on winning Michigan.  My guess would be that he’s hoping Cox will bring in some supporters (and money) in 2012, so that can offset the voters that Huckabee may lose because he’s supporting Cox.

But no matter what the outcome is for Huckabee, this definitely gives Cox a decent boost for now.  Whether or not is does anything for him come August 3rd, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican

Parents of 2 Suspended Cheerleaders File Lawsuit Over Nude Photos

December 8, 2008

Alright, so here’s a story I heard about that’s supposed to be featured on the news tonight, but I figured I’d go digging and just do the story now: On Monday the parents of two Bothell High School cheerleaders filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court against the Northshore School District (in Washington).  The suit alleges that school officials acted unfairly when they suspended the girls from the squad earlier this year after nude photos of the teens circulated through the student body via text messages.

Here’s the background on the case (according to the lawsuit):

  1. Summer, 2005: A topless photo of one of the cheerleaders is taken and sent to her then-boyfriend’s phone.
  2. Summer, 2005: The picture is accidentally sent to other BHS students.
  3. June, 2008: The other teen’s photo was taken when she and another cheerleader used their cell phones to take totally nude pictures of themselves.  Those photos were later accidentally sent to other BHS students.
  4. Shortly after the June pictures were taken: BHS school officials heard rumors the pictures were circulating the student body, especially within members of the football team, so the school sent a letter to all of the cheerleaders’ parents.  That letter said that if inappropriate photos were found, the consequences could be suspension from the squad.
  5. Football players were also told to delete the pictures from their cell phones if they received them
  6. August: BHS administrators received copies of both photos.
  7. Some dispute has arisen over who contacted the police first, and whether or not the school properly notified the girls’ parents about the photos.
  8. One girl is suspended from the squad for 30 days.  The other is suspended from the squad for the year.

Attorney Matthew King, representing both families, told reporters that  the lawsuits allege that BHS administrators violated the girls’ due process rights by needlessly sharing the photos with other school staff members and failing to promptly report the matter to police as child pornography.  King also said that it was unfair that the teens were suspended, but that football players and other BHS students who sent/received the texts were not punished.  King told reporters, “We’re not technically challenging the sanctions as being too strict, we’re saying they weren’t evenly enforced across the school.  There should have been some punishment meted out to those who were in possession of the photos. … It seems like the girls are getting the brunt of it.”  King wants the disciplinary action expunged from both girls’ school records.  Additionally, he wants the girl who was suspended for the whole year to be reinstated to the team, and he is demanding an apology from BHS officials for their lack of discipline on other students.

Northshore spokeswoman Susan Stoltzfus disagrees, saying that the school acted appropriately, reporting the photos to the police and giving the girls a chance to appeal their suspensions to both a disciplinary committee as well as the School Board, saying, “Everyone along the line agreed the discipline was appropriate.  Obviously, we take these things seriously, but we really don’t believe this [suit] has a lot of merit.”

King also claims that the district’s student handbook doesn’t specifically prohibit what the girls did, and that it doesn’t outline outline potential disciplinary action for a case like this.  He told reporters, “My clients fully realize what they did was stupid,” and that they never wanted the photos to be distributed.  King said that he still does not know how they were accidentally sent out.

Northshore officials again disagree, saying that the girls violated the district’s athletic code  According to Stoltzfus, “When you sign up to be a cheerleader–or for any student activity–you agree to certain codes of behavior.We consider them student leaders, and we want them to be role models.”

I took a look at the athletic code, and although it doesn’t expressly prohibit the production or distribution of child pornography (or any pornography), it does state the following:

Northshore School District
Student Athletic Code

The opportunity to participate in the athletic program in the Northshore School District is a privilege available to all students. Because of the public nature of athletic programs sponsored by the district, students choosing to participate are expected to conduct themselves at all times during their season of participation and between consecutive seasons in a manner that will reflect the high standards and ideals of their school and community. These high personal standards for conduct promote maximum achievement, safe performances, commitment to excellence in health and conditioning, and fulfill responsibilities as student leaders by setting a positive example for other students.

The regulations below are included in the Addendum of the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities Concerning Pupil Conduct. In addition to this Code of Conduct, individual schools may establish other expectations specific to their own individual programs.

Students must meet the standards for interscholastic eligibility as outlined in Article 18 of the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association handbook, the KINGCO League and the Northshore School District and their individual school. Copies of these rules and regulations may be obtained from the school Athletic Director upon request.

The expectations for being a participant in a schoolʼs athletic program, including specific eligibility requirements, training rules and team rules shall be communicated to team members at the beginning of the season of participation. All program expectations and team rules shall be in writing.

Any athlete in a District-sponsored athletic activity who willfully performs any act that substantially interferes with or is detrimental to the orderly operation of the Districtʼs athletic programs shall be subject to discipline. As participants in extracurricular programs, students are faced with choices. If a studentʼs choices interfere, impede, hinder their personal or group/team performance or render the individual as unfit to serve as a representative(s) of the districtʼs schools, they forfeit the privilege to participate. Misconduct by participants in the athletic program at any time, on or off campus, school related and/or non-school activities during the season of participation and between consecutive seasons of participation constitutes cause for discipline including denial of participation in and/or removal from the athletic program. Seasons begin with the first turnout and conclude with the season ending recognition/awards program in the individual sport.

II. Consequences for Athletic Code violations;

A. Student Athletic Code violations are accumulative during grades seven and eight and then again in grades nine through twelve. Any ninth grade student shall be considered a high school student.

B. Consequences for specific violations:
Probation is a period of time in which an athlete may be given time to correct deficiencies that could result in denial of participation for a given period of time or removal from athletic team participation. Denial of participation means that the athlete is allowed to practice but not compete in games. The loss of athletic eligibility, which may carry over to subsequent sports seasons, means the athlete will not participate in interscholastic competition or be in uniform. During the period when a student is assigned a suspension from school, the student is not eligible for any form of participation or attendance at school activities including athletic program participation.

So, although it doesn’t expressly ban what the girls did, I think what they did falls s under “any act that substantially interferes with or is detrimental to the orderly operation of the Districtʼs athletic programs.”

So, where do I stand?  I stand on the side of the girls; however, I disagree with what they want done.  I agree that BHS officials were way too easy on pretty much everybody other than the 2 girls.  I think that the girls should be suspended (or have other disciplinary action taken against them) for failing to follow the athletics agreement.  In addition, ANYBODY who possessed the pictures (other than the administrators, who I’ll discuss in a minute) should have been charged with possession of child pornography, and should have had disciplinary action taken against them if they were in a sport (but it had to be a sport that was in season at that time).  Obviously, it would have to be proved that the person kept the pictures.  I wouldn’t charge anybody just because they received the pictures.  The administrators, if they really did report it to the police, did nothing wrong.  HOWEVER, if additional copies were passed around for no reason, those responsible should be charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.  I do think that BHS officials are wrong in not punishing the football team and other students; however, the way to solve this is NOT to expunge the records of the girls, but to punish ALL who were responsible.

EDIT: I’ve been talking with some people about this, and the argument has come up that perhaps the girls were of age so that it wasn’t child pornography.  In addition to the fact that the names are not being released because the girls are minors, I found this photograph from July 4th, 2005, courtesy of the Woodinville Rotary Club.  Now, of course this isn’t official, but to me, none of those girls looks 18 (except maybe the one on the left in the front row).  Additionally, the one picture was taken in 2005, so we’re guaranteed that that girl wasn’t 18 when the picture was taken:

bothell_parade_07_04_05_019_-_bhs_cheerleaders

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Cop Arresting Cameraman for Filming Peaceful Protest: “I Can Do Whatever I Want”

October 27, 2008

I was looking through some news stories and came across this story from WCBS (CBS 2) in Newark, New Jersey (WCBS is out of New York City).  Watch the video and I’ll have some analysis below:

Whoa!  The most disturbing part of that was the police officer’s comment, “I can do whatever I want” in response to the reporter, Christine Sloan, saying, “You can’t arrest him.”  (I don’t have the officer’s name – if somebody could find it, that’d be awesome!)

After arresting the photographer, Jim Quodomine, the officer even threatened Sloan, saying, “[This is] none of your business.  Stay away or you’ll be sitting in the car.”

Latrice Smith, a witness of the incident, told WCBS, “He went to put the camera down.  Before he had the opportunity to [do so], the police officer came and knocked it down. … [The officer] just started grabbing him, putting handcuffs on him, grabbed him by the neck.  It was out of control for no reason.”

Another witness told WCBS, “I couldn’t believe how they grabbed him.”

Kudos to Councilwoman Mildred Crump for standing up for justice here.  The officer CLEARLY violated the the photographer’s First Amendment rights.  Hopefully the investigation goes through as Crump has demanded and the officer is fired.  I’m a Law and Order Conservative.  I can’t stand  criminals and I love police officers, but this guy clearly overstepped his bounds.  The cameraman was on public property, and thus had a right to videotape whatever he wanted (which is ALSO why it’s legal for the government to videotape YOU in public – it’s not invading your privacy – you’re out in public – just wanted to bring that up really quick).

This cop needs to be fired.

I’m honestly surprised that he still pressed charges against Quodonine for disorderly conduct.  I’m pretty sure that Quodonine will have those charges dismissed by the magisstrate (and if not, he’ll win an appeal).  If I were him, I would be outraged.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Illinois City Bans Trick-or-Treating for Teenagers

October 27, 2008

Well, this is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while.  Belleville, Illinois passed an ordinance last Monday that restricted trick-or-treating.  That sounds normal, right, most cities limit the time that kids can trick-or-treat.  But the city isn’t just limiting when; they’re also limiting who can trick-or-treat.  And it also limits the wearing of masks, to only Halloween (unless you’re under 12).

Here’s an overview of the ordinance (unfortunately, Belleville is a little slow in uploading their meeting minutes, and all they have right now is a copy of the agenda, so this isn’t the exact wording of the ordinance):

  • Limits trick-or-treating on Halloween from 5:00 P.M. until 8:30 P.M.
  • Bans anyone in above the 8th grade (anybody older than 13 or 14) from trick-or-treating on Halloween, unless they are a “special-needs” child, and then they must be accompanied by a parent or guardian.
  • Allows children age 12 and under to wear a mask and/or disguise any day of the year, but restricts anyone above 12 to being able to wear a mask and/or disguise only on Halloween.
  • Prohibits any and all child sex offenders from going to any event and/or holding any event for Halloween where any child (other than his/her own) will be present. Child sex offenders must also turn out their outside lights on Halloween night, and they are banned from handing out candy.

OK, so bullet points 1 and 4 I have no problem with.  It’s 2 and 3 that I have an issue with.

But before I go on, let me give you some quotes that Mayor Mark Eckert told reporters:

We believe that Halloween is for little children.  We just feel that we need to go that extra mile to protect the children.

We were hearing more and more about bigger kids knocking on doors after 9:00 at night and the people who lived in the homes were scared.  The seniors were especially scared.  They didn’t want to be the recipient of some kind of trick, but they didn’t want to open their doors late at night, either.

Sexual predators can’t have parties.  It’s not right, it’s wrong.  They lost that privilege.

OK, so I get the principle behind this, but here’s where you have a problem: Those teenagers out after 9:00 P.M. would be out past the overall curfew anyway, so they’d already be breaking the law.  What is the need for another law here?  If they’re out past 8:30, they can be arrested (I’m assuming that’s the punishment).  So that right there would solve your teenagers out late problem.  Banning trick-or-treating for anybody above the 8thgrade is simply ageism.  You cannot discriminate against somebody like this.  I’ll accept a curfew (although I have problems with those at times too), but to ban outright the practice of trick-or-treating for ANYBODY (other than felons who lose some rights when they’re convicted) is discrimination, and in my view, illegal!

Now, the mask/disguise ordinance.  You’re telling me that a 16-year-old kid can’t wear a mask outside at a Halloween party the night before Halloween (Devil’s Night if you live here in Detroit)?  Or what if a Star Trek convention comes to Belleville?  Are you telling me that masks aren’t allowed?  It’s ridiculous!  Unfortunately, without the ordinance I don’t have the city’s legal definition of “disguise” but would this apply to people dressed up as Santa Clause?  Are you going to haul away the Salvation Army Santa for being in a “disguise” on a day other than Halloween?  It’s dumb.  It restricts the Freedom of Speech (this isn’t a dress code in school we’re talking about here – this is just being out in PUBLIC generally!)!  It’s asinine, ridiculous, and it’s unconstitutional.

I hope somebody old goes out and trick-or treats, or wears a mask the day after Halloween so that this can be taken to court and overturned.  I’m a Law and Order Conservative – I abide by the laws.  I don’t speed.  I don’t drink underage.  I’ve never stolen a candy bar.  But when the law goes against Constitutional principles, it MUST be disobeyed so that it can be challenged in court, and this is one time where I say, “Break that law!”

Done Ranting

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Michigan Restaurant Offers Free Pizza for McCain Signs

October 22, 2008

Alright, so I saw this clip from my hometown news station, FOX 2 from Detroit.  Watch the video and I’ll talk about it below:

Alright, so you have Salvatore’s Pizzeria (Warren, Michigan) who’s offering free pizza to people who bring in yard signs.  Diana Franzoni, the owner claims that she just wants people to turn in their signs since McCain left the state.  OK, people aren’t going to do that.  Honestly though, if I worked for the Republican party, I’d be doing that as a means to get food for my campaign headquarters.  The state party would save so much money doing that that they could’ve cut down rent for the McCain stuff that’s still in Michigan.  If I were in the McCain campaign – I’d give my volunteers a set of 1,000 signs, which would be $1,000-$2,000, but it’d absolutely kill Salvatore’s.

Although I think the restaurant is encouraging people to steal signs, I don’t think they can or should be prosecuted.  They’ve done nothing wrong.  If they were saying, “Go steal signs,” I’d say we should prosecute them.

Who should be prosecuted are the people who steal the signs, like the teenager they talked about.  I don’t care WHO you are.  If you steal a yard sign, that is a federal crime, and you need to be prosecuted.  And I’m talking to you people who steal Obama signs too – you’re committing a federal crime, and you deserve to be punished just as much as the kid who stole the McCain sign.  If I ever catch somebody stealing one of my signs, you can be sure he/she’ll be prosecuted.

EDIT: I just had a friend bring up this possibility: Charge the restaurant with possessison of stolen property and knowingly accepting stolen property, but proving that they knew it was stolen would be impossible unless it was a set-up.  Having a McCain person do a little sting operation would be pretty clever though.

Even the Obama supporters I’ve talked to about this have said that they think she’s doing it so that people will steal them.

I think it’s a shame that this kind of crap is happening, but there’s nothing illegal with what the restaurant is doing.  I think it’s dishonest, and I think their motives are to have people steal signs, but obviously they won’t say that.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Fire Marshal Handcuffs Woman for Swearing

August 21, 2008

Alright, so I heard about this on the radio earlier this week, but I’ve been so busy getting ready for college and other stuff that I just haven’t had time to post this.

So, here’s what happened:

On August 4th, in La Marque, Texas, 28-year-old Kathryn “Kristi” Fridge went with her mother to the local Walmart (FM 1764 and Interstate 45) with her mother and 2-year-old daugter to get supplies in preparation for impending Tropical Storm Eduardo.

She went over to buy batteries, but there were none left.  Fridge told reporters, “I was like, ‘Dang.’  I looked at my mom and said, ‘They’re all f***ing gone.'”

Captain Alfred Decker, the La Marque assistant fire marshal (certified by the state of Texas as firefighter, peace officer, fire investigator and fire inspector) came up to her in uniform, and told her, “You need to watch your mouth” (quote from Fridge).

Fridge told reporters, “I was like, ‘Oh, OK.  Sorry?'”

Decker ordered Fridge to follow him to his car, because that was where his citation book was, but she protested.  She eventually listened, but as he led her to his car, she yelled to some on-lookers, “Can you believe this?  He’s f***ing arresting me for saying ‘f***’!”

She later told reporters, “When I got outside, I saw he was a fire marshal — I saw his car.  I said, ‘You’re not even a cop!’  He said,  ‘I can do this.'”

Decker then asked for her name, and she spelled it out both verbally and in sign language (according to her – Decker hasn’t commented because there’s a pending court case).  She said that this angered him and he handcuffed her.

But La Marque Fire Chief Todd Zacherl said that because Fridge made a scene, Decker was forced to act.  He told reporters, “She cussed him, she cussed everybody. By now, we have a huge group of people looking.”  Fridge denies this saying that she never cursed at Decker.  Her mother (Kathryn Rice, from Santa Fe) backed up her story, saying, “She never got nasty with him; she never cussed at him.”

Zacherl went on to say that Decker handcuffed her for his own safety, because Fridge was being belligerent and Decker had to turn his back to get his citation book and run her name to see if she had any warrants.

Fridge was then ticketed for disorderly conduct (a Class C misdemeanor) and then released.

On August 7th, Fridge went to the La Marque Fire Department to speak with Zacherl, and she took forms to file an official complaint, but as of last week had not filed the papers yet.

She told reporters, “I’m not out to sue or get money—I just want them to drop this ticket.  Yes, I probably shouldn’t have cussed in public, but he took it way too far.”

Zacherl disagreed, saying, “When you’re in uniform, you have to uphold the laws.  It’s like if he was on the way home and saw a drunk driver—he had to act.”

Personally, I think the fire marshal was perfectly in the right here.  He handcuffed her for his own safety.  He didn’t arrest her, he detained her.  This is a common practice that police officers use to ensure their safety.  It was HER who caused the scene, not him.  It was either handcuff her or call for back-up (which would mean calling the police department, since it’s not the fire marshal’s job to back somebody up like that).

As for the legality of the ticket, it’s perfectly within Texas law.  You can’t go around swearing.  The public as a whole has decided that they do not want profanity allowed in public (they did this by electing the officials who put that law into practice, and have not disagreed with that law by passing a citizen sponsored initiative to overturn it).

This was done in a public place where there are children who don’t need to be subjected to profanity.  I know little 3-year-olds who go around using the f-word because their parents just curse whenever they want to.

This isn’t a violation of free speech.  I can’t go up to a little 4-year-old and say, “Hey you little f****er!” so saying it within hearing distance of anybody else violates that principle of “breach[ing] the peace”.

On the radio show that I heard the story on, there was a caller who said she should file assault charges, since he touched her without her consent.  He is a certified officer, and has an obligation to uphold the law.  While upholding the law, he is exempt to some degree from assault charges.  He didn’t abuse her, he handcuffed her.  Criminals can’t sue cops for touching them as they are handcuffed, and this case is NO different.

The fact that there was an outcry because of this (although most reaction was in the fireman’s favor) shocks me.  Where is our sense of law and order?  There’s a difference between civil liberties and anarchy, but the two are beginning to become confused in the minds of many Americans.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Karl Rove Ignores Subpoena and Refuses to Testify to House Committee

July 11, 2008

Well, yesterday, Karl Rove didn’t show up at a hearing at a House Judiciary subcommittee (chaired by Linda Sanchez), where he was supposed to testify, regarding whether or not the Justice Department pushed for investigating Democrats, influenced by partisanship, specifically the investigation of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.  The House was also investigating the firing of prosecutors who had been investigating Republicans.

The White House cited executive privilege as the reason that Rove (among others) did not have to testify, and Rove has offered to meet informally, while not sworn in, but Democrats have rejected that offer.  Rove and the White House have argued that internal conversations are confidential, and that Congress has no right to force officials to testify.

Rove may be held in contempt of Congress.  The decision to pursue contempt charges will go the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). 

The House already has voted to hold two of President Bush’s confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with its inquiry into whether the administration fired nine federal prosecutors in 2006 for political reasons.

The case, involving White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, is in federal court and may not be resolved before Bush’s term ends in January.  The House has already has voted to hold Hariet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt, for not cooperating in its investigation into the firing of the prosecutors back in 2006.  That case is still in federal court.

Personally, I think Rove should just cooperate.

And I’m tired of partisan hackery by BOTH sides.  You have liberals saying that Rove has to testify, yet these same liberals stood silent during Clinton’s administration and defended officials such as Janet Reno, when she was held in contempt.  You have conservatives who attacked Reno and others and now are defending Rove.  BOTH officials should have cooperated, and I’m tired of people just siding with anybody from their party no matter what.  If you do something wrong, face up to it.  If you associate with the party of somebody who did something wrong, don’t just keep defending them.  I’m a hard core conservative – but I’m tired of all of this crap.  Right is right and wrong is wrong – who cares who’s in what party – law and order is law and order.  Obey the law.  PERIOD.

I’ll keep following this as the situation develops.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

More Police Agencies Are Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration

March 30, 2008

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agencey (ICE) has been offering training programs to police departments that allow them to enforce federal immigration laws since 1996, but up until 2002, only 1 department took them up on that offer.  Now ICE is training 42 departments with 92 in the queue.

  • In Houston, inmates’ immigration status is verrified.
  • Attorney General Anne Milgram (D-NJ) has requested that all police ask arrested suspects their immigration status.
  • Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) signed an executive order that requires all state agents to enforce immigration laws.
  • Maricopa County, Arizona (includes Phoenix) Sheriff Joe Arpaio (“America’s Toughest Sherrif”) (Republican) said, “When my deputies come across illegals, they arrest them — even on traffic violations.  People ask me why I am taking this on?  The last I heard, crossing the border is an illegal activity.  I took an oath of office to enforce the law, so I am enforcing the law.”

But some people oppose this enforcement, such as Susan Shah, a spokesman of the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, who claims, “People are very, very fearful of interaction with law enforcement.  Even people with legal status, whose families may have mixed immigration status, now have a fear of opening the door” (MSNBC).  I don’t see why LEGAL citizens should have any fear at all – if they’re legal, what’s the problem?  Like I said in a previous post, if you aren’t breaking the law, why are you afraid?

And then you have some people claiming that victims of crimes and domestic violence won’t come forward.  Well, if they come forward, then you take down their story, arrest the criminals, and then deport any illegal immigrants – that way, if the victims are miles away, and they won’t be victims any more anyway.

And if people prey on illegal immigrants because of their status, and they figure that the immigrants won’t report them because they don’t want to be deported, then charge the criminals with a hate crime, under the U.S. Federal code.

I do have to say that while I am all for police departments arresting illegals, they shouldn’t be pulling people over just because of skin color, because that’s racism.  If they run the plate of a car and find out that it’s an illegal immigrant, that’s fine, but they do need probable cause.

Fortunately, here in Michigan, we don’t have a huge illegal immigrant problem (although it still is a problem even if we have 1), but I hope people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio keep up the great work in stopping this crime wave that is out of control!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Ohio Attorney General: “Stupid” & “Lying” Limbaugh Won’t Be Prosecuted

March 28, 2008

The Ohio Attorney General’s office reached a decision on whether or not to prosecute Rush Limbaugh the Great (Republican) for voter fraud.  He orchestrated the plan “Operation Chaos” and encouraged Republicans to change parties and vote for Clinton to prolong the Democratic fight.  The problem is that in Ohio, you must pledge allegiance to that party under penalty of law.

So, here’s what Leo Jennings, Attorney General Marc Dann (Democrat)’s spokesman, said, “We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn’t a crime.”  He said regarding voters, “You can’t just make the assumption that someone is lying.”

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (Democrat), commented by saying, “I think it’s very bad form, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to make their own decisions.”

And lastly, here’s a previous comment from Limbaugh, who has not yet responded to the statements: “I wouldn’t worry about it.  Look at this as a badge of honor, ladies and gentlemen.  If anybody gets indicted, if anybody has to go jail, it will be me — and I’ll do my program from jail for the short amount of time I will be there before I am excused and the charges dismissed.  I had the temerity, ladies and gentlemen, to tinker with a tradition, a liberal Democrat tradition: voter manipulation.”

I find the comments from Dann’s office interesting, considering his involvement with the corrupt Cafaro family (J.J. Cafaro bribed Congressmen to help his aviation company), whose daughter (Capri Cafaro, president of the company) replaced him in the state Senate when he went on to become Attorney General.  Or what about the time that Warren Tribunereporter Steve Oravecz asked about Dann getting his daughter a job with the state?  What was it that he told the reporter?  Oh yeah, “Hey Steve, write this down. Go fuck yourself!”

That, my friend is public obscenity – which IS a crime that we can all prove that you committed.

Anyway – there’s no way that this case could’ve been proved against Limbaugh – at the most, conspiracy to commit voter fraud, but I don’t think that even that would’ve gone through, just because you can’t prove it without some people showing that they would’ve crossed over.  He could say it was all a joke, and without any other evidence, the case would crumble.

I will say at this point, that Limbaugh shouldn’t have encouraged voters in Ohio to cross over – I’m fine with it in Texas, but not Ohio.  The law must be upheld, and although I think the Attorney General and his office are being a little self-righteous considering some of Dann’s controversial moments, Limbaugh was in the wrong here.  He’s still a great American though!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

What Ever Happened to the “Noose Student” at CMU?

March 17, 2008

OK, so the recent controversy with Dennis Lennox has made me wonder, what about the student who hung the nooses?

First, I owe the student somewhat of an apology.  I got caught up in my “A good prosecutor could win that case” syndrome and misinterpreted the law too far.  I claimed that U.S. Federal Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 245 could be interpreted to mean that he should be charged with a hate crime being “something intimidating that interferes with attending a public college, therefore making it a hate crime and thus illegal.”  I was interpreting Clause (b) which states “Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with…”

And here’s where I messed up – I did not look up any case law for “force.”  Hanging a noose is not a threat of force.  Is it intimidating?  Yes.  Is it a threat of force?  No.  Also, it was not directed at any particular group of people.  Sure it’s pretty much common knowledge that nooses are a symbol of lynching and racism against African Americans, but you can’t use an assumption as a prosecutor.

The point is, there’s too much “reasonable doubt” that a “good prosecutor” would know that he’d be playing on the emotions of any jury in trying to convict this student.

But wait, there’s more…

According to a CM-Life article, “Because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], university officials cannot release student records, which include disciplinary matters.  Information about the case – including the student’s name – might only be released if Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick decides there is enough evidence to press charges.”

Here’s an excerpt from FERPA (Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter III, Part 4, § 1232g (b) (6)):

(B)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from disclosing the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such institution against a student who is an alleged perpetrator of any crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18), or a nonforcible sex offense, if the institution determines as a result of that disciplinary proceeding that the student committed a violation of the institution’s rules or policies with respect to such crime or offense.
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the final results of any disciplinary proceeding—
  (i) shall include only the name of the student, the violation committed, and any sanction imposed by the institution on that student; and
  (ii) may include the name of any other student, such as a victim or witness, only with the written consent of that other student.

And here’s the definition of “crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18)”:

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

So, then if a hate crime was committed (that would mean that my current interpretation of the U.S. Code that discusses hate crimes would be incorrect, and my original interpretation would be correct), then the university would be allowed to release the information.

Dawn Hertz, general counsel for the Michigan Press Association said, “There is someone in Washington [D.C.] who would threaten their federal funding if they released their name.  The university really has to be extremely careful.”

Tony Voisin, director of Student Life, said explained the disciplinary process by saying that anybody who violates the Student Code of Conduct must meet with a Conduct Proceedings Officer, after which, the officers decides if enough evidence exists to discipline the student.  He then went on to explain that hearings only take place when students do not admit guilt, saying, “To date, we’ve had about 10 hearings.  Over the course of the year, we may have 700-plus violations, and only 20 are tried.  We can’t share even the fact that there is a hearing.  The university can’t share those results with anybody other than the student involved.  It’s the business of the student involved and nobody else.”

Dean of Students, Bruce Roscoe told the CM-Life that even releasing the student’s punishment could be a violation of FERPA.

But we just read in FERPA that it’s acceptable to release the students name and punishment if the crime was violent.  The only crime that hanging a noose could be is a hate crime (I know hate crime isn’t a technical term, but it’s quicker than saying the crime established in U.S. Federal Code…).  So, if the student WAS found guilty, then logically, the hearing results could be released.

So, in a normal situation, I would assume based on all of this that the student was found not guilty, and thus the results of the hearing could not be released; however, since I know the history of CMU (specifically the Student Life Department), I’m not going to assume anything.

If anybody does have any information about the case, please let me know.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 358 other followers

%d bloggers like this: