This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Legal

That terrible talk radio again

Remember the “Progressive” think tank Think Progress where Harry Reid went to complain about Joe Lieberman’s opinion that we should strike Iran? Now this “think tank” is advocating reintroduction of the “Fairness Doctrine” – the unfair practice of government regulating free speech on the broadcast industry. According to Think Progress;

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

[â€¦]

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

See? The problem is “ownership diversity” – those rich, white Republicans own too much stuff while us hippies can barely scratch together enough money to buy used roachesÂ for our morning doobie.

Then how do they explain that Air America, the Left’s answer to the EIB network, filed for bankruptcy just two years and a half after it was founded by Democrat deep pockets. Is it because the hippies don’t have enough money to buy the stuff that’s advertised on Air America? I doubt it.

“Fairness” is one of those words the Left likes to use like “equality”. It only applies to stuff they want. I had an emailer tell me that it was “unfair” that the Gathering of Eagles held a counter-protest at “their” protest. But I guess they thought it was “fair” that a small band of moonbats tried to crash the “Veterans Against Kerry” rally in September, 2004.

Let me explain to these folks what fairness and equality are in this country. We are all born equal – we all have the equal opportunity to succeed. It’s what you do with that opportunity that defines you as a person. Everybody, E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y,Â cameÂ to AmericaÂ with nothing except what was carried on our antecedents’ back – so we all come from the same background. You make your own fairness with the sweat off ofÂ your own brow, not with the stroke of a judge’s pen.

You are NOT guarenteed mulligan’s – if you make bad choices, live with your mistakes, but don’t make your neighbors pay for you own stupid mistakes. You are not guarenteed to live equally with your neighbors if they workÂ while you sit on the front porch whittlin’ your life away.

We are all individuals – we all do different stuff – that’s why life is not fair. The guy whoÂ designs and builds medical equipment in his basement is going to be better off than the guy whoÂ designs and builds dreamcatchers. That’s just life.Â The playing field starts off level, what you do in those first couple of steps determines how well you do when the field isn’t in your favor any longer.

You can’t make us equal, you can’t make life fair by forcing everyone to be miserable. When the Left understands that, then they’ll truly live up their self-proclaimed label “Progressive”.

Michele Malkin characteristically does a much better job on the Fairness Doctrine and calls it aÂ “Hugo Chavez approach to the radio airwaves”.

June 21, 2007
Stunning strategy change; DC cops arrest criminals (Updated)

The Washington Post announced today that over this lastÂ weekend, DC Metro police changed their tactics and began arresting criminals;

The District’s stepped-up campaign to fight crime brought 492 arrests in its first two days, including 51 for felonies, a 70 percent increase over the previous weekend that has left city leaders hopeful about the new strategy.

[…]

Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced last week that all of the force’s 3,300 sworn officers would work longer hours this weekend to give the summer crime-fighting program a jump-start. The plan, which cost $1.3 million in overtime pay, was intended to help prevent an increase in homicides, robberies, car thefts and gang activity that typically comes in the summer.

It’s not all good news, though. They aren’t changing their strategy so much that they’ll stop relying on useless surveillance cameras;

Police are also expanding their network of neighborhood surveillance cameras, adding five last week and 24 by the end of June, for a total of 72 across the city.

Surveillance cameras haven’t done a thing except push criminals into areas that aren’t surveilled – or into Prince Georges County, Maryland.

Cops got so excited that they could actually investigate crimes and catch criminals, they started running into each other;

Â A police chase after a murder suspect ended in a violent crash Sunday. Two DC Police cruisers slammed into each, other injuring the officers inside, all while horrified residents looked on at the intersection of 13th and K Streets in southeast.

And of course the City Council is on board…well…sort of;

“I’m assuming all are valid arrests,” said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. “Some neighborhoods are enormously frustrated with ongoing criminal activity. If police are cracking down, I’m sure residents are pleased to be feeling a bit safer.”

Council member Kwame R. Brown (D-At Large) agreed that the more aggressive tactics could be a good start to tamping down crime. “If these arrests are warranted, I’m happy it happened and they’re getting people off the streets,” he said.

But councilmember Brown had a proviso;

“The questions become, ‘How do you take those arrests and deal with them on the front end and back end?’ ” Brown said. “People arrested — fine. But at the same time, we need to focus why they are out there getting arrested in the first place.”

Um, probably because they’re criminals, Council Member. I know you see it as an opening for convincing the already over-taxed, working residents of DC that you need to increase their taxes so you can “solve” poverty in the District, or you can blame over-crowded classrooms or some other equally vacuous platitude about how tax money can prevent crime. The Council and Mayor’s office have consistently prevented police from doing their jobs, and call for half-measures that maskÂ their incompetence and disregard for the safety of law-abiding citizens.

Like those idiot “Police Emergencies” that old Ramsey called last year that were nothing more than police doing their jobs for a few weeks and getting overtime pay for doing it. I’m pretty sure that I wasn’t the only one who could see through that ploy.

There’s no revenue in catching criminals. They’d rather have cops writing tickets and putting boots on car wheels. That brings in cash. They think government is their own little business which doesn’t have it’s excesses and abusesÂ regulated. The City Council is just too secure in their jobs – they know the voters will vote them back into office not because of what they’ve done, but because of what they are. Voters don’t hold the City Council responsible for their incompetence, because City Council blames everything on Congress and the President – and because the citizens are willfully blind and ignorant, they throw their votes away on lazy and incompetent government.

As soon as arrests become politically unpopular, the City Council will jump back off board, I’m sure. 500 arrests means 1 in 1000 residents of DC were arrested this weekend (if they were indeed all DC residents). I expect to see angry parents and spouses on TV soon complaining that their criminal relatives were framed by over-zealous cops and the cops will go back to solving crimes at the drive-through window of the Popeye’s chicken joints.

Not related to the sweep, but a trial that begins tomorrow for – guess who;

DC Council member Marion Barry is expected to be in courtÂ Tuesday to face several traffic charges stemming from traffic stops that occurred last year in the District.

In September, Barry was stopped by Secret Service officers near the White House after he allegedly ran a red light. Police also said he smelled of alcohol.

Barry was charged with driving under the influence after refusing to take a urine test. A breath test came in below the legal limit.

In December, Barry was stopped by US Park Police in Southeast for driving too slowly. He was charged with misuse of temporary tags and operating an unregistered vehicle.

Barry insists the charges are unfounded.

Â

See, there’s the damn problem. This criminal is a council member, too. He’s delinquent on his taxes for seven years (and theÂ federal prosecutorsÂ can’t force him to pay, because the judge won’t force him) and he’s a menace to society and the entire city.

And do you know how hard it was to find links to these stories about Barry? I guess the local media is burying the criminal behavior of it’s most [in]famous resident.

I don’t want anyone to get me wrong. I don’t blame the DC Metro Police for their inability to stop criminals and arrest criminals and jail criminals. I completely blame the local government. I know and I’ve met great dedicated cops on the Metro DC police force (there are some useless turds, too – they know who they are) – but the politicians won’t let them do their jobs the way they should because the criminals run the media like sock puppets and the media run the politicians like sock puppets. So, politicians; guess who’s hand is really up your…um…sock.

UPDATE: The Washington Times reports this morning that;

The Metropolitan Police Department made more than 650 arrests last weekend as part of a kickoff to the District’s summer anti-crime initiative, Chief Cathy L. Lanier said yesterday.
Â Â Â Â “I think overall we hit our goal of what the initiative was,” Chief Lanier said during a press conference announcing the arrest totals. Now, we “take those examples and then determine how we turn that around, listen to what people have said to us.”
Â Â Â Â The 650 arrests were made from 6 a.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Sunday. That was more than twice the average number made during the previous five weekends, police said, and the arrests also resulted in a drop of about 10 percent in serious crime compared with the previous weekends.
Â Â Â Â The adult arrests included 109 on narcotics charges, 11 for aggravated assaults, 14 for unauthorized use of a vehicle, nine on robbery charges and four from three homicide cases.
Â Â Â Â Police also arrested 33 juveniles on charges ranging from weapons offenses to narcotics.

I wonder where the Post got it’s numbers; 24% more arrests from the Times is pretty significant. Now the Post is conceding the 650 number;

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said yesterday that crime across the District dipped 10 percent last weekend as a result of her “all hands on deck” initiative, in which 3,300 members of the force worked a pair of overtime shifts.

I guess they rushed yesterday’s story to print. But the fact remains that if DC deployed it’s police force more effectively, they could fight crime better. Giuliani put cops on beats pounding the pavement and it worked fine then.

June 11, 2007
Whiney Kokesh whines to the whiney press

Â

The Washington Examiner publishes a poorly researched AP article about poor little Adam Kokesh, the sociopath, childishÂ war protester who thinks he had a discharge;

Marine Corps officials argue they are enforcing military codes in the case of Cpl. Adam Kokesh.

Kokesh, 25, participated in an anti-war demonstration in Washington in March. When he was identified in a photo caption in The Washington Post, a superior officer sent him an e-mail saying he might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization. Kokesh responded with a letter that contained an obscenity.

Kokesh, a graduate student at George Washington University, is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18, but the Marine Corps is seeking to let him go two weeks early with a less-than-honorable discharge.

That could cut some of his health benefits and force him to repay about $10,800 he received to obtain his undergraduate degree on the GI Bill.

Kokesh’s attorney, Lt. Jeremy Melaragno, said Monday during an administrative separation board hearing that his client’s free-speech rights are at stake.

“It has everything to do with freedom of speech,” Melaragno said. “Ask yourself, would we be here if he was advocating for the Bush administration?”

During a break in the hearing, Kokesh told reporters that the case appears to be punitive.

So the media just goes right ahead and publishes whatever Kokesh and his lawyer tell them. And then they tell the big lie at the center of the whole debate;

Kokesh was honorably discharged after a combat tour in Iraq.

His attorneys said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty. They said the protest was a theatrical performance, which meant wearing a uniform was a not a violation of military rules. The military considered it a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization.

As I and many others established this weekend, Kokesh has not been discharged. If he had been discharged, he wouldn’t have been at that hearing yesterday – the Marines couldn’t force him to report if they had no legal authority over him. Yet – there he was arguing to save his discharge status. Anyone with at least half-a-brain could figure that out. Well, not Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press, apparently.

But, anyway, the panel recommended a general (an other-than-honorable) discharge according to the today’s Examiner;

A military panel recommended that an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during an anti-war protest should lose his honorable discharge status, brushing away his claims that he was exercising his right to free speech.

“This is a nonpunitive discharge,” said Col. Patrick McCarthy, chief of staff for the mobilization command. “The most stringent discharge that could have been received is other than honorable, and the board chose to raise that up to a general discharge.”

Disappointing, indeed. But our little sociopath crybaby can’t leave well-enough alone;

After the hearing, Kokesh criticized the panel for not taking a stronger stand on the issue. He said he might appeal the board’s ruling.

“I do not think it was in the Marine Corps spirit to take the easy road or to not take a stand. In the words of Dante, the hottest layers of hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality, and I think that’s what happened here today.”

Well, for once we agree, Kokesh, the Marine CorpsÂ should have taken a stronger stand and tossed your little crybaby ass in jail. Of course, since you’re a criminal and sociopath, there’s still a chance that they might since you don’t want to drop it.

I hope you accost me on one of your hippie-patrols someday that I happen to be on the National Mall – you’ll find out which of the hotter layers of Hell are reserved for your tired, punk ass sooner than you may have expected. That’s not a threat, by the way. Just a warning to play with children your own age.

More reasoned words from my new battle buddy, Robin, at Chickenhawk Express.

June 5, 2007
Marine anti-war veteran may lose “honorable” status (Updated)

I’ve never heard of this guy Adam Kokesh, but apparently he’s some big deal in the anti-war movement. But here’s what I got from the Washington Post;

Adam Kokesh, 25, a graduate student at George Washington University, faces a hearing Monday in Kansas City, where the Marines will recommend an “other than honorable” discharge from the Individual Ready Reserve. He was previously honorably discharged from active duty after fighting in Fallujah and receiving the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal.

Upon learning he was being investigated for wearing his uniform during the mock patrol, Kokesh wrote an e-mail to the investigating officer, Maj. John Whyte. The combat veteran discussed his service and his critique of the war, and asked this officer assigned to look into his “possible violation” of wearing his uniform: “We’re at war. Are you doing all you can?” He concluded with an obscene recommendation about what Whyte should go do.

OK, so far there’s a couple of things wrong with this whole story. First of all, everyone, including Kokesh at his self-serving blog claims he’s already been discharged, but that he’s in the Individual Ready Reserve. That’s impossible, junior. You might have a piece of paper that says you were discharged, but you ain’t discharged until you’ve served your time.

According to the Washington Examiner, Kokesh was busted back after his first tour of Iraq;

He was supposed to go to Iraq a second time, but was demoted from sergeant to corporal and not allowed to return after it was learned that he brought a pistol back after his first tour in 2004.

“Not allowed to return” – that means he wanted to return, but the Marines wouldn’t send him back. I think his disillusionment isn’t with the war. He’s lucky he didn’t go to Leavenworth then. The Marines cut him a break.

And that part of the story in Washington Post story about;

He concluded with an obscene recommendation about what Whyte should go do.

I’m guessing that refers to the sameÂ phrase thatÂ Vice President Cheney used when he told Senator Pat Leahy whatÂ Leahy should “go do”.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses that quite succinctly;

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Not much wiggle room there, junior. And who are persons subject to this chapter?

802 Art. 2

(d)(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose of-
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

Yikes! That’s you, Kokesh, buddy.

As far as the uniform regulation, it’s covered by DoD Directive 1334.1Â (.pdf) which says;

3.Â POLICY

It is DoD policy that:

Â 3.1.Â The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

Â Â 3.1.1.Â At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

Â Â 3.1.2.Â During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

Â Â 3.1.3.Â Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

Â Â 3.1.4.Â When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

Since Kokesh was pretending to torture prisoners and making a general nuisance of himself, I’d guess he’d fit under that last one, at the least.

In fact, this from the IVAW websiteÂ that Kokesh himself wrote just a few weeks ago (dated May 17th) whenÂ he infiltrated a military base in Germany to spreadÂ his bile;

When we got to the gate, the guard said that I couldnâ€™t bring Jeff on with me because I was not registered in their system, even though I had a valid military ID. Jeff busted out the perfect story, â€œWeâ€™re backpacking around Europe, and we just wanted to come on base to use the PX. I just need to get some toiletries. See, I used to be in the Army too, but my ID is expired.â€ The guard suggested Jeff give me a list and wait for me. So I carried on alone.

Emphasis mine. He had a valid military ID card – he hadn’t been discharged, he’s subject to the UCMJ. Case closed.

UPDATE: In fact, here’s another charge to tack on, Maj. Whyte;

As I got to the security guard standing in the pedestrian passageway, the soldiers behind me started yelling. â€œHey, stop that guy!â€ â€œHey, you need to detain him!â€ â€œStop him!â€ The security guard told me to stop and I just kept walking. He grabbed my sleeve, but didnâ€™t even hold on. I turned the corner and just kept walking. I looked back and the First Sergeant was there watching me, but by then I was home free.

If this story is true (andÂ the authoritiesÂ could probably check with the leadership at that Ansbach, Germany Army base), Kokesh is guilty of failure to obey a lawful order and resisting apprehension on a Federal facility – they have a big white sign at the entrance of all US military bases that says, in effet, that you give up up all of your 4th Amendment rights voluntarily by passing through those gates.

According the Examiner Koresh made this statement to the press;

“This is clearly a case of selective prosecution and intimidation of veterans who speak out against the war,” Kokesh said. “To suggest that while as a veteran you don’t have freedom of speech is absurd.”

Sorry, buddy. You don’t have freedom of speech when you’re in the military – I didn’t have freedom of speech. There’s nothing selective about it. A field grade officerÂ was investigating your illegal behavior and you were disrespectful – while you had, by your own admission, a valid ID card – that means you’re subject to the UCMJ. Welcome to the real world, goober.

Looks like his lawyer is trying to frame this as a poor little Marine being railroaded by the PentagonÂ for his anti-war views. All it is an immature little turd who can’t follow the rules – at least as far back as 2004.

From the Post story;

The case also raises a fundamental question of interest to the roughly 158,000 men and women in the Marines’ and Army’s Individual Ready Reserve: Are they civilians — free to speak their minds — or not?

“This case is about the Marine Corps seeking to stifle critics of the Iraq policy by officially labeling civilian acts of peaceful protest and political speech as misconduct and serious offenses,” says Michael Lebowitz, Kokesh’s attorney, who fought in Iraq as an Army paratrooper .

[…]

But, counters Lebowitz, unlike other types of reservists who have specific paid duties, Individual Ready Reservists are not paid, have no weekend drill requirements and no chain of command. Therefore, he argues, they are civilians, unless summoned back to duty. And if they are civilians, they can say pretty much what they want.

“For the military to try to punish civilians for speaking out against the war is completely outrageous, says Arthur Spitzer, legal director of American Civil Liberties Union for the National Capital Area….

If he has in his possession a valid military ID card, andÂ he hasn’t finishedÂ his military committment,Â he’s not a civilian. He’s forbidden from wearingÂ his uniforms in public at political rallies. How hard is that to understand?Â He’s also forbidden to be disrespectful to superior officers. Again – real simple.

KokeshÂ used his military ID to access a military installation and spread anti-war propaganda -Â Kokesh figured he was in the military when he flashed the card to get on base. Are we just supposed to ask him how and when he wants the rules applied to his behavior?

“I will not be intimidated,” Kokesh says.

That’s good, you’re going to need to remember that when you’re cell mates with Bubba.

The Post also quoted Kokesh and his buddy who had this question;

Kokesh and Madden say they have a question about all this: Don’t the Marines have anything better to do these days?

No they don’t, actually. This isn’t the DC Metro police who only investigate crimes that occurÂ in Popeye’s chicken joints or in the frontseat of their patrol cars. This is the United States Marine Corps which relies on good order andÂ discipline in order to defend this country from our enemies. The rules are enforced uniformly and with good reason. If you don’t like being prosecuted, don’t be such a retard.

Robin at Chickenhawk Express reports that he was engaged in the same behavior this past weekend, too – still wearing his uniform even though he knows that the military disapproves of it. Obviously flaunting his misbehavior hoping someone throws his monkey-ass in jail.

Leftist blogs are busy spread inaccurate propaganda about poorÂ little Adam. From “Courage to Resist“, an obvious talking points memo;

Due to their outspoken opposition to the war, the Marine Corps is now formally threatening to revoke their discharges and retroactively change them to â€œother than honorable.â€ This is a new, unprecedented step the military feels is necessary in order to suppress a growing anti-war voice from within the military itself.

No discharge is being changed – he hasn’t been discharged yet. I know the Left depends on misinformation to keep the brainless minions on the plantation, but this is really beyond all reason.

From An Even Keel;

On June 4, the Marine Corps will hold a hearing in Kansas City, MO. Adam is being re-activated just for the hearing so that they can discharge him again with an Other Than Honorable discharge. This for a man who has served two tours in Iraq during his six years of service. He has been on inactive reserve and was due for complete separation on June 18, just fourteen days after this hearing.

He only served one tour in Iraq – his second tour was cancelled because of his misbehavior – an offense that should make the anti-gun Left freak out, by the way.Â The Post story said he’s been in nearly eight years (I tend to believe that since a tour in the military is eight years). And as I pointed out above, he committed an offense worthy of a court martial and reactivating him to face charges is perfectly legal and common.Â

Lefty blogger Wonkette reported that Kokesh was just arrested by the Capitol Police last month for being a spaz. Don’t bother reading the comments – what a bunch of foul-mouthed creeps. (Editor’s Note; Ha! She deleted the comments after I linked to them.)

UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces has even more at “The Dishonest AP At It Again” and Robin from ChickenHawk Express and Newsbusters emailed me this article entitled “Marine Admitted to Uniform Violations While Parodying Military Operations“. Robin also wrote on Chickenhawk Express that Kokesh requested that a Brigadier general perform the same impossible sex act as the field grade officer. So I guess that’s twice he made two mistakes.

I’m sure the Leftists think he’s a fricken rocket scientist, but the other 70% of the country are pretty certain he’s a spoilt child.

May 31, 2007
Unequal protection

Reading the Washington post this morning, I stumbled over an article by Roberts Barnes who fawns over Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s flaunting the conventions of the Supreme Court by reading her decision aloudÂ in a case in Alabama;

The court ruled 5 to 4 that Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

* * * * *

Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg’s voice was as precise and emotionless as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.

“In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” she said.

Last month, Ginsburg rebuked the same five-justice majority for upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and for language in the opinion that she said reflected “ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.”

Now, I’m no lawyer, although I work in the law field, sort of, but this sounds like Justice Ginsberg is making her decisions based on Constitutionally-prohibited grounds. According to the Fourteenth Amendment;

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now the 14th Amendment prohibits giving a longer lawsuit filing period for women than for men, yet based on her experience as a woman, she seems to think that she’s an expert on these things called “women’s rights” – what that means,Â I have no idea. I’ve done a search of the Constitution and no where can I find the word woman, or a variation thereof. The closest thing is the 19th Amendment;

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

It made us all equal in the voting booth, it didn’t take away any men’s rights and it gave equal rights to women.Â

So can someone tell me what, exactly, the Constitution guarantees women that it doesn’t guarentee men, or what it guarantees gays and not straights. Where are these “[fill in the name of your particular group of malcontents here] rights”?

And someone tell me how a justice on the United States Supreme Court, the court which, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, has had the responsibility to interpret the CONSTITUTION as it applies to protections of citizens from the government, can make decisions based on extra-constitutional information.

May 30, 2007
John Doe Protection Act
As you’ve probably read on other blogs, Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM) has introduced what is being called the John Doe Protection Act across the internet. Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times has been a realÂ tiger on this whole issue since the Flying Imams started this whole thingÂ last November;

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Â Â Â Â Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
Â Â Â Â “I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Â Â Â Â Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
Â Â Â Â “That would alarm me,” said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. “They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”
Â Â Â Â A pilot from another airline said: “That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry.”

Audrey also warned us last month about the threat to the “John Does” who reported their suspicious behavior;

A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the “John Doe” passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.
Â Â Â Â The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.
Â Â Â Â The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted “passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged ‘suspicious’ behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”
Â Â Â Â The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who “may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin.”Â Â

TodayÂ she’s writing about the legislation introduced by Joe Lieberman in the Senate and Congressman Pearce in the House;

A bipartisan coalition in the House and Senate is pushing legislation to protect Americans from being sued for reporting to authorities suspicious activity that may lead to a terrorist attack.
Â Â Â Â “If you see something, you should say something, and not have to worry about being sued,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.
Â Â Â Â The measure was introduced in the Senate late Friday and is sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, along with Mr. Kyl and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the panel’s ranking Republican.

Â Â Â Â A House version introduced yesterday is sponsored by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican; Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee; and Rep. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania Republican.
Â Â Â Â “In a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to security. If we fail to protect passengers that report suspicious behavior, it would be a huge victory for terrorists,” Mr. King said.

The House legislation is HR 2291 and HR 1640Â (this link takes you to thomas.loc.gov, just type in the HR# in the search box to read the bills – they don’t have permanent links). I’ve got a call in to Lieberman’s office to find out the Senate designation that hasn’t been returned yet. The House Resolution 1640Â reads;
HR 2991 reads;
Â SECTION 1. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.
(b) False Disclosures- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any statement or disclosure that the person making the statement or disclosure knows to be false at the time it is made.

Â SEC. 2. IMMUNITY FOR MITIGATION OF THREATS
Â SEC. 3. COVERED DISCLOSURES.
(1) a threat to a transportation system or the safety or security of its passengers; or

(2) an act of terrorism (as defined in section 3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is directed against, a transportation system or its passengers.

Â SEC. 4. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.
Â SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Â
But the Democrats are hot to strip the language from last month’s Transportion bill as reported by Crotchety Old BastardÂ and Little Green Footballs. Michele Malkin has more on the bill.

I expect everyone to call, write, fax, and email your Congressmembers to support these bills.
May 15, 2007