Top Favorite Blog Posts
-
Caylee Anthony case
- From: WOFLweb
-
Description:
Caylee Marie Anthony was first reported missing on July 15, over 30 days after she first disappeared.
Casey Anthony, mother of the missing 3-year-old toddler, says she left Caylee in the care of a babysitter, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. However, investigators in the case say they haven't been able to determine that this person exists.
Casey was taken into custody on July 16, charged with child neglect, making false statements and obstructing an investigation. Her bond was set at $500,200. She was bonded out by a California bounty hunter on August 21.
On Friday, August 28, she was re-arrested for uttering a forged instrument, fraudulent use of personal information and petit theft. The bounty hunter that first posted her bond rescinded his offer, making it virtually impossible for her to be released on a $503,200 bond with her additional $3,000 bond on new charges.
Orange County officers filed additional check fraud and theft charges, and say they plan to charge Casey with more economic crimes in the future.
Casey was released for a second time Friday, September 5 after an anonymous person or group fronted her bond. She was escorted out of the jail by her attorney, Jose Baez, and two bodyguards.
She was arrested for a third time Monday, September 15 on new check fraud and theft charges. Casey was released shortly after on a $1,250 bond and was again escorted out of jail by her attorney and two bodyguards.Anthony was arrested Tuesday October 14, 2008 on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter and four counts of lying to investigators about the disappearance of her daughter.
On Wednesday October 15, 2008 Casey Anthony made her initial court appearance on charges that she murdered her missing 3-year-old daughter, Caylee. Anthony went before Judge John Jordan, who read the charges against her. Dressed in a blue jail jumpsuit, Anthony made no comment during Wednesday's 90-second hearing.The remains of a small child were found less than half a mile away from Casey's home in Orlando on December 11, 2008. On December 19, 2009 a medical examiner determined the remains were those of missing Caylee Anthony.
On Tuesday February 10, 2009 a public memorial service was held for Caylee.
On July 7, 2009 Orange County Circuit Judge Stan Strickland canceled the planned October 2009 trial date for the State vs. Casey Anthony and scheduled a pretrial hearing for January 21, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., with plans for a trial date sometime during the summer of 2010.
- Blog post
- 10 months ago
- Favorite count: 53
- Views: 535274
-
What Annoys You Most About Blo
- From: thepastord
-
Description:
Well here is a topic that everyone can feel free to participate in. What annoys you most about Blog post? Is it the Liberal Vs. Conservative agenda? What about the "Woe is Me" brigade? Any takers for the hidden sales pitch posters? What about the wanna be practicing doctors and herbalist? The Casey Anthony diehards? Could it be the Pastor's habit of posting unorthodox stuff? Maybe it's our folks who like alternative and New Age stuff..............
I'm sure everyone has their little pet peeves when they scan the postings. What burns your buns the most?
- Blog post
- 6 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 560
-
ACLU attacks cross on military
- From: FlaNative
-
Description:
Once again, the liberal left-wing ACLU is attacking the foundation of our country. In their target this time in a cross atop an isolated military memorial in California.
First erected on Sunrise Rock in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in memory of the dead of all wars, the small remote symbol -- hidden away in California’s Mojave Desert -- finds itself at the center of an ideological war between the ACLU and a handful of military heroes.
A lot of Marines will be following that case and the arguments laid down in a brief to the high court by the Thomas Moore Law Center and its ally the Individual Rights Foundation. Meanwhile, the Sunrise Rock cross remains covered by a court ordered shroud -- in case a passing hiker or off-road-vehicle enthusiast in this remote desert terrain might take offense.
The heroes whose memorial plaques are under assault include: Vietnam prisoner of war Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, USN (Ret.) and Marine Majors Michael D. Martino and Gerald Bloomfield, III, both of whom were killed in combat in Iraq on November 2, 2005.
If they win this, already upheld by the 9th Circuit Court (no surprise they support the ACLU) it is expected by some that the ACLU will file a complaint about the crosses at Arlington and other military cemeteries around the country.
THIS is what the left is all about.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/aclu_war_memorials/2009/06/11/224159.html
- Blog post
- 5 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 519
-
Did you know that the colors o
- From: swflmother
-
Description:
Roses are one of the most romantic and one of the most wished-for gifts a woman can receive from a man. Whether it is a perfect single rose or a dozen long-stemmed blooms, the giving of roses has long symbolized deep emotion.
But did you know that the colors of roses hold special meanings? The sender of roses should be aware of their meanings, to ensure he or she is sending the message intended.
Black Roses - traditionally black roses signify death. They can be used to symbolize death of an old part of life and a moving on into a new beginning, but the association with death is most likely to be the message the recipient assumes, and so it’s a risky choice.
White Roses - stand for purity, unity, innocence, sincerity, reverence and a love stronger than death. White roses are also used widely in bridal bouquets.
Yellow Roses - stand for happiness and friendship, domestic contentment, familiar love and joy.
Pink Roses - represent elegance, grace, romance, friendship and appreciation or gratitude.
Peach Roses - stand for desire and optimisim for the future, anticipation.
Purple Roses - signify enchantment, opulence, majesty and glory. They convey the message of undying love.
Blue Roses - represent fantasy, miracles, and hope. Blue roses can stand for for new possibilities.
Red Roses - Red roses are the gift of a true romantic and a passionate lover, one who wants to express deep love and desire. Red is the most popular color for roses.What rose do you need today !Please pick one .
Give it to a freind or keep it for yourself. Tell us please who received your rose today.-------<----@ - Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 407
-
KNOW WHEN TO LOOK UP
- From: Former member
-
Description:
The Buzzard:
If you put a buzzard in a pen that is 6ft X 8ft and is entirely open at the top, the bird, inspiteof its ability to fly, will be a prisoner. The reason is that a buzzard always begins a flight from the ground with a run of 10-12ft. Without space to run, as is its habit, it will not attempt to fly, but will remain a prisoner for life in a small jail with no top.
The Bat:
The ordinary bat that flies around at night, a remarkable nimble creature in the air, cannot take off from a level place. If it is placed on the floor or flat ground, all it can do is shuffle about helplessly and, no doubt, painfully, until it reaches some slight elevation from which it can throw itself into the air. Then, at once, it takes off like a flash.
The Bumblebee:
A bumblebee, if dropped into an open tumbler, will be there until it dies, unless it is taken out. It never sees the means of escape at the top, but persists in trying to find some way out through the sides near the bottom. It will seek a way where none excists, until it completely destroys itself.
People:
In many ways, we are the buzzards, the bat, and the bumblebee. We struggle about with all our problems and frustrations,never realizing that all we have to do is look up! Thats the answer, the escape route and the solution to any problem! Just look up.
- Blog post
- 5 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 165
-
Back On the Air?
- From: FloydFreak
-
Description:
It would appear that we are. I, along with a couple of others, have spent the past several days on the Gainesville Sun's site. Talk about a bunch of leftie wankers!
They got me kicked off for using the term "gobbledy-gook".
It's good to be back amongst friends!
Rock on!
- Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 150
-
Don't Look!!!
- From: Cromagnonwoman
-
Description:
OK, You looked. Now that you are here, why couldnt you resist?
- Blog post
- 6 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 141
-
"Those Crazy Birthers"
- From: RightAway
-
Description:
Long post, but hopefully explains a lot.
It is much worse then most people think. It never has been about "where" he was born rather what is his legal citizenship overall.
You've no doubt seen the media trying to portray so-called "birthers" as fringe, lunatic conspiracy theorists. Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has taken several shots at the movement without first accurately reporting on what the movement is about.
Let me first say that I think Obama was born in Hawaii and I also believe he is a citizen of the United States. After do a lot of research on the matter I've not seen sufficient evidence to the contrary.
To hear the story told by the media, "birthers" claim Obama was born in Kenya but, because Obama released a certificate of life birth from Hawaii, the argument is over and done. Not surprisingly, the media have failed to do their homework. Putting aside the fact that a certificate of live birth is not the same as a birth certificate, there are several other issues, entirely unrelated to Obama's birth certificate or his birth place, which have been totally unaddressed by the them.
(Chris Matthews, this is the part where you plug your ears and ignore facts and reason).
That said, Americans need to understand that simply being a citizen of this country (or simply being born in this country) does not make one a "natural born citizen." What's the distinction?
In order to be eligible and qualified to serve as the President of the United States you must be a "natural born" citizen, be at least 35 years of age and have resided in the U.S. for 14 years. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5).
But what is a natural born citizen? You'd think that THIS would be the question being asked by the media. There is difference between "naturalized" and "natural-born" American citizenship. Legal precedent on this distinction is a bit vague, while "naturalized" citizenship, "native-born" citizenship, "citizen at birth" status and American citizenship in general have been addressed several times by the Supreme Court, American "natural born" citizenship never explicitly has.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 defined natural-born status in this way: "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."Note that is says citizens, plural. But this Act was revised five years later, and then excluded the phrase "natural-born." While this act speaks specifically to those born outside of the US, it does seem clear that our founding fathers saw a "natural-born" citizen as a child of two US parents.
Those who seek to simplify or dilute the definition of "natural-born" frequently point to the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. That case was about:
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."The majority opinion of the Supreme Court for this case (which is what sets precedence) did not explicitly comment on the definition of "natural born citizens. Instead, they simply said:
"The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ('citizen' and 'natural born citizen')." And they quite intentionally referred to Kim as "native born" instead of "natural born" throughout the ruling.
This precedent speaks nothing to the definition or application of "natural born citizenship," especially as it pertains to the presidency. It does however, address "naturalized" citizenship.
Perhaps the closest the courts have come to defining "natural-born" citizenship was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Court stated (pp. 167-68):
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."The U.S. law in effect during Obama's birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child's birth abroad in the United States as a "natural born" U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of "natural-born" citizenship - one which confers "natural-born" status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Unfortunately, Obama's American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of "natural-born."
Where does this leave us?We know that a child born of two US citizens on US soil certainly is a "natural-born" citizen. We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered "natural-born" if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14). There is no clear precedent to extend the definition beyond that. So to those media who have so actively said, "He was born in Hawaii to an American mother, case closed!", think again!
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (a U.S. citizen) and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (a National of Kenya and, therefore, subject of the United Kingdom). There is no American precedent which specifically suggests that "natural-born" citizenship might be conferred to a child of dual nationalities. Congress or the Supreme Court could easily make such a ruling so as to define "natural-born" status as conferred simply by being born on US soil, but doing so would not retroactively make Obama a natural-born citizen.
Yet, as stated earlier, legal precedent regarding the specific definition of "natural-born citizenship" is quite vague. Far be it from me to issue a finite definition of the term. All I'm trying to prove here is that there is no justification for the self-righteousness seen in the media and other critics of the birther movement who assume that simply being born in America means one has "natural-born citizenship." The people who make such suggestions only show their very limited knowledge of the legal precedent.
So, the question of whether or not Obama is, definitionally, a "natural-born" citizen is the first concern of those "crazy birthers." It's a concern, by the way, which is entirely unrelated to any conspiracy whatsoever. It's merely a question of legal precedent. Doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy to me. It's a shame the Supreme Court won't hear any case bringing this issue up. Why? The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens don't have "standing" to sue their President for this info. Why? Because a private citizen is not "uniquely damaged" by this problem. Lovely, right? God forbid the Supreme Court be asked to make a difficult decision on a matter of Constitutional definition which could massively effect the entire country.
The other, major concern those "crazy birthers" have about Obama's Constitutional eligibility to serve as our president relates to his Indonesian ties. Obama's American mother separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when Obama was just two years old and they later divorced. She then married an Indonesian man named Lolo Soetoro; she and Barack Obama moved to Indonesia with Soetoro sometime between 1966 and 1967. Meaning Barry was between five and six years old when his mother married Soetoro.
There is Obama's registration card for Indonesia's Fransiskus Assisi school where Obama is registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. Keeping in mind that Indonesian schools vary rarely let in any child who was not a citizen of Indeonesia, the school card lists Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. His religion is listed as Muslim.
But how could Obama's citizenship be listed as Indonesian? Simple, he was adopted by his new step-father. How do we know that he was adopted? Well, for starters, the papers filed in 1980 for Lolo and Ann's divorce cite Obama and his sister Maya as being the children of both parties, not just the mother. Had they not been adopted, this would not be the case. Not to mention, Obama assumed his step-father's last name, which for most rational people is a dead give-away.
What does this have to do with Obama's "natural-born citizenship" in America? Under Indonesian law, when a man acknowledges a child as his son, the son becomes an Indonesian State citizen.
To quote Indonesia Citizenship Law directly (Page 5, Article 21 (1-2):
1) Children below the age of 18 (eighteen) or unmarried who are present and living in Indonesian territory, born from parents who have acquired Indonesian citizenship shall automatically become citizens of the Republic of Indonesia.
2) Children of foreign nationalities below the age of 5 (five) who are adopted through legal proceedings as children of Indonesia citizens will thereby acquire Indonesian citizenship.And from Article 4 (8):
"Children born out of legal wedlock from an alien mother who is claimed by the Indonesian father as his natural child and such claim is declared before the child reaches the age of 18 (eighteen) or before the child has married."So, it's clear that Obama became an Indonesian citizen when he was adopted. Indonesia, to this day, does not permit dual citizenship, and it has been suggested that Indonesian law at the time Obama would have been adopted did not permit dual-citizenship to anyone - even adopted children. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship. I am unable to find the original source of the "older" law which suggest this, though multiple blogs and Phillip Berg (one of the main attorney's suing Obama for his information) have cited it in the following way:
"It is stipulated that an adopted child has the same status as a natural child and that his or her relationship to the birth parents is severed by adoption. On the condition of ratification of the adoption by the District Court: The law stipulates that children of mixed couples automatically assume their father's citizenship, and a divorced wife cannot take custody of her children because they have different citizenship."The current law, however, does provide dual citizenship to adopted children. However, Section 6 (1-3) makes the following stipulations:
(1). The Indonesian citizenship status of children as determined in Article 4 Items c, d, h, and i, and Article 5 will effect in the dual citizenship of the child. Upon reaching the age of 18 (eighteen) or upon marriage, the child must choose one citizenship.
(2). The decision to choose one of the citizenships as stipulated in Paragraph (1) shall be made in writing and forwarded to Officials and attach documents as determined by regulations.
(3). The decision to choose one citizenship as mentioned in Paragraph (2) shall be made within 3 (three) years after the child has reached the age of 18 (eighteen) or the child has married.What would this mean for Obama? Either the blog chatter and "birthers" are correct in their assertion that older Indonesian law stripped the adopted Obama of his original nationality or, as with the current law, Obama must have had to make a denunciation of either his Indonesian or American nationality sometime between is 18th and 21st birthday.
Right about now you might be thinking does Indonesian law matter? Wouldn't US law supersede Indonesian law with respect to Obama's citizenship? And Obama couldn't have lost his American citizenship because he didn't willfully denounce it after the age of 18. That's not something his parents could have done for him when he was a child, Correct?
Not necessarily.
Let's first address this from the "birther" perspective that, under older Indonesian law, Obama would have been stripped of his US citizenship after he was adopted. Since Indonesia did/does not allow dual citizenship; the United States would not recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when both countries agreed, as per the Hague Convention of 1930). Since Obama was a natural citizen of Indonesia after his adoption, the United States could/would not have stepped in or interfered with the laws of Indonesia. In which case, he would become solely a citizen of Indonesia and would have had to become a naturalized American citizen when returning to Hawaii several years later - thus making him a naturalized, not "natural-born" citizen and, therefore, ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
From the perspective of current law, there is no suggestion that Obama would have been stripped of his US citizenship. He would have, under section 6 (1-3) of the Indonesian citizenship law, had to issue a written denunciation to Indonesia of either his Indonesian or American nationality sometime between is 18th and 21st birthday. Did he do it? Who knows, the man won't release his records!
But let us look at the possible paths he could have taken:a) he wrote the Indonesian authorities sometime between his 18th and 21st birthday to tell them he had chosen his American citizenship.
b) he wrote the Indonesian authorities sometime between his 18th and 21st birthday to tell them he had chosen his Indonesian citizenship.
c) he did nothing and, therefore, is in violation of Indonesian law
If 'a' then either Obama or Indonesia should have the records to prove it. If 'b' then, according to INA 349, 8 USC 1481, Obama isn't even an American citizen, let-alone "natural-born." If 'c' then he's facing a whole world of legal troubles and scandal. But let's assume he did 'a.' If he waited until he was 21 to file his papers with Indonesia, that would certainly explain the rumors about his using an Indonesian passport to get into Pakistan in 1981. That's a pretty big "if," though. And if this is what Obama did, then he and Indonesia would have the records to prove it.
Which brings us back to the main point: I've no earthly idea as to whether Obama actually meets the qualification of a "natural-born" citizen. What I do know, however, is that there is certainly enough cause for concern and questions. To pretend like this is a simple issue which is immediately dispelled by his Hawaiian certificate of live birth is completely dishonest (or ignorant, as the case may be).
And even more astounding to me are the people who will argue with those "crazy birthers" for hours about legal precedent but with the same breath claim there is no uncertainty in the matter. If there is legitimate debate about whether or not our president meets the Constitutional requirements to be our President, then for goodness sake - let's hear it out at the highest levels and stop pretending like it's a huge tin foil hat conspiracy. God forbid the American people ask their President to prove he's constitutionally qualified to hold the highest position in the land! What will they think of next? Asking you to show your driver's license when you write a check?! The terrible thought of it!
The fact remains, there is just one person who can make this all go away:Barack Hussein Obama "Mr. Transparency", nn an instant, could release all of his records (as John McCain did when his natural-born status was in question). If everything is on the up-and-up, as Obama and his lapdog media, there is absolutely no reason not to release all of his birth, school, adoption and travel records. Assuming everything is in order, he will have done everything in his power to prove himself as Constitutionally qualified to the American people and the only people still talking about this conspiracy will then truly be, those "crazy birthers." All of this controversy has been fueled by his lack of transparency and stubborn refusal to be forthcoming with his documentation. Blaming the "birthers" before Obama has done everything in his power to clear up the concerns is ridiculous.
Until such time that Obama releases his records, it would be nice to see supposed "right-wing" blogs and media grow some balls and do some actual investigation and research into the more substantial concerns of this debate.There's a lot more to this than, "Was he born in Kenya?! OMG, is his birth certificate real?!" Pretending like this whole eligibility debate hinges on Obama's birth certificate is ignorant, willfully misleading and just plain stupid.
- Blog post
- 3 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 122
-
30 DAYS for DUI Manslaughter??
- From: FlaNative
-
Description:
Guess it proves MONEY TALKS!!! Browns wide-receiver Donte Stallworth gets 30 DAYS for killing a pedentrian while drunk......and reached a confidential financial settlement with the victims family!!!!
Think we could only get 30 days for killing someone drunk?????
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/sports/nfl/dpg_stallworth_pleads_guilty_lwf_061609_2578718
- Blog post
- 5 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 87
-
The Global Warming HOAX
- From: starrman1
-
Description:
Nashville, the home of leading global warming prophet Al Gore, has enjoyed the coolest July 21 on record, observes Christopher Booker. It was delightfully appropriate that, as large parts of Argentina were swept by severe blizzards last week, on a scale never experienced before, the city of Nashville, Tennessee, should have enjoyed the coolest July 21 in its history, breaking a record established in 1877. Appropriate, because Nashville is the home of Al Gore, the man who for 20 years has been predicting that we should all by now be in the grip of runaway global warming.
His predictions have proved so wildly wrong – along with those of the Met Office's £33 million computer model which forecast that we should now be enjoying a "barbecue summer" and that 2009 would be one of "the five warmest years ever" – that the propaganda machine has had to work overtime to maintain what is threatening to become the most expensive fiction in history.
The two official sources of satellite data on global temperatures, for instance, lately announced that June temperatures had again fallen, to their average level for the month over the 30 years since satellite data began. By contrast, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by Mr Gore's closest ally and scientific adviser, James Hansen – one of the two official sources of global temperature data from surface weather stations – announced that in that single month the world had warmed by a staggering 0.63 degrees C, more than its net warming for the entire 20th century.
In the past few years, Dr Hansen's temperature record has become ever more eccentric, often wildly at odds with the other three officially recognised data sources, all of which showed a dramatic drop in temperatures in 2007 leading to markedly cooler summers and two of the coldest and snowiest winters the world has known for decades. All this has equally made nonsense of the predictions of the computer models that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on, which are programmed to assume that temperatures should soar in line with rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but temperatures – apart from those revealed by Dr Hansen – have seriously parted company with them. This has not prevented the propaganda machine's media groupies continuing to peddle a daily stream of stories about how in all directions global warming is already affecting the world for the worse.
Soay sheep are shrinking in size (I am sure they've really noticed the global warming up on that bleak Scottish islet). The tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu, we are yet again told, is pleading for international aid, as it sinks below the rising ocean – even though an expert study in 2001 showed that sea levels around Tuvalu have in fact been falling for 50 years. Even a report on the record number of Painted Lady butterflies in Britain this summer cannot resist ending with a ritual forecast that many butterfly species will soon disappear because of "climate change".
Meanwhile even America's foremost pro-warmist scientific blog, RealClimate – run by, among others, Dr Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame – concedes that global temperatures are not only declining but are likely to continue to do so for at least another decade – after which, of course, they will leap up again higher than ever.
None of this is proving of much assistance to the politicians still desperately hoping to reach agreement on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. With the still-developing countries, led by China, India, Russia and Brazil, all saying that they will only co-operate if rich governments such as the US and the EU compensate them to the tune of trillions of dollars a year, the chances of any meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol look like zero. (India's environment minister delights these days in saying that his country has no intention of sabotaging its fast-growing economy by agreeing to curb its CO2 emissions.)
But we are already committed, in any case, to paying out barely credible sums for our blind faith in global warming (quite apart from the £100 billion Gordon Brown wants us to spend on 10,000 more useless windmills, most of which he hasn't got a hope of seeing built).
A new study by an Australian analyst, Joanne Nova, based on official figures (available at the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute), shows that since 1991 US federal spending alone on climate change has been $79 billion. The cost of international carbon trading in 2008 was a staggering $126 billion, and is soon likely to run into trillions, making buying and selling the right to emit CO2 "the largest single commodity traded" in the world. Yet for all that money (along with countless billions more spent in Britain and elsewhere), "no one is able to point to a single piece of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global climate".
Are we all missing something – apart from all of that money, of course? By Christopher Booker
- Blog post
- 4 months ago
- Favorite count: 3
- Views: 79
-
"My Dumb-Beotch Girlfriend" ~
- From: MysticFlower14
-
Description:
WRITTEN BY: MysticFlower14
In the police report, Ronald Cummings is quoted saying "My Dumb "Beotch" Girlfriend told him his daughter was missing." ( The report can be viewed at the end of this post.) It is certainly understandable that Ronald Cummings had every reason to be upset and angry the night Haleigh disappeared, but the wording and name-calling he uses is suspect of demeaning a person. It can be interpreted that Ronald Cummings has an anger problem and may be controlling. That's putting it mildly, IMO. As this case develops, we continue to see behaviors and hear statements indicative of domestic violence, drug abuse, low self-esteem, sexual abuse, and a host of other issues.
I will be adding to this blog and expanding the scope of this post. The focus will mainly look at the dynamics of the family relationships, following a review of relative events, rather than the day-to-day details of the search.
Since the start of this post, weeks have passed and we've seen behaviors, heard of past incidents, and found there's much we don't know.
History
Crystal Sheffield and Ron Cummings were never married. They have two children from their relationship. By Crystal's report, she left Ron and took the children with her. She did not deny Ronald visitation, and when he got the chance, Ron did not return the children following a visit. Ron filed for custody, and subsequently, he was granted custody. Crystal was given every other weekend visits. Ron cited, in his petition for custody, that Crystal missed doctor appointments, did not have a job, and was abusing drugs. The fact is, Crystal did not have a job, had been using drugs, did not have a vehicle, nor a driver's license. At the time of the custody hearing, it must have appeared to the judge that Ronald was the more stable of the two. Our lives are always changing and I am certain Ronald and Crystal are no different. Over time, Crystal claims her life has changed, as well as Ron's situation.
Crystal Cummings
Crystal now has an attorney originally hired to handle media issues. Since taking on the job, attorney Kim Picazio learned through friends, family, and neighbors of alledged verbal and physical abuse towards the children by Ronald. Crystal Sheffield and her attorney, Kim Picazio, also report physical, emotional, and verbal abuse towared Crystal while living with Ron Cummings, which Ron denies. I do think Crystal has "stretched" the truth on a few facts, but I do not doubt the abuse she endured.
One example of my opinion on Crystal's truthful accounting is Haleigh supposed "drowning". If Haleigh were face down in the water, as Crystal described, and not breathing, she would have had to revive the child. I am struggling with the fact that Crystal has the knowledge to revive a child who's drowned. Even if she did "revive" Haleigh, the child was not taken to the ER for medical treatment. Anyone who's enhaled water into their lungs needs medical treatment. Haleigh may have been in the water, and possibly struggling, but I do not believe she "drowned."
I suspect Crystal found Haleigh down by the water and possibly in the water. For fear of Ron learning she let Haleigh out of her sight when picking up the children for a weekend visit, Crystal fabricated an extended version of the events. Why? People/women tend to deflect the focus off of their "mistakes" when in fear of an irrational response. Crystal not paying attention to Haleigh while tending to her son in the car would bring on Ron's wrath.
Ronald Cummings
Ronald Cummings has a history of drug use and criminal charges. Those charges include possession of cocaine and marijuana, in amounts that exceed personal use. He's been charged with maintaining a drug vehicle and possession of drug paraphernalia. Additonally, he's been charged with shooting a firearm at deer at night on 2 occasions, leaving scene of accident with injuries 2 occasions, and tresspassing. There is also domestic violence listed on Crystal's court history, but the perpetrator was not clear.
Of the drugs in Ronald Cummings possession, GHB was listed. This, as most know, is the date rape drug. Ronald entered a plea of not guilty and was assigned a public defender as he was deemed indigent. He was also determined to be eligible for court intervention of a drug program which he declined. Although the charges could have brought Ron a maximum sentence of 5 years and/or $5K, he actually received a fine of $370. These charges were in 2005. So far, I've found that Ronald Cummings has been fined, been under 24 hour house arrest, given community service, and court ordered drug testing, but he's not served time in jail, that I could find. Does Ronald's mother's position as dispatcher have anything to do with the light consequences of Ronald's charges?
There was a court hearing scheduled for February 10th at 8:30 regarding custodial issues. It's been reported that Haleigh missed an extended number of days from school, unexcused. Ron told Crystal that if Haleigh missed another day of school, he would go to jail. Ron attributed these absences to illness.
Why do I suspect Ron has an uncontrollable temper? When Geraldo confronted Ron on national tv with the accusations by Crystal, Ron appeared calm and responded with denial. Looking and listening closer, Ron can be heard with a stressed voice and deliberate wording in his response to ever hitting or striking his child. He stated that he punished Haleigh as directed by DFCS on the proper manner of punishment by spanking her on the behind. It sounded to me as if he was quoting a social worker word-for-word. IMO, he had that response remembered, ready, and deliberate. There was an underlying glimpse of anger in his wording.
Ron seemingly remained calm while his mother continuously talked in the background, demanding that Geraldo leave. Ron's father stepped into the front of the camera and demanded they leave. Ron didn't have to do anything. His family took care of it for him. They gathered around him and protected him. Ok, so, he's at a vulnerable state with Haleigh missing. IMO, Ron did not look vulnerable when speaking to Geraldo. He looked very much in control; too much control. Ron seemed very comfortable with his family stepping in and putting a stop to the confrontation. Is this a pattern for this family? They put a stop to the interaction before Ron's behavior got out of control.
This family knows the signs of when Ron is going to explode. I heard that stress in his voice, and shortly after, his father steps in. This is typical in an abusive family. They know the signals and triggers, and will change the atmosphere, subject, or situation in order to avoid an eruption from the abuser.
Misty Croslin Cummings
On February 15th, we learned through Crystal Sheffield and her mother, Marie Griffis, that Misty is a victim of sexual abuse. Misty admited to Crystal of being sexually abused by a "first cousin when she was 13 years old." Misty told Geraldo's brother, Craig, this also, in addition to stating this cousin visited family in the community. His name is Joe Overstreet. According to Misty, Joe was in the home during his visits and left Satsuma on February 10th. This was also confirmed by Misty's mother, Lisa Croslin. This cousin, Joe, lives in Tennessee and is a registered sex offender. Misty conveyed all of this information to the Putnam County Sheriff's office following her disclosure to Craig (Geraldo). ( Information derived from the Geraldo Show through interviews )As far as we know there are no suspects. Misty claims to be cooperating with LE, as well as Ron. LE keeps going back to Misty with more questions and at last count, she'd taken at least 3 polygraphs, and possibly four. Misty claims she has passed the polys everytime. Putnam County LE has not confirmed this.
Captain Dick Schauland confirmed on March 13th that investigators do have concerns about the timeline Misty has provided
. Captain Schauland stated that no one has been ruled out as a suspect. He went on to state that he would "not consider Misty as a suspect, but she is key" to the investigation. In regards to Misty's claim she passed the polygraph, Captain Schauland stated typically people are not told "whether they pass or didn't pass." The polygraph is not a pass/fail examination. Each question is rated on it's on merit as either deception or inconclusive on question 1, 2, or 3.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is the police report from the night Haleigh was reported missing. Not only does it conflict with later statements made, but gives us insight into what Misty Croslin's life is like, as well as what the two children might endure.
The report is in pdf format.INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE INCIDENT REPORT
Putnam County Sheriff's Office
Incident No.: 1325
Missing Persons Investigation(Skipping over the Address and Witness Information as It is Not Relative at This time)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (transcribed from the incident report)
"I was dispatched to 202 Green Drive, in reference to this report of a missing 5 year old child. Due to the age of the child I responded to this location code 3, blue lights and sirens. D/S Bridges and I arrived on the scene at the same, 3:40. Upon our arrival I observed a white male standing in the driveway who was visibly upset. I made contact with the individual who identified himself as Ronald Cummings. Ronald told me that his daughter, Haleigh Cummings, age 5, was missing.
I asked Ronald what happened, and he told me that he just got from work, and his, 'dumb (beotch) girlfriend' told him his daughter was missing. Ronald said that he did not know what Haleigh was wearing and that all he knew was the back door was standing open. Ronald repeatedly said that someone had taken his child and also said, 'when I find him, I'll kill him.' Ron referred to a 9 mm Hand gun which he owned inside of his residence and said that if law enforcement found whoever had his child he would shoot them through the back window of the patrol car. I attempted to get information from Ronald regarding Haleigh however, due to his emotional state he was unable to provide any useful information."
Reporting Officer: R. Nelson
This is just my opinion based on news, media reports, and my observations of family and their statements. In no way am I attempting to create rumor or cast guilt on anyone. This is speculation on my part, and should not be construed as fact or accusation.
WRITTEN BY: MysticFlower14
- Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 5032
-
Haleigh Cummings case
- From: WOFLweb
-
Description:
Haleigh Cummings was last seen at her residence in the Hermit's Cove area of Putnam County on February 9, 2009 between the hours of 8-10pm.
Haleigh is described as a 5 year old white female. She is approximately 3'0, 39 lbs, blonde hair & brown eyes. Unknown clothing description.
A statewide Amber Alert has been issued. An additional $35,000 in rewards have been posted.
If you have any information and wish to remain anonymous, please call Crime Stoppers at 1-888-277-TIPS (8477) or you can Text your tip by Texting “TIP231 plus your message” to CRIMES (274637). We don’t want your name; just your information and you could be eligible for a reward up to $1000.00 - Blog post
- 7 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 4451
-
Casey Address
- From: sherilynn
-
Description:
Uncle Rick's Wedding, Not Pregnant - There are jail rules for all incoming mail. OJC site will provide rules and regs.
- Intended to delete blog but was encouraged to keep it up for those looking for address.When number of hits goes down, so will blog.
- Thanks to all friends I have met here and supported me thru hard and trying times. Sincerely, Sheri
Orange County Jail
Casey Marie Anthony
08049710 F-DORML - 12
P.O. Box 4970
Orlando, Florida 32802-4970 - Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 1548
-
EXTRATERRESTRIAL
- From: faithphillippe
-
Description:
Definition. "Webster's Desk Dictionary,1993." : adj. 1. existing or originating outside the limits of earth. -n. 2. an extraterrestrial being.
THERE ARE BILLIONS OF GALAXIES
Are we alone?
I for one have had some experiences that tells me we are not alone!
WHAT DO YOU THINK, AND WHY?
- Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 1258
-
INTELLEGENT DESIGN VS. EVOLUTI
- From: faithphillippe
-
Description:
TO ME IT IS ARROGANT TO THINK THAT WE ARE NOT A PART OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
THAT WE SOMEHOW JUST APPEARED 6000YRS AGO.
I would like to see good arguments concerning these polar opposite theories.
I think that there is a design in the universe-I think that there is a Creator behind the design. However, why can it not be evolution?
- Blog post
- 7 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 1060
-
Belated Birthday GIft Items fo
- From: MysticFlower14
-
Description:
If you like this blog, please rate it. I want to see how many people are interested in Casey's jail time. LMBO!
On March 19th, Casey turned 23. Although her birthday has passed, we can keep adding to the list. I think Casey deserves our esteemed well wishes for a great year in the county jail, with MANY MORE to come.
What do you give a girl who has everything she ever wanted as an inmate in the Orange County Jail? She has an expense account that surpasses other inmates. So, the dilemma is...what do I send her?
I'm hoping all of you can help me with your suggestions of what you think Casey "DESERVES" for a birthday gift. Let your imagination run WILD!
Your suggestion can be anything (because I am not actually send her one thing). ROFL
Just a litle way to let off some steam and have a little fun. If you miss the birthday deadline, don't worry; she can receive belated gifts, as well. Get creative. This is like giving "gag" gifts, so let's get a list going of potential gifts.
YES, swflmother gave me the idea with her blog on shower gifts for Octomom! Thanks swflmother!
These are great gifts! Keep them coming. :)
Birthday Gifts
- Utter and complete boycott of all things Anthony by areusure
- Nice wall paper with pictures of Caylee by justmelaura13
- Framed picture of all her friends out having fun without her by justmelaura13
- New coat made from dead squirrels with red heart shaped buttons by justmelaura13
- A bottle of toilet water scented with the night outs barf by justmelaura13
- Book on how to win him over and influence people by justmelaura13
- Get it right check list on being the mother of the year by justmelaura13
- Designer bag made from a real gas can by justmelaura13
- New sunglasses that say I'm stupid by justmelaura13
- Chloroform by pLOp25
- Duct Tape by TIGER
- Winnie the Pooh blanket by Kippe401
- Shovel by Kippe401
- A picture of Tony with a new girlfriend out partying for St. Patty's Day by Kippe401
- Red heart stickers by TIGER
- Video of Caylee singing, "You are my Sunshine" by Kippe401
- Some chloroform, trash bags, a dead squirel, one of big johnnys videos by lindaintexas,
- All of Big Johnny videos of Caylee by TIGER
- Send her pictures of people having fun with their little girls to see what she could of been doing if she didn't kill one of the cutest little girls. Oh well she will have a view of the bars by nomore999
- Wallpaper for her jail cell with a collage of Caylee's face by MysticFlower14
- One nice, long, private visit with Big Bertha by MysticFlower14
- A "Planner" so she can hosts all the "New" Parties with her inmates by loves2shop
- A Doll That stands just out of her arm reach in Jail that says: Mommy Mommy Mommy Mommy Mommy Mommy Mommy Mommy by loves2shop
- A condom...with instructions explaining how the other one burst and she ended up pregnant by hawki123
- A beautiful picture of an innocent child, Caley.......with a b-card that reads: Mommie where am I? what have you done mommie? I see you get to STILL celebrate a birthday, while I can only see from above a mommie with NO REMORSE FOR THE LOSS OF HER CHILD MOMMIE....AND WHILE I UPSTAIRS WITH THE MASTER OUR LORD, I WILL ASK THAT HE FORVITH YOU MOMMIE AND PERHAPS GIVES YOU MANY MORE B-DAYS TO CELEBRATE CAUSE WHERE YOU ARE GOING, I WAS TOLD BY AN ANGEL WILL BE THE DAY, I WILL REJOICE IN THE LORD............HAVE A BLAST MOMMIE AND DON'T LET MR. BAEZ BLOW YOUR CANDLES...heee jeeeee... by candyaquino
- A stroll out to the exercise yard alone; no guards, where she can say hello, smile, and chat with the other inmates by MysticFlower14
- Sending her my love and prayers by ehinsanford
- A copy of The Ten Commandments by resolution1
- A Hefty garbage bag and a tape of Caylee singing You Are My Sunshine by mofogo
- A short rope and an exposed beam ceiling by mofogo
- Send her a little heart sticker on some duck tape by BornToBeWild
- An all expenses paid trip to a wooded lot, where her lodgings would include the drug of choice...to lull her to sleep, and triple wrapped Hefty comfort for warmth bylobosmamo
- Pizza with a side of maggots slightly toasted in the trunk of a car for a few hours to savor the taste by ANGELMEDIC40
- A beautifully large dil doe by candyaquino
- Include chloroform with your gifts to help her rest by pLOp25
- Pic of Tony and a new girlfriend by TexasChick8081
- A copy of her texts of her an amy and amys interview with cops by TexasChick8081
- Copy of her and tonys texts so she would know SHES SCREWED by TexasChick8081
- Acid - to help the process of her evil hands to slowly melt away by caitlinrae
- Put her in electric chair take her picture and plaster that photo all over her jail cell letting her stare at it day after day by sweetpea
- A picture of caylee. that would be the worse gift she could get by skyangel1
- Four days and nights locked in the trunk of a car with duct tape over her mouth by MysticFlower
- A note written from Caylee in Heaven by OTownNick
- A new mother because her mother is a sociopath by sgin_NV
Pushes her head in a toliet full of feces by retasueus
Cindy arrested by bonjovilover
Showing the world her motive behind killing her own daughter through her diary by justmelaura
Release Casey into general population wearing the "Help Find Caylee" t-shirt by fromtherock
A few rolls of duck tape for around her big ass & mouth, and a skull sticker for her poisonous self by tampp2
An epiphany by areusure
- An open jar with the decomp of Caylee in her jail cell for her to smell 24/7 by preciousbabies
- Chloroform facial mask by MysticFlower
- Blog post
- 8 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 1004
-
another missing child in flori
- From: lindaintexas
-
Description:
Well now i have two cases in florida i am watching. The new case is little haleigh cummins who is 5 years old. I am not sure what I even think about this new case. Both familys seem to have alot of problems, The one i am concerned about is misty tho, her story kept changing and theres just something about her that makes me not trust her, no specific thing, just a feeling. I really hope that find this little girl alive and ok, and that her bio mom didn't have anything to do with her being missing. I have my two grand babies and the thought of some one taking one of them is almost moe than i could bear. I know I would completely lost it if something like this would ever happen to my family.
- Blog post
- 8 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 980
-
Is Driving A Right Or Privileg
- From: Tattoo_Gypsy
-
Description:
Recently a blogger on here wrote that quote; "Operating a vehicle on the street, roads or highways or any place accessible to the public is a PRIVILEGE, not a right as many think, that is granted by the state."
It is funny (not) how the government has made so many Americans believe that certain things are supposedly privileges, granted to us by some kind of kind and benevolent government, and are not rights, which is exactly what they truly are.
Because in fact, operating a vehicle on the street, roads or highways or any place accessible to the public is a RIGHT.
So before we go any further, let's examine a few FACTS.
From the courts:
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
And I also have many more court citations I could post here. But unless you enjoy reading legalese just for fun, it gets a bit too much to post, not to mention pretty redundant.
Bottom line, It is clear that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty.
So then where does the misconception come from that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege?
Sorry, have to go back to some more court decisions;
"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and again, other cases too numerous to mention.
OK, now it is starting to make a bit of sense. Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
So the states decided to screw around, and make the idea of doing business on the highways, mean the same thing as a private person in their car.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so radically and obviously from one who uses the highway as a place of business?
Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
Now this legal position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Clearly, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state AND federal have all held so.
Keep in mind it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes.
But their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...
· Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right;
· Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.
Now it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."
Therefore, it is concluded that the average Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."
I could go on and on quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers the question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
In this manner, the government does not have the authority for the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.
So there is no confusion, allow me to define Unalienable Right.The Declaration of Independence states that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."
The Declaration recognizes that unalienable rights are defined as coming from our Creator, NOT any person or Government.
Neither the Declaration or the Constitution could enumerate all the rights which were to be protected. They could, however, point to the source of rights - our Creator - for reference by future generations.
So our RIGHTS are inherent. They are not gifts from, or bestowed upon us, from some government or law. They exist above and beyond the law and government. Meaning the government (at least not without due process) cannot remove those RIGHTS from us, nor turn those rights into privileges.
This ultimately means, free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants (in other words: our government) for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day.
Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads.
In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.
One aspect of personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.
Still do not believe me that driving on the public roads is a RIGHT and not a privilege?
Think about it this way; if you got a letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles that informed you that your driving "privileges" have been suspended simply because your sister refused to go on a date with the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles, you'd have a very good case in court when you sued them. If driving really was only a "privilege", you'd have no legal recourse.
Ok, ok, I'll admit most people (including me) are willing to accept the inconvenience of first demonstrating that we can safely operate a vehicle before being able do operate one on a public road.
But that does not mean that we accept that driving is a "privilege" that can be whisked away by the State at any time for any reason.
The reason this whole thing bugs me is the fact that some in the Government now are trying to say that other things are only privileges, "just like driving is a privilege." For example, consider that Obama apparently considers free speech to be a privilege.
I think you'll find most state constitutions have language regarding the "right to travel" under the common law vs statutory law which most states operated under until the 1930's.
When most states adopted statutory laws, the right to travel became a "privilege" given to citizens by virtue of a drivers license. Likewise, getting married is privilege given to couples by the state through the marriage license. Anything granted to you by the state is a privilege, not a right.
But that does not mean to say that the state or federal government, has the legal or constitutional RIGHT to turn YOUR OR MY INALIENABLE RIGHTS into a Privilege.
Remember:
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
And:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." -Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)
"The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men." -United States Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Semper Fi
Tattoo Gypsy
http://tattoo-gypsy@blogspot.com
- Blog post
- 9 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 724
-
Profiling the Troll
- From: PickleBarrel
-
Description:
Profiling the Troll
Every blog/forum has at least one troublemaker. They are the ones who generally need to be the center of attention or a “know-it-all”. They are the ones that are always right and everyone else is wrong. Their only defense is to call posters names, curse, talk like a child or character, or pretend to be family within the given situation. They try to sway opinions by bullying and threats. An Internet “troll” is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
Troublermakers often change their screen names, sometimes creating an alter-ego to fight. They may change the name but the writing and the messages are always the same.
The spitfire: Mild volcanic erruptions bashing who they feel needs it. When done, they are done and expect everyone else to follow suit. They act as if they are the administrator/moderator but enjoys being in the middle of the fire when it is suited.
The Pucker Upper: We have a better name for them but I will be somewhat nice. They are the ones that claim to be new, never posted before. Rant that the site is a nice place and ask questions they already know the answer to. Reminds me of childhood days in school, the one that wants to sit in the front of the class and become the teacher’s pet.
The Terminator: Expects their last word to end it all. They post on every topic and continue to post a comment after every other poster.
The Show-Off: This is the one that will post anything to get attention. It may be a joke or talk in jibberish just to get a response from others. They usually don’t like someone else getting the attention so they “better up” to get the attention back on them.
The Play Innocent: They will belittle posters in their posts. When they are confronted, they act like they don’t know what anyone is talking about. Probably one of those co-workers you love to hate. They belittle you or start trouble and when you confront them, they are loud enough for a boss to hear and act innocent so it comes back on you as the troublemaker.
The Hide ‘n Seek: They will either post an attention getter or start a feud and never post again. After starting a fight, they may apologize but they are right back to the feuding. Beware, they may be the one that emails or notifies the moderator. Some will post a comment that would be newsworthy, if true, but they make their visit short and sweet and leave others guessing.
Troublemakers can be anyone on the blog/forum. They hide behind their computer and spew insinuations or accusations without naming names. It is playing the old game “I know something that you don’t know”. I say, Grow Up!
To read similar stories:
- Blog post
- 5 months ago
- Favorite count: 2
- Views: 580
-
Fighting President Obama
- From: candyaquino
-
Description:
is just the American thing to do......if we want to remain THE LAND OF THE FREE AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
OBAMA'S WAR ON THE TRUTH - AND THE TRUTHTELLERS
OBAMA'S STALINISTIC ATTACK ON HIS DETRACTORS IS BACKFIRING.
MORE HERE.
DO YOU LIKE LIBERTY? THEN FIGHT OBAMA.
DO YOU LIKE PROSPERITY? THEN FIGHT OBAMA.
DO YOU LIKE TRUTH? THEN FIGHT OBAMA.
Obama's policies will ruin America just as they have ruined every nation they've ever been tried in.
AND YES, I MEAN SOCIALIST EUROPE AS MUCH AS ZIMBABWE AND NORTH KOREA AND CUBA AND SO ON!
France and Germany and Spain - often cited as paradise by libs and lefties - endured unemployment TWICE as high as America's all during the Bush years.
And they can't afford their entitlement liabilities.
Rooting against Obama's success - DISSENTING FROM HIS POLICES! - is PATRIOTIC.
Pointing out how Obama and his comrades are ruining our country is not only our right; it's our duty. - Blog post
- 8 months ago
- Favorite count: -2
- Views: 110
Terms of Service
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Community Policy | Feedback | Jobs | TV Ratings | Advertise with Us | News Corp
News | Weather | Traffic | Sports | Money | Entertainment | Health | Blogs | Mornings | Contact Us
Many pages in this Fox Television Stations, Inc. web site feature links to other sites, some of which are operated by companies unrelated to Fox Television Stations, Inc. Fox Television Stations, Inc. has no control over the content or availability of any linked site.
TM and (c) 2008 Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its related entities. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication, or distribution in any form is expressly prohibited