I must have missed the meeting where everybody decided that having actual national borders is a violation of basic human rights. (But only for the U.S.-- every other country can have borders with no problem.)
> Expect the knock-on effects to result in > harassment of innocent citizens.
Unless those citizens are swimming across a river or climbing a fence to get into the country, I see no reason why they'd be harassed. Indeed, if they *are* doing those things, they deserve to be harassed right along with the illegals.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
How does that not apply? They're taking the private property of citizens for (ostensibly) public use-- law enforcement purposes-- and not compensating them for it.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that "just compensation" is fair market value, then the DEA should have to pay the fair market value for the $77,000 in cash that it took-- and fair market value on $77,000 in cash turns out to be $77,000.
> As Mr. Trump explained in an interview with > Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on March 30, 2011, > "[t]hey're coming over, and they're climbing > over a fence, and there's nobody within 10 > miles -- and they're selling drugs all over > the place, they're killing people all over > the place -- and we're not doing anything > about it."
> Indeed. It may be true that Trump has said > offensive things in the past
How the hell is that offensive? It's *true*. Illegals *do* account for a significant amount of crime in the U.S. Are we not even allowed to acknowledge reality anymore out of the abject terror of offending someone?
We had a brilliant Chinese kid at USC get viciously murdered by a couple of illegals last year. Illegals who were on their second or third capture-deport-capture-deport merry-go-round. When the kid's parents in China tried to book travel to the U.S. to claim their son's body and bring it back home, U.S. Immigration gave them no end of grief and red tape. When it comes to grieving parents, they're suddenly all concerned about strictly enforcing immigration law-- dotting those i's and crossing those t's-- but the two sociopaths who killed the kid? It's hands off them. They're Mexicans and enforcing the law against them would rrraaaaaciiiist or something.
> The piracy mention took up less than 30 seconds > of the 15 minutes of pre movie ads.
Which is why I only patronize one theater chain here in Los Angeles-- Arclight. They do not have any pre-show advertising at all-- they just project soothing abstract color patterns on the screen while various film soundtracks play quietly in the background-- and they even limit the trailers to three per showing.
And I've let the management know that I exclusively patrionize their business for that very reason, to reinforce to them that they're doing something right.
> Yet more fond gun-lover mythology, totally > divorced from the facts.
Could you please explain how, if guns are to blame, that the city of Detroit which makes up only 9.8% of Michigan's total population, somehow accounts for 58% of the murders in the state, where all residents have the same access to firearms and are all subject to the same state and federal gun laws? (Despite neighboring communities literally sharing a border with the city having a murder rate that is only a fraction of Detroit's?)
Because if guns are to blame, then the murder should be more or less equal throughout the state.
> I just hope they don't ban Dukes of Hazard > because of the car...
If you take the VIP studio tour at Warner Bros. Studios, one of the stops is a display of various picture cars used in movies and TV shows over the years-- everything from the many incarnations of the Batmobile, to the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine and Austin Powers' Mini Cooper. Last time I was there, they had one of the original DUKES OF HAZZARD hero car General Lees on display, but with no Confederate flag on the roof, which prompted one of the other guests to doubt its authenticity. The tour guide replied that they chose to deface this piece of television history by painting over the flag after someone on the tour complained about being offended by it.
So to all those who say this isn't about sanitizing history and the flag is fine if confined to a museum, here's an example of how even museums are pressured to, and cave to, political correctness.
> Some terms it monitors (both in text > messages and searches) would obviously raise > concerns in parents
Why would the words "handicap" and "menstruation" obviously raise concerns in parents? And what kid is going to actually use the word "menstruation", anyway? They'll use "period" or "rag" or whatever the South Korean slang for it is.
And it seems like the best way to get around this (especially the "nagware" part of the law) is to just not tell the retailer you're buying the phone for your kid. Just say it's for yourself or your spouse or something, and then give it to your kid when you get home.
> Logically it sounds like I need to start > thinking of installing a panic room as the > only legal way to protect myself from this
It's amazing how many millions of people manage to go their whole lives never having the cops execute a raid/search warrant on their home. Unless you're actually a dealer of illicit narcotics, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being raided by the cops, yet you believe the only *logical* way to keep it from happening to you is to install a panic room in your home?
It's apparent that you and logic aren't even passing acquaintances.
That isn't what Christenson said. He said: "for the SUSPECT's words to be admissible in court, it has to be on camera. Otherwise, its presumed to be perjury."
So he's not talking about charging the cop with perjury for off-camera statements. He's advocating charging the *defendant* with perjury for repeating anything in court that wasn't captured on camera at the time of the arrest.