April 9-12, 2013
Apr 09 02:11 Pension bailout spin Apr 10 13:28 Raise taxes first, think things through later Apr 11 02:06 DFL Debt Bill riddled with foolish spending Apr 11 09:43 Bringing a baseball bat to a gunfight Apr 11 15:12 The true Second Amendment test Apr 11 16:36 Graves will run against Michele Bachmann Apr 11 23:21 Pay raises, tax hikes a nasty DFL cocktail Apr 12 01:30 McAuliffe in trouble in Virginia, Mississippi Apr 12 04:33 Bill O'Reilly: Constitutionally ignorant
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Pension bailout spin
Last week, the pension bailout was big news . After complaints boke out about the DFL bailout, pension fund bailout activists quickly started a counterspin campaign :
The casual reader may be taken aback by the $36 million figure, only $13 million of which is taxpayer money. The balance is fees tacked on to homeowner and auto insurance policies to bolster police and firefighter retirement funds. The $26 million is a significant difference.
First, someone should instruct Mr. Leathers that $13 million + $23 million doesn't equal $36 million. Mr. Leathers' math difficulties notwithstanding, he seems to think that $13 million of taxpayer money is incidental. It isn't. It's money out of hardworking families' wallets at a time when incomes are stagnant. That's before talking about the fact that the surcharge on homeowner and auto insurance policies, which, again, is money taken from hardworking families' wallets.
Unfortunately, the spin gets worse after that:
What is also significant is that Minnesota public sector pensions are extremely modest. They account for 1.6 percent of the state budget, compared with the national average of 2.9 percent. While some states' pension funds are facing bankruptcy, Minnesota's funds are in 'decent if not perfect' shape, as the story puts it. When asked about the management of public pensions in the state, Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement chair Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, stated, 'We are responsible.'
TRANSLATION: We're in great shape compared with California, New Jersey and Illinois. That's hardly proof that Minnesota's pensions are in "decent, if not perfect" shape. It's just proof that they aren't on the verge of being totally insolvent.
The St. Paul and Duluth teacher funds are unique, and currently both are freestanding. Each has more than 100 years of responsible operation and a detailed plan to become solvent. Dave Anderson, who represents the Duluth Retired Teacher Association, commented at a recent hearing on what he would do to put his district's pension plan on sound footing: 'We will do whatever is good for our members and also what is good for the state of Minnesota.'
The St. Paul and Duluth funds aren't "freestanding" because of the bailouts they've received. Furthermore, Duluth's pension fund is only 63% funded. That's pathetic in any situation. It's especially pathetic at a time when the stock market is sitting at its highest mark ever. If they aren't fully funded when the stock market is going gangbusters, why should we think that they'll ever be close to solvent?
As for Mr. Anderson's statement that the Duluth Retired Teacher Association would "do whatever is good for our members and also do what is good for the state of Minnesota", I'd believe that they'll do what's best for their members. I'm certain they won't do what's best for Minnesota.
Posted Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:11 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 09-Apr-13 12:12 PM
When asked about the management of public pensions in the state, Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement chair Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, stated, 'We are responsible.'
Yeah, Sandy. You guys are responsible, all right. Just not in the way you meant to say it.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Apr-13 03:42 PM
Gary, somebody should tell Mr. Gross to proofread his opening paragraphs.
"First, someone should instruct Mr. Leathers that $13 million + $23 million doesn't equal $36 million. Mr. Leathers' math difficulties notwithstanding, ...".
I know what you intended to write, that is clear from the quote, but that is not what you wrote. Which proves that the error by Leathers is inconsequential - as much so as yours.
Have a nice day.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 10-Apr-13 02:27 PM
If "we" are responsilbe for "their" pensions, then I would like to change "their" retirement age to 65 years of age and "their" benefits to whatever is in the account plus whatever they can make on investments, you know kind of how I'm going to have to make it when I retire. I'm getting tired of paying for everyone else's retirement and not having enough to support my own retirement account.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-13 06:32 PM
Chad, you simply aren't enlightened. According to these spinmeisters, this bailout is a good deal for Minnesota taxpayers. (Methinks in the same way Pelosi thinks that unemployement checks help grow the economy.)
Raise taxes first, think things through later
There's ample proof that the DFL's mindset is to raise taxes, then figure out whether their legislation has negative consequences. This article is proof of that:
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton has said snowbirds aren't paying their fair share and he has come up with a proposal that has been dubbed "the snowbird tax."
"We go in the summertime, we have family there," said Valley resident Jim Jewett. Although a job forced him to trade snow for sunshine, they often spend a couple months a year in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes." "We just completed plans to build there, a seasonal home," Jewett said.
Right now, only those who spend six months or more in Minnesota have to pay income taxes, but if Dayton has his way, that would change to those who spend 60 days or more in the state. "The first reaction I think most people have when they hear of a new tax is, 'Here's a way for the government to get more money because they're running short,'" Jewett said.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue said this proposal would raise $15 million a year and that it's a matter of fairness.
"The tax applies seemingly to people who are retired, primarily, or have seasonal homes there, fixed incomes. It's another tap on that income," Jewett said.
Business attorney Jonathan Frutkin said whenever tax laws change, people react, causing some snowbirds to fly the coop. "Minnesota would give you a credit for the amount you paid in Arizona taxes, but because the Minnesota rate is basically double that in Arizona, the result would be you are paying twice as much than if the law were to stay the same," Frutkin said.
Jewett said if this passes, he might have to rethink his investment. "Go to Minnesota and just stay in a resort or cabin or something and not have a place any longer," Jewett said.
Think of this as another DFL tax increase that would hurt Minnesota. Further, this isn't a matter of fairness. It's a matter of stupidity. In fact, it might be a constitutional matter.
This isn't the first time the Dayton/DFL tax increase proposals would have a negative impact on Minnesotans. Gov. Dayton's proposed sales tax increase would've taxed kids babysitting their neighbor's kids and kids shovelling snow and mowing lawns :
REP. ZELLERS: But if I pay him every month $20 or $100, is that going to be or is he going to have to start collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Minnesota?
COMMISSIONER FRANS: ...He probably would. If it was a monthly charge, then there likely would be a sales tax charge.
REP. ZELLERS: So then someone mowing my lawn, someone shovelling snow for me during the winter time or a babysitter?
COMMISSIONER FRANS: Those services would generally all be covered by the sales tax.
Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposals will hurt retirees and young people trying to make money. That's the definition of counterproductive tax policy. It's true that Gov. Dayton has since taken his sales tax increase proposal off the table. Still, the thought that Gov. Dayton would propose this legislation without thinking through the details first is frightening.
Now we're seeing that habit played out again. Gov. Dayton's snowbird tax proposal would hurt Minnesotans by causing retirees to stay in Arizona and other warm-climate states. Gov. Dayton's cigarette tax increase proposal would hurt convenience stores by increasing the size of the cigarette underground economy.
The truth is that Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposals will hurt people, will drive people to other states or expand underground economies. That isn't budgeting for a Better Minnesota. That's a budget to diminish prosperity in Minnesota. Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'll touch on that in another post later today.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Snowbird Tax , Cigarette Tax , Sales Tax , Tax Increases , Babysitters , Convenience Stores , Underground Economy , Income Tax , DFL
Posted Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:28 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 10-Apr-13 01:49 PM
A snow bird tax? Using T Paw"s words: Profoundly stupid.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 10-Apr-13 07:10 PM
You think that Gov. Dayton "thinks" through ANYTHING? Since they don't even know what they are doing with the money they already tax away, and have no idea what they need additional revenue FOR, they are raising taxes just because it's the one thing they /feel/ they should be doing. Taxes to them are all about fairness and can never, ever, go down. All money belongs to the almighty State and anything they let you keep is a testament to their beneficent dictatorship.
DFL Debt Bill riddled with foolish spending
The DFL's Debt Bill , aka the bonding bill, is filled with foolish spending proposals. It's an insult to Minnesota's taxpayers that spends money on outright pork. Here's the first example that caught my attention:
Subd. 3. Central Lakes College, Staples
Agriculture Reconfiguration and Main Building Renovation $3,458,000
To complete the design of and to renovate, furnish, and equip Staples main campus spaces for science, technology, and math initiatives, agriculture, and energy programs, and to replace HVAC systems.
That's insulting. There's another Central Lakes Community College campus in Brainerd. There's also an online CLCC campus. It's likely that online campuses will largely replace brick-and-mortar campuses within a decade. If that's true, taxpayers will still be making the payments on this renovation after the buildings, and perhaps the entire Staples campus, is a part of history. Having people make interest payments on something that's obsolete is the definition of stupidity. Here's another definition of stupidity:
Subd. 4. Metropolitan State University Science Education Center Construction $31,000,000
To complete design and to construct, furnish, and equip the science education center on the campus of Metropolitan State University.
Which campus would this building be built on? Would it be built on the St. Paul Campus? Or the Minneapolis Campus? Might it be built on the Midway Campus? All that I'm certain of is that it wouldn't be built on the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Education Center campus.
Why are politicians putting these burdens on taxpayers when they should be revamping and consolidating these campuses? To spend tons of money on 34 colleges inhabiting 53 campuses is fiscally irresponsible. For those keeping track at home, that's 35,000,000 spent on 2 projects. Here's another set of projects that shouldn't be approved:
Subd. 11. Systemwide energy renovation and additions $3,700,000
To design, renovate, demolish, construct, furnish, and equip space for workforce training and programs for energy and sustainable development. This appropriation may be used at the following campuses:
Anoka Technical College; Century College; Minnesota West Community and Technical College, Canby and Jackson; and Northeast Higher Education District, Itasca Community College.
It's best to think of this spending as pork. Buying into the green energy economy is a total waste of money. It's spending money on something that's failed repeatedly. The green energy economy is based almost entirely on whether you've been a productive fundraiser for President Obama. It isn't based on finding what's the most efficient and least costly forms of energy.
This global appropriation is especially disturbing:
Subd. 4. State Trails Development $16,215,000
Are these projects that important? The argument is that it's 'a quality of life issue'. The truth is that it's a pork issue. It isn't enough that interest rates are low. It's that these projects are a waste of money. Another argument is that these projects create jobs. I'd argue that they create more debt than jobs. I'd further argue that there's better ways of creating these trails than by spending state money on them, then adding interest payments to the projects.
Finally, it's insulting to hear the DFL call these bills jobs bills. There's no such thing as a jobs bill. You can't create longlasting jobs without creating wealth and capital. The DFL's premise is that jobs are created by government spending money on things that don't create wealth. That's the premise that President Obama used in putting the stimulus together. We know that that failed. Why would we think that using the same premise on a smaller scale will create jobs?
Tags: Bonding Bill , Pork , State Trails , MnSCU , Central Lakes Community College , Metropolitan State , Jobs Bill , Debt , Interest Payments , DFL
Posted Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:06 AM
No comments.
Bringing a baseball bat to a gunfight
Columnist John Cass has written a column about a disturbing incident in Chicago . Here's the video that's going viral:
Kass's column got my blood boiling. This is what got me started:
The video, posted by the Tribune's Breaking News Center, shows in vivid and frightening detail how armed thugs robbed a gift and sports store Tuesday in the Logan Square neighborhood.
You can see the gunman demand the money. You see the store owner's brother-in-law with a gun to his head. You see the shots being fired, and the bat wielded by a wounded and desperate Luis Quizhpe, the 62-year-old proprietor who fought for his life.
That's what got me started but this is what's got me seeing red:
On Wednesday we called Roderick Drew, spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel's Law Department, who told us that store owners are prohibited from carrying handguns.
"A business owner can register a long gun (rifle or shotgun) for their fixed place of business, but it has to stay on the premises," Drew said. "The business owner cannot register or bring a handgun to his place of business. The only place a person can lawfully have a handgun is the home."
Chicago's and Illinois' royalty are protected but shop owners are without protection. Rahm Emanuel is part of that royalty. He's protected. Mr. Quizhpe isn't part of that royalty. He was shot. Repeatedly. If Mr. Quizhpe had used a handgun to defend himself, there's little doubt that Emanuel would've had him arrested and prosecuted.
During the Clinton administration, President Clinton talked about "people that work hard and played by the rules." He suggested that he'd fight for them. In Emanuel's Chicago, "people that work hard and play by the rules" get shot while the city turns a blind eye towards the victims:
Quizhpe said he's considering selling the store his family has run for decades.
"I've been thinking about selling everything off and changing my business," he said. "The reality is, with everything going on, it's difficult to put myself and my family in danger."
Democrats frequently talk about hunting when the conversation turns to the Second Amendment. That isn't what the Second Amendment is about. It's about the right of the citizenry to protect themselves from criminals and tyrant politicians like Emanuel. Chicago is doing everything possible to prevent people from protecting their families and businesses.
That's clearly a violation of Mr. Quizhpe's Second Amendment rights. Thankfully, Kass has written about this horrific event:
Anti-gun policy wonks talk in abstract terms. But it's not abstract for victims. It's not abstract for Quizhpe. And it wasn't abstract for Michael Kozel, 57, who for 20 years owned a muffler shop in the Gage Park neighborhood. On Jan. 3 he was shot dead in the back by robbers, one of the 42 homicides that month. Chicago has already forgotten his name.
Politicians that won't let citizens protect themselves from gun-toting thugs should be run out of office. There's no chance that Emanuel will be run out of office. He'll be praised by gun control activists across the nation. That's the definition of being un-American. There's nothing more un-American than acting like royalty while telling the citizenry that they can't protect themselves.
When will Chicago take its city back? When will they admit that shopkeepers have the right to protect themselves against violent thugs?
Tags: Second Amendment , Chicago , Homicide , Rahm Emanuel , Criminals , Violence , Royalty , Democrats , Luis Quizhpe , Small Business Owner , Baseball Bat , Citizens , Public Safety
Posted Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:43 AM
No comments.
The true Second Amendment test
Democrats defensively say that they're defending the Second Amendment but that isn't the truth. If they were, they wouldn't make the statements like this :
'What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners' right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?' he asked.
The true test of whether Democrats are advocates of a citizen's right to protect himself, his family or his business is whether they'll fight for Chicago shopkeepers' rights to protect themselves with a handgun. Unless they're willing to tell fanatics like Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg, John Hickenlooper and Andrew Cuomo that their policies are anti-constitutional and dangerous, then Democrats shouldn't be given credibility during Second Amendment conversations.
I'm not interested in finding 'common ground' with Constitution-hating zealots like Andrew Cuomo or Rahm Emanuel. Politicians like them are far beyond the mainstream on the Second Amendment. If they want to admit that they've been wrong about the Second Amendment and that they're changing their position by 180 degrees, then there's room to talk. If they aren't willing to change their position, there isn't much to talk about.
Tags: Second Amendment , Public Safety , Luis Quizhpe , Chicago , Rahm Emanuel , Michael Bloomberg , John Hickenlooper , Andrew Cuomo , Democrats
Posted Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:12 PM
No comments.
Graves will run against Michele Bachmann
Today, Jim Graves made it official today by announcing that he's running against Michele Bachmann again :
In a statement, the AmericInn Hotel chain founder took a veiled jab at his opponent's national reputation as a lightning rod. 'These days, Congress is all about scoring political points rather than actually solving problems, and Minnesota's 6th District, my home, is losing out because of that more than anywhere,' he said. 'I'm not interested in celebrity, only in solutions.'
That last statement is rather rich considering the fact that Graves told me that he thinks the PPACA is a free market solution to our health care problem. The PPACA is a one-size-fits-all disaster. First, it isn't a solution. Second, it's an expensive disaster that's getting worse with each new onslaught of regulations.
If Graves can't even identify a disastrous policy like the PPACA, then he's worthless. Getting the biggest things badly wrong isn't a virtue. His happy talk about being a new Democrat is BS. New Democrats don't attend fundraisers hosted by Barney Frank , one of the men who caused the housing bubble to burst . New Democrats don't defend the PPACA, which Graves tried doing with me.
Graves' schtick is spin. That doesn't mean people should take him lightly. He came close to defeating Michele in 2012. Then again, that's largely because of high voter turnout durning a presidential election and because Michele focused a bunch of attention on her presidential campaign.
Since getting re-elected, Michele Bachmann has focused on solving major problems in the district, including working on widening the I-94 and Highway 10 corridors, not to mention her work in getting the Stillwater Bridge rebuilt.
Another big question awaiting is whether Nancy Pelosi will let Jim Graves be a centrist. She'll let him talk like a centrist during the campaign. The question is how long that'd last if he's elected. If he's elected, Pelosi would likely have a slim majority in the House, meaning she'll need every Democrat's vote on the big issue.
Graves will run another dishonest campaign this cycle because that's his only shot at winning. Make no mistake: Jim Graves won't hesitate in hitting below the belt if that's what's needed. We know that because it's what he's done in the past . Graves got a bunch of union workers to lie for him during a campaign ad. These displaced union workers accused Michele of political grandstanding and not giving a damn about them. KSTP ran Graves' ad through their Truth Test:
Bachmann was in the district on Memorial Day weekend in Stillwater attending events when the explosion happened but didn't go to the scene. However, a Bachmann staff member was there within an hour.
I know the Bachmann staffer who got to the Verson site within an hour of the explosion happening. Jim Graves didn't care about this extraordinary performance. He had his sights set on winning an election. If he had to accuse Michele of not giving a damn, that's what he'd do. If that meant ignoring the facts on the ground, New Democrat Jim Graves wasn't about to hesitate in putting that disgusting, dishonest ad together.
Tags: Jim Graves , Smear Campaign , Barney Frank , Housing Bubble , Nancy Pelosi , PPACA , Regulations , New Democrat , Michele Bachmann , I-94 , Highway 10 , Stillwater Bridge , Transportation , MNGOP , Election 2014
Posted Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:36 PM
No comments.
Pay raises, tax hikes a nasty DFL cocktail
Thus far, this legislative session is best known for the DFL's plan to kill jobs, confiscate guns, debate gay marriage, increase Minnesota's minimum wage and raise taxes on people that create jobs. Now it's possible that they'll get known for raising their pay . Here's Gov. Dayton's logic for raising politicians' and bureaucrats' pay:
Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has said he supports increasing lawmaker salaries and those of commissioners as a way to keep high-caliber managers from bolting to the private sector.
First, I'd be thrilled if I saw a Dayton administration commissioner who was worthy of getting a pay raise. Second, the whole notion is that I'd rather have the private sector having the best people because that's the only place where wealth is created.
The Dayton administration is filled with hardline progressive ideologues. I certainly don't want to increase their pay. As for raising legislators' pay, I'm not totally opposed to the idea, though I'm opposed to this bunch getting a pay increase. If the DFL continues to oppose pro-growth policies, then these legislators shouldn't get a pay raise. If the DFL continues supporting policies that hurt the private sector, these legislators shouldn't get a pay raise.
I'm thinking specifically about the DFL's support for the cigarette tax, which will hurt convenience stores while also hurting the state treasury. Every time that cigarette taxes are increased, revenues from cigarette taxes shrink because more people change their buying habits. Rather than going to a convenience store, smokers buy their cigarettes at a casino or from an underground dealer. Other options for smokers include buying cigarettes via the internet or by driving into North Dakota or Wisconsin.
Until the DFL stops proposing their radical tax increases, the pay increases shouldn't go anywhere. If the DFL insists on killing Minnesota's economy, the pay raises shouldn't be considered. People shouldn't get pay raises for doing a mediocre job. Right now, that's what this administration and the DFL legislature is doing.
Tags: Legislative Pay Increases , Commissioners , Attorney General , Secretary of State , Tax Increases , Cigarette Taxes , Minimum Wage , Gay Marriage , Gun Confiscation , DFL , Capitalism , MNGOP
Posted Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:21 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 12-Apr-13 10:30 AM
No pay raises what so ever. They are not supposed to be making a living being a politician. I say cut their pay and eliminate the per diem unless they actually prove they had an expense like the rest of the working world has to do.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 12-Apr-13 04:12 PM
Gary:
I thought they weren't bolting to the private sector because they weren't qualified or there were no jobs to bolt to.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
McAuliffe in trouble in Virginia, Mississippi
When former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe announced that he was running to succeed Bob McDonnell as governor, he brought tons of political baggage with him :
Turn over any green-energy rock, and wiggling underneath will be the usual creepy mix of political favoritism and taxpayer-funded handouts. Add to this the Clintons, Mississippi and a murky visa program, and you've got a particularly ripe political embarrassment for Terry McAuliffe.
That's just the tip of McAuliffe's political difficulties. This information will hurt McAuliffe:
Among the first questions he was asked was why, as a proud "Virginia" businessman, he'd located his business in Mississippi. Scrambling, Mr. McAuliffe stated that he had wanted to bring his jobs home but the Virginia Economic Development Partnership "didn't want to bid on" GreenTech - whereas Mississippi had offered incentives. He went so far as to criticize the state for not going after manufacturing jobs like his, suggesting he'd change that.
After an investigation, media outlets discovered that Virginia never received enough information from GreenTech to proceed. The Associated Press reported that the state agency worried that "GreenTech lacked brand recognition; had not demonstrated vehicle performance; had no federal safety and fuel-economy certification; no emissions approval...no distribution network" and (ouch) "no demonstrated automotive industry experience within the executive management team." Rather than respond to these concerns, GreenTech moved on with Mississippi (which perhaps wasn't asking annoying questions).
As disturbing as that information is, that still isn't the worst news for McAuliffe. This is:
Virginia was particularly alarmed by GreenTech's use of an opaque visa program, called EB-5, to fund itself. Part of a 1990 immigration law, EB-5 lets foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in a U.S. company receive green cards. A federal immigration agency approves "regional centers" that administer the program.
While these centers can be run by local government, GreenTech proposed running a Virginia center itself. One official at the Virginia development agency wrote to colleagues that she couldn't view Greentech's EB-5 program as "anything other than a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications."
Touting GreenTech as proof of McAuliffe's capitalist roots wasn't smart. Having it exposed that he might be exploiting an immigration statute makes his uphill climb a stiffer challenge than first thought. Explaining away why this "Virginia businessman" opened his business in Mississippi is like loading another sack of bricks onto McAuliffe's back. Last but not least, finding out that McAuliffe's company isn't manufacturing cars or creating jobs is a dagger through McAuliffe's political campaign.
Get out the butter, folks, because McAuliffe's campaign is toast.
Tags: Terry McAuliffe , GreenTech Automotive , Solyndra , Crony Capitalism , Bill Clinton , Virginia , Mississippi , Green Cards , Corruption , Democrats , Elections
Posted Friday, April 12, 2013 1:30 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 12-Apr-13 03:21 PM
Unfortunately, Gary, this information isn't campaign-killing for a Democrat, it's resume enhancement.
Bill O'Reilly: Constitutionally ignorant
Thursday night, I was flipping through the channels at about 10:30. Lou Dobbs was discussing gun violence with Bill O'Reilly so I thought I'd take a moment to hear what they'd have to say.
O'Reilly said that background checks were good but that it was necessary for legal gun owners to register guns. Then he said something that frightened me and angered Dobbs. O'Reilly said that there should be a law that gave a 10 year mandatory sentence to people who didn't register their guns. Here's O'Reilly's explanation/'justification' for his law:
O'REILLY: But if you had the registration and the cops went out and stopped and frisked and grabbed the gun, that's a 10 year penalty.
Later, he said that this would be done as a preventative measure. There's just one sticky problem with O'Reilly's law. It's unconstitutional. The first time it got challenged in the Supreme Court, it'd be ruled unconstitutional with a near-unanimous vote. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches of this kind. Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment :
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not a constitutional attorney but I'd argue that requiring probable cause to be proven prohibits 'preventative searches'.
Imagine police being able to search a person without obtaining a warrant. Without the Fourth Amendment's protections, law officers would be able to go anywhere and search for anything at any time for any reason. That isn't American. That's what Third World dictators do in a police state. It's what they did in the former Soviet Union or Saddam's Iraq. It's what they're doing in China and North Korea.
I don't doubt that Mr. O'Reilly's intentions are sincere. There's no question in my mind that he genuinely wants to protect children from gun violence. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. O'Reilly is a reactionary. He doesn't think things through. It isn't likely that he ever will.
Tags: Second Amendment , Newtown Massacre , Fourth Amendment , Gun Registration , Chicago , Third World Countries , Dictatorships , Bill O'Reilly , Lou Dobbs
Posted Friday, April 12, 2013 4:35 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Apr-13 04:09 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that is the argument that Obama was using to try to scare the nation about Arizona's immigration law. The difference being that Arizona had put in clauses to force a probable cause search and not some random search.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
