Once upon a time, there seemed to be an unspoken yet established rule that the Republican Primaries would happen at a certain time of year in direct correlation to the actual votes for President.
but something strange seems to have happened this year. for some reason a few states have tossed around the idea of moving their primary dates up as early as December! and doing so would cause some states who have the 'rights' to go first in said primaries to have to move up the dates to even earlier!
But what would that mean? the big glaring response is "elections are sooner than you think".
you know how, during school, you suddenly find the deadline on an assignment closer than it should be when you haven't really started? this seems to fit the situation. having the primaries so close makes one suddenly wonder how well they've been paying attention to whats going on, making them really start examining the candidates to choose one if they haven't already, or to be sure the one they have their eye on is the right one for them.
then again, there may also be some out there who are relieved the primaries are coming so early, they already are 100% certain of their choice, or they could simply care less.
reguardless, it seems like no matter if we are prepared or not, primaries are coming sooner than we think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8825382/Republican-primaries-could-start-before-end-of-the-year.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-new-hampshire-primary-20111012,0,5497107.story
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
A lesser known war that is taking away our rights
Before I begin, I must say that I do not condone, by any means, the abuse of the substances mentioned in the following blog.
The War on Drugs and Alcohol is ongoing. it may not seem as big of news as, say, the Presidential Elections at the moment, but even that touches upon these topics.
Sadly, laws surrounding this 'war' violate much of the Amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights.
For example, the Fourth Amendment states that one must have a search warrant to search you or your property, and that said search warrant can only be given under probable cause. But according to Justice John Paul Stevens, the Amendment actually only covers one's property rights, and one cannot technically have property rights to illegal materials; therefore, an un-waranted search violates no rights so long as something that can ven be considered 'illegal' turns up--regardless of what that 'illegal' material may be. (Read more about this here)
How about drinking? If you are suspected of drinking, whether you are underage, walking along the sidewalk, sitting in a car or are the driver; then the common belief is that you must submit to whatever kind of test the officer asks of you--or orders you to do. But in reality? According to your rights, you do not need to let them test you in any way.
So what about "random sobriety checkpoints"? These are places randomly set up where police can stop you without any good reason to, and where police officers have everyone take tests such as 'breath tests' and check for license, etc. to check for those under the influence. Doing this, too, violates several Amendments, including the sixth and the fifth.
While all this may be in noble cause, is it really worth it? Do the ends justify the means of stripping away a persons rights? Is this as far as the government will go, or will they take away more in the name of 'warfare'?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36648648413
http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving10.htm
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145529,00.html
The War on Drugs and Alcohol is ongoing. it may not seem as big of news as, say, the Presidential Elections at the moment, but even that touches upon these topics.
Sadly, laws surrounding this 'war' violate much of the Amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights.
For example, the Fourth Amendment states that one must have a search warrant to search you or your property, and that said search warrant can only be given under probable cause. But according to Justice John Paul Stevens, the Amendment actually only covers one's property rights, and one cannot technically have property rights to illegal materials; therefore, an un-waranted search violates no rights so long as something that can ven be considered 'illegal' turns up--regardless of what that 'illegal' material may be. (Read more about this here)
How about drinking? If you are suspected of drinking, whether you are underage, walking along the sidewalk, sitting in a car or are the driver; then the common belief is that you must submit to whatever kind of test the officer asks of you--or orders you to do. But in reality? According to your rights, you do not need to let them test you in any way.
So what about "random sobriety checkpoints"? These are places randomly set up where police can stop you without any good reason to, and where police officers have everyone take tests such as 'breath tests' and check for license, etc. to check for those under the influence. Doing this, too, violates several Amendments, including the sixth and the fifth.
While all this may be in noble cause, is it really worth it? Do the ends justify the means of stripping away a persons rights? Is this as far as the government will go, or will they take away more in the name of 'warfare'?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36648648413
http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving10.htm
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145529,00.html
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The United States unConstitution (Part 2): Mandatory Vaccines
It seems as though it is nearly impossible to not even have simply heard of this newest flaw in the campaign of Presidential candidate Rick Perry. this flaw goes by the name of a controversial vaccine known as the HPV vaccine. ('brand name' Gardasil and Cervarix)
Rick Perry helped in an attempt to establish a law that would demand young girls in the state of Texas to get a vaccine to prevent against a STD called Cervical Cancer. doesnt something seem wrong here?
Forcing people to get a vaccine already goes against the constitution, but forcing young girls to do something by law already feels wrong, and not only that, but this also is assuming that girls barely a decade old are going to be promiscuous in their interactions with others!
But delving into that would bring me off topic, so we'll set that aside.
Lets take a step into the past, shall we? a few years back, an alleged pandemic reared its head. The Swine Flu. (cue the dramatic music) There was talk throughout the Government and CDC of making the H1N1 vaccine mandatory by law, but came head to head with opposition, and as should be obvious to you, the reader, is that the opposition won. good thing, too...not only was it not truly a pandemic, and still has not reached such levels, but also the vaccine itself was dangerous.
Infact, its that way with some other if not most of the mandatory vaccines that are unconstitutionally so. most if not all vaccines contain Mercury, called thimerosal. And the H1N1 had side effects that in itself equated the effects of the flu itself. the DTaP that is mandatory in some states contains formaldehyde, which is an enbalming fluid( something like this is dangrous to anyone at anylevel. and the HPV vaccine can cause anything from a allergic reaction to Guillain-Barre Syndrome
And the Government is forcing the citizens of America to get these vaccines?
above links didnt work? copy and paste into your search bar here!
http://www.gardasil.com/
http://www.cervarix.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/perry-mandatory-hpv-vaccination-of-girls-was-wrong/2011/03/29/gIQAnjY5SK_blog.html
http://www.blissplan.com/wellness/vaccination-risks/
http://www.cdc.gov/
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/gbs.htm
Rick Perry helped in an attempt to establish a law that would demand young girls in the state of Texas to get a vaccine to prevent against a STD called Cervical Cancer. doesnt something seem wrong here?
Forcing people to get a vaccine already goes against the constitution, but forcing young girls to do something by law already feels wrong, and not only that, but this also is assuming that girls barely a decade old are going to be promiscuous in their interactions with others!
But delving into that would bring me off topic, so we'll set that aside.
Lets take a step into the past, shall we? a few years back, an alleged pandemic reared its head. The Swine Flu. (cue the dramatic music) There was talk throughout the Government and CDC of making the H1N1 vaccine mandatory by law, but came head to head with opposition, and as should be obvious to you, the reader, is that the opposition won. good thing, too...not only was it not truly a pandemic, and still has not reached such levels, but also the vaccine itself was dangerous.
Infact, its that way with some other if not most of the mandatory vaccines that are unconstitutionally so. most if not all vaccines contain Mercury, called thimerosal. And the H1N1 had side effects that in itself equated the effects of the flu itself. the DTaP that is mandatory in some states contains formaldehyde, which is an enbalming fluid( something like this is dangrous to anyone at anylevel. and the HPV vaccine can cause anything from a allergic reaction to Guillain-Barre Syndrome
And the Government is forcing the citizens of America to get these vaccines?
above links didnt work? copy and paste into your search bar here!
http://www.gardasil.com/
http://www.cervarix.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/perry-mandatory-hpv-vaccination-of-girls-was-wrong/2011/03/29/gIQAnjY5SK_blog.html
http://www.blissplan.com/wellness/vaccination-risks/
http://www.cdc.gov/
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/gbs.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)