Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, Taxifornia Supreme Court, Illegal Immigrant rights groups, Dream Act supporters, a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, and the three to four million illegal immigrants living in Taxifornia are all in agreement that the Taxifornia taxpayer has a money tree in their backyard, should pay for anything and everything that society asks for, no matter how ridiculous, and that once again, the 41% of us who receive no government aid need to continue to foot the bill for the other 59% to continue to live a standard of life that frankly, they do not earn themselves like the rest of us.
According to the Boston Harold, “The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday to uphold California’s policy of granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.”
This means that the Taxifornia taxpayer will need to foot the bill for a tuition discount for 41,000 students that rings up at annual costs of $23,000 at a UC school, $11,000 at a Cal State school, and $4,400 at community colleges. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the in-state tuition discount set up so that the children of people who had lived and worked in Taxifornia – paid Taxifornia income tax, and worse yet, federal income tax, could get a break when sending their kids to college? Why then, would that discount, at the taxpayer’s expense, be extended to the non-income-tax-paying non-citizen?
Not that I was ever in agreement with the taxpayer footing tuition bills (Yes, I’m one of those nut-jobs that believes you should pay for college yourself), but this really continues to be a step too far for a state government that spends way too much money and relies too heavily on the hard work of some people, while completely turning a blind eye to law-breaking and lack of hard work from others.
You want to go to college? You want to send your kids to college? Then start saving. Start putting money away. You and your parents shouldn’t get to not plan ahead, then on high school graduation day, stick your hand out and expect us to foot the bill.
So, if this wasn’t bad enough, the Boston Harold continues with their story: “Undocumented students and their advocates said they will use the court’s action to push for passage of the California Dream Act, state legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to receive campus-based aid and the state’s Cal Grants for their bills at UC, Cal State and community colleges. It could cost about $32.2 million annually, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, recently passed the state Assembly and is being considered in the state Senate. The Legislature approved a similar measure but former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it last year as he had with previous versions. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, ‘supports the principles of the Dream Act and would closely consider any legislation that reaches his desk,’ his spokesman Evan Westrup said Monday."
So, not only is Taxifornia asking the idiot taxpayer to help foot tuition bills for illegal immigrants, but it may soon be asking them to foot the bill for state-funded financial aid as well.
No accountability, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the law of the land for some, and accountability, personal responsibility, and a heavy load of taxes for others. Freedom to do what you want, when you want, all with no consequences for some, and jail time if you don’t pay your taxes for others.
Showing posts with label U.S. Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Supreme Court. Show all posts
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Taxifornia Police Officers Can Now Search Your Cell Phone Without A Warrant
I have long made the argument that if the government and law enforcement want to listen in on my cell phone conversations, they can feel free to do so because they are not going to find anything interesting. My biggest argument against it would be that it would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to take the time to do so. Also, I would hope that if they are going to listen to my cell phone calls, they at least obtain a warrant, thus following proper channels and the law.
What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.
I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?
I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.
What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.
I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?
I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
A Little History Of Actual "Monopolies"...
In 1911, at the Justice Department’s request, the U.S. Supreme Court broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly, which began in 1870. It was split into 33 companies, including Jersey Standard (Exxon), Socony (Mobil), and Socal (Chevron).
In 1945, a federal appeals court found that Alcoa had illegally maintained its monopoly over aluminum ingot production, which began in 1888. The company was not broken up, but the government strengthened competition by selling its own wartime plants to Kaiser and Reynolds.
On January 8, 1981, after 13 years of litigation, the Justice Department dropped its effort to break up IBM for allegedly monopolizing the computer industry.
Also on January 8, 1981, AT&T signed a consent decree with the Justice Department ending Ma-Bell’s century-long telephone monopoly. It agreed to divest its 22 local operating companies, which were then recognized as the seven Baby Bells.
In June 2000, a federal judge found that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly on PC operating systems and ordered the company split in two. A year later, however, portions of the ruling were overturned, and Microsoft then settled, avoiding a breakup.
In 1945, a federal appeals court found that Alcoa had illegally maintained its monopoly over aluminum ingot production, which began in 1888. The company was not broken up, but the government strengthened competition by selling its own wartime plants to Kaiser and Reynolds.
On January 8, 1981, after 13 years of litigation, the Justice Department dropped its effort to break up IBM for allegedly monopolizing the computer industry.
Also on January 8, 1981, AT&T signed a consent decree with the Justice Department ending Ma-Bell’s century-long telephone monopoly. It agreed to divest its 22 local operating companies, which were then recognized as the seven Baby Bells.
In June 2000, a federal judge found that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly on PC operating systems and ordered the company split in two. A year later, however, portions of the ruling were overturned, and Microsoft then settled, avoiding a breakup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)