Steve's barking at a nation of law breakers

We in the United States are a nation of law breakers.
We (I) think nothing of driving at 65 miles in a 55 mile zone and think that it's alright.
When I was a smoker I would smoke in bed though it was dangerous and in New York City against the law.
Governments (city, state and federal) like to play fast and lose with the fourth amendment (that amendment stating that the right  of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and effects against unreasonable searches searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be, but upon probable cause.
Does New York City have the right to stop and search anyone with maybe the exception is saving life and limb if one believes in the wording of the fourth amendment.
The sixth amendment specifically the right of the accused the right to a speedy and public trial. I can't recall a speedy trial.
The eight amendment clearly states excessive bail shall not be required. How many times have I read about million dollar bail for simple prostitution?  How many times have I read about bail for simple marijuana possession were the accused had no means to meet bail?

Steve's barking don't do your job IRS

In the past several days my elected government has been chastising along with a large portion  of the media the IRS.
Now as I recall from my audit days in New York State one would look for certain red flags to be a little more zealous looking into what should be given a closer look. Now if I'm not mistaken most audits are done this way. Experience should tell what words or expressions should be given a closer look.
So my government and those whom tell us what to think (media types) are telling the IRS not to do their jobs.
What next some billionaires start complaining that the IRS is picking on them and it's class warfare. What's the government going to say, take the billionaires word on what they put on their tax returns?
Congress writes the laws, if they don't want the names of those giving to a political group and want it to be tax exempt they can change the law.
I hope those congress people aren't the same one's who complain that government isn't open enough, for those a** holes would be full of S**t.

I must have gotten so jaded in my old age the NSA is looking at Verizon telephone records and all I can do is yawn though I kinda know this is wrong and I'm pretty sure unconstitutional even with a court order.    
    

Steve's barking at the privilege of gun ownership

Gun ownership in the United States is a privilege not a right.
There is no federal law in the United States that states that the citizens of the United State has the right of gun   ownership.
Now I'm looking at my handy dandy copy of the American Constitution, so I'll copy the second amendment to the Constitution. The amendment that reportedly states that a citizen has the right of gun ownership.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.   
Now reading these words, I don't see the were it is stated that any citizen who wants a firearm could have it.
It does say pretty clearly that if you are part of a well regulated that you can keep ( Not necessarily own) arms.
I looked in my dictionary to find out what is the meaning to bear arms. It stated to bear arms was to carry.
Well regulated means the same today as it did in the 1780s, like the banks are supposed to be regulated now but are not, well at least not well regulated.
Now I know that there are many of my countrymen who claim that the founding fathers of my great nation meant that a guns were a protection against the nation becoming tyrannical and guns should be used to protect the citizens from tyrants. We even have those claim the second amendment was put in place for the protection of one person and home, they do this by quoting some scholarly that was either written or purportedly said in some speech. Nonsense , if the framers of the second amendment wanted any of that verbiage in the amendment they would have put it in. Unfortunately we will never know what the real reason for the second amendment for  there is no recording of the debate. My guess the second amendment was sent to the states as an answer to Shay's rebellion were the soldiers had to break into an armory to get their weapons to put the rebellion down.
Now to make things a little more complicated, Any law that is passed now will be just a feel  good law, though it may save lives the laws will not stop massacres.

Now I'm going to write something that going to really bewilder any reader of this blog, gun violence will only decrease very little if the powers that be realize that the second amendment does not give anybody the right to own a arms. There over three hundred million guns in the US and no one in their right mind will try to take them away.
Perhaps if enough gun owners understand that gun ownership is a privileged not a right, they will help put together gun laws that will reduce gun violence in this country.

* If gun ownership stop tyrants from ruling a country how did the Taliban rule Afghanistan?
* If having a gun protects you from violence how come police are attacked?      

Steve's barking at idiot savant television

 What is idiot savant TV?
 Idiot savant TV are the talking heads on business and other disinformation news programs. Let me use the term news discussion programs and business discussion programs.The idiot savants are those talking heads who were hired because they were quite good at something that might have pertained to a business model or were good at guessing which stock would rise and fall. When it comes to knowing general knowledge of economics or history forget about it.
Several days ago I heard a comment from one of those idiot savant's calling a well known economist a communist because he dared call out a female anchor on another station saying that she was wrong in saying that the feds easing of money was driving up commodity prices such as oil and food prices. Now I'm not a communist and I know that speculators and possibly the oil company's themselves are driving up oil prices and we are now in a severe drought, lack of food stuff pushes the prices up. Now this business news annalist (?) complained about us bloggers saying anything weather it's true or not, I guess he doesn't listen to himself or most of the economic annalists on his station. or for that matter any of those blathering idiots on what is loosely called cable news.

Getting back to idiot savants on the telly, there's this guy they called the Donald whom is the star of this program called the apprentice. Now he makes great office buildings, golf courses and high rise coops, but when it comes to common sense he's two brick shy of a full load. (He has no common sense).To hear this guy talk about the president's birth certificate as to say that he's not  qualified for the office of the president because the Constitution states that only natural born citizen can be the president. Legal scholars have stated that children of citizens of the US are natural born citizens. George Romney in in '68 and McCain in '08.   
Speaking of the Donald, why doesn't he have any dignity, he hawks more products then Kim Kardashion and the cast of Jersey Shore combined. I'm not that savvy in business but I would imagine that it would cheapen his brand. 
 

Steve's barking at those who talk to dead people

There is many a person in this great land that I live in that talk to dead people.
They call these dead people the founding fathers.
Now how do I know that these people talk to dead people. Most of them state what the Constitution of the United States means not what it says.(1) Now I always understood  that a well regulated militia means just that a militia (what is now called the national guard) is regulated, presumably by the state.It's not some willy nilly law that every man should have a gun to protect themselves from tyranny of a central government .
Yes some of our founding father wrote letters to that effect, but other wrote letters just the opposite. Being that there is no written record of the debates that went into the second amendment those who claim that that's what our founding fathers meant must talk to dead people.
Those people who claim that the founding fathers wanted the US to be a god fearing nation must based on a couple of letters from several founding fathers, while there is a letter calling one person in particular (Jefferson by Hamilton) a damn atheist. To get to the truth one must hold a seance and talk to all those who might be called our founding fathers, those well known and those not so well known.
Now there are even some people who claim that our founding fathers wanted this to be a capitalist state even though the idea of capitalism and socialism hadn't evolved yet. The only way one could know what the founding fathers really would think of this what kind of economic system this country should have again by having a seance.
Now it isn't what we would consider dumb people who believe that by reading a couple a letters from a few of our early law givers, they know what they meant not the literal meanings to the words and paragraphs to the Constitution, our most learned conservative judge states that the Constitution isn't a living instrument so he therefore makes his rulings on what he claims what the writers of the Constitution meant not to they wrote.

(1)A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ( The second amendment to the constitution).
* Think of Shay's rebellion all you American history buffs. It's as good as any reason for the wording of the second amendment.

          

Steve's barking at corrupt appearances

Oh no the third blog today.

I used to be a big believer in our court system. I used to be.

Very recently( last year or the year before) the supreme court ruled that the government didn't have the right to stop big money from from airing what might just be considered political ads. This was a free speech issue.

Now it's not my purpose of this particular blog to argue if this is right or wrong ( I seem to recall in my business course business were people).

I do have a problem with supreme court justices going to gatherings with groups and or people who pay lawyers that argue cases before them, such as the Koch brothers for Citizens United. It has been reported widely that that both Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia have gone to retreats hosted by the Koch brother. While this may not be anything, the appearance of justices in such gatherings has the appearance of corruption.  

I for one am starting to loss faith in our justice system, after reading about lawyers paying bribes to political leaders in Brooklyn for judgeship's, now reading about supreme court justices attending gatherings of people putting up money for cases that have been heard before the court makes me very sad indeed.

What is the United States turning into a third world country.