Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment Eroded

|

Fourth Amendment
Subliminati / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans' right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. But government lawyers have argued repeatedly that this right should be limited, and the Supreme Court has often agreed. Amie Stepanovich, director of the domestic surveillance project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, offers three ways the government has attempted to erode Fourth Amendment protections.

  1. They've worked around it. In 1979, the Supreme Court denied constitutional protection to information voluntarily turned over to third parties. The government argues this permits warrantless collection of, among other things, information about Web visits, phone calls, location, and banking data.
  2. They've limited its scope. The Supreme Court has said that Fourth Amendment protections don't apply in all places or at all times. For example, U.S. borders have become, practically speaking, Constitution-free zones. And the Department of Homeland Security has decided that the border consists of all land and sea boundaries, and extends out for 100 miles, placing the majority of the U.S. population within that region.
  3. They've limited its application. The government argues that nothing that occurs in public is actually a search. Public-space surveillance has been traditionally limited by available resources. But new technology like GPS tracking makes it easy to surreptitiously monitor a person's location and activities in public.

Advertisement

NEXT: Iraqi Troops Arrest Sunni Lawmaker, Killing His Brother, Five Guards After They Allegedly Opened Fire

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For example, U.S. borders have become, practically speaking, Constitution-free zones.

    What are you? An illegal-immigrant terrorist Al-Kay-da subversive? **puts Amie on list**

    1. When will you idiots realize just because a judge declares something constitutional or unconstitutional doesnt mean it is true. It just means the judge is corrupt and full of shit.

      1. the next time you are being sentenced by one of these corrupt judges, why dont you go right ahead and tell him all of this. im sure he’ll change.

        -FFM

  2. If you like your bill of rights, you can keep your bill of rights.

    1. Heck, I couldn’t even keep my first comment, no longer above. The squirrels ate it, I guess.

  3. Expectation of privacy?

    Third party rule?

    All BULLSHIT stemming from the (faulty) notion that 4A is about privacy, when it’s actually about property rights. 4A is about when the government can take control of your shit because they believe a crime has been committed.

    If I own a book with some personal stuff in it and I take it to a public park with me and set it on a picnic table next to me, do I have the right to continue to control my property? Can just anyone come over and open my book if I don’t allow them to? Of course not!

    Yet that’s EXACTLY what Expectation to Privacy says. If it’s not in your home, they don’t need a warrant to take control of your shit.

    Well, fuck off and die in a fire, pig. You cannot TOUCH my shit unless I give you my permission. If you still feel the need to touch my stuff, comply with the 4A provisions that will allow you to overrule my will.

    1. Privacy? I thought that the legal definition of privacy was “the penumbra that creates the right to an abortion”. Obviously the normal definition of privacy has no place in a total-information-awareness State.

      I lived in Saudi Arabia for the better part of a decade, and have never had an agent of the Kingdom ask to search my home or my car. One enjoys privacy in one’s own home there as well. In the US, however, agents of State and Federal governments have on several occasions demanded to search my car, and twice my house. The US is much better than KSA in 1st Amendment areas, but not much else. (I don’t really care that much about electing the pricks that run the country; I only really care about them leaving me the fuck alone.) Americans are really deluded about how well their freedom stacks up against even repressive dictatorships.

      1. Is it possible that your status had something to do with your experience in SA? Or is that experience one that could be universally expected?

        1. Do anything at all to get on the FedGov’s radar and you will have your answer.

      2. Did you live in a compound for US/Foreign workers like my uncle did?

        Not sure if the rank and file Saudi enjoys the same “rights”.

  4. Suicide bomber kills at least 16 in Volgograd

    Sixteen people were killed and another 50 injured after a suicide bombing at a railway station in the southern Russian city of Volgograd that highlighted the region’s security vulnerability just six weeks before the Winter Olympics.

    The blast ripped through an area between the station entrance and metal frames that had been installed as a precaution against terror attacks. There were conflicting reports on the identity of the perpetrator; the authorities first indicated that a young woman from the Caucasus may have been responsible, as in previous attacks in Russia over the past decade. But latterly, news agencies reported that it was a man wearing a rucksack who was behind the attack, though he may not have been acting alone.

    CCTV video shows a bright flash of light inside the station building as the camera, located several hundred metres across the square, shakes from the impact. A cloud of smoke emerges seconds later. Pictures on social networks show people trying to help the injured lying on ice-covered ground in front of the palatial Stalin-era station building, its windows smashed by the blast.

    The Olympics should be fun.

    1. Pro-gay terrorists strike again! Nothing can stop them from their agenda.

      1. Oh, and you know who else exploded bombs in Volgograd?

        1. R?hmites?

          /underzog, das dipshit

          1. We haven’t seen Underschmuck around for some time. Can’t say I’m sad about that.

            1. The gay atheist Muslim libertarians finally got him.

              1. Nobody wants to hear about your Sunday afternoon. Don’t you not have a football team to watch?

        2. Trotskyites ?

  5. I will never understand why Russia does not let these people form their own country. It’s not like their short on land or resources.

    1. Power.

      1. They’ve been fighting off and on to control that area for hundreds of years. You’d think they’d cut their losses after a while.

        1. What about human history leads you to believe that?

          1. The American Revolution? The independence of India? I guess those were outliers.

            1. They were also oceans and continents away and part of much larger geopolitical struggles. These breakaways are literally in Russia’s backyard. A better example would probably be Ireland, on second thought.

              1. The Netherlands weren’t too far from Spain and got independence. Ditto for Greece from the Ottomans. Algeria wasn’t far from France.

                If the struggle is costly enough, the empire cuts its losses.

                1. I was too hasty. You are correct, though I do maintain that the conflict Russia faces isn’t nearly costly enough to do it. It may be that the damage has to be acute rather than low-level and chronic. It certainly has to be evaluated relative to the mother country’s ability to bear it at the time.

                  1. Oh please! The Russkies only spent nine years banging their collective heads against the wall that is Afghanistan….

                    1. Considering all the money they pumped between 1950 and 1979, I guess they saw it as protecting an investment.

                      What fools.

                    2. The Americans are much richer, so they’ve been able to do it for twelve years, and counting.

                    3. Perhaps coincidentally, the person who ended Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was also the final leader of the Soviet Union.

                    4. The USSR survived WW2, so I don’t think the war in Afghanistan did them in. The collapse in oil prices I think was the biggest reason.

                    5. What I’m getting at is that the USSR was clearly in trouble, so their ability to endure that war was diminished.

                    6. The USSR survived WW2, so I don’t think the war in Afghanistan did them in.

                      Don’t tell Ken Schultz that. He’ll go apeshit on you. Seriously.

                    7. He’s really, really committed to the Reagan won the Cold War by Charlie Wilson funding the mujaheddin meme.

                    8. Reagan cut off credit lines, and oil prices collapsed. But more fundamentally, all of that just masked the real reasons – socialist economic system was not sustainable. You could motivate people at the point of a gun, and with ‘for the children’ propaganda for a few decades, but in reality, USSR entered a grave recession in the 60’s, when critical mass of people simply gave up. Oil prices papered over this reality.

                      Afghan War was very silly, nobody could understand why we fought there, and it undermined confidence in the government. To that extent, it contributed. Military conflict itself – not so much.

                    9. I thought the post-Stalin thaw made people cautiously optimistic. The space race wins probably boosted spirits for a while.

                      I think the 80s gave such a series of shocks that there was little hope or desire to keep the USSR together- Chernobyl, Afghanistan, collapse of oil prices, nationalist rumblings, passenger airliner shot down, fall of Berlin Wall, Tienanmen, etc.

                    10. There was that, too.

                    11. “…socialist economic system was not sustainable.”

                      ^This

                    12. The Chernobyl disaster and the costs of cleaning it up didn’t help, accelerating the death spiral. This whole “Reagan won the Cold War” stuff is mythology, in my opinion. The Soviet Union would have eventually collapsed under its own weight. It was an unsustainable system made worse by military and civilian incompetence (Afghanistan and Chernobyl, respectively).

                    13. “This whole “Reagan won the Cold War” stuff is mythology, ”

                      Doesn’t exist. You’re referencing something that doesn’t exist, and calling it mythology.

                      Here’s what actually happened. Some R’s needed a success after the debacle that was W, and the only success they had in recent memory was Reagan. So, they talked about him post W because what else did they have?

                      Then the D’s turned “Reagan HELPED WIN the cold war” to “Reagan WON the cold war”.

                      And then you, and who knows how many others, somehow got the idea that the narrative was something it wasn’t.

                    14. Which is why Dinesh D’Souza wrote an essay entitled “How Regan Won the Cold War” in 1997.

                      Coincidentally, the essay was composed during the episode his body was the host for Dr. Sam Beckett’s consciousness.

                    15. I’m familiar with parts of it but the core of the plan actually dated back to Nixon. Nixon and Ford put bones to the plan by funding socio-economic simulations and tossing a bunch of money at think-tanks. Carter put his spin on it with human-rights (no idea if that helped or hurt the project), and Reagan did everything possible to stress the system into economic collapse. Bush I raked in the chips. Strangely enough, no one takes us seriously as we can’t do long-term campaigns “like the Chinese or Japanese do” when the evidence is there if you happened to be around it.

              2. Or the subjugation of the South.

    2. The state never, ever willingly gives up territory or power. It’s one of the major features of government. Having a (theoretical) monopoly on force requires never giving up the slightest bit of that monopoly.

      1. Governments are like precarious Jenga towers- you can’t restructure one without risking its destruction.

        1. Nah. You are free to restructure the government, IF, IF, IF the newly restructured government has more authorteh.

      2. Out of curiosity, do you see the end of Prohibition as an anomaly or as the (federal) state being forced to give up some of its power?

        1. I view it as an anomaly. We’ve seen for 40 years (and more) how stupid marijuana and other drug prohibition is. But alcohol…that’s a special level of retardation. Humans love alcohol. It’s been a fundamental part of most human culture for thousands of years. The idea that you can prohibit anything is laughable, but alcohol especially so.

          The end of Prohibition happened because it wasn’t just a failure, it was a ludicrous failure, and on top of that there was a World War to be fought. It’s an anomaly because when have you ever seen a government/state back down from something that stupid? The feds just could not keep it up. But if they tried it today, they would never give it up, because the fed government has vastly too much money to waste.

          1. I see the repeal of Prohibition as a hopeful sign that there is a hard limit to oppression, at least in the west.

          2. Interesting thoughts, thanks. I can’t really disagree.

    3. Several reasons, I surmise. The first reason is that, as I understand it, most Chechens are quite happy (or at least neutral) to be part of the Russian Federation. The Islamo-crazies represent only a loud and violent minority of Chechens. Though, my perception might be the result of a biased media. Secondly, Chechnya is rich in natural resources, especially “black gold; oil that is, Chechen tea.” Thirdly, the Russian Federation is chock-full of these little non-ethnically Russian nation-states ( referred to as “republics”) that might take the opportunity to fulfill their irredentist desires if they thought they could get away with it.

      Just my 2 cents.

      1. The Russians flattened Grozny in the first Chechen war and deported thousands of Chechens to central Asia during WW2.
        So the Chechens have plenty of reasons to hate them.

        As for oil, the Russians have plenty of that in Siberia.

        Russia’s unhappy family is held together at gun point.

        1. As for oil, the Russians have plenty of that in Siberia.

          That’s true, but Chechen oil is a lot easier to get, and the location (between the Black and Caspian sea and a hop, skip, and a jump away from the Middle East) can’t be beat.

      2. The Russians flattened Grozny in the first Chechen war and deported thousands of Chechens to central Asia during WW2.
        So the Chechens have plenty of reasons to hate them.

        As for oil, the Russians have plenty of that in Siberia.

        Russia’s unhappy family is held together at gun point.

      3. There are lowland tribes and highland tribes. Lowland tribes don’t like Russians, but like Russian money, weapons, and trade connections. Highland tribes hate Russians, but also happen to be murderous crazies, and are hated by everybody, especially lowland tribes. Russians back lowlanders over the highlanders.

        Chechnya had de facto independence after they defeated Russian Federal troops, in 1996. Chechens (and assorted islamists) then invaded Dagestan, a Federal Republic, in 1999, triggering 2nd Chechen War, which they lost (pretty much to Russian-backed tribes).

        And yes, there’s a lot of minority districts in Russian Federation, hence the breakaway concerns.

        1. There are lowland tribes and highland tribes. Lowland tribes don’t like Russians, but like Russian money, weapons, and trade connections. Highland tribes hate Russians, but also happen to be murderous crazies, and are hated by everybody, especially lowland tribes.

          I see. Which group is more numerous?

          1. Don’t know. They shift alliances all the time. Current pro-Moscow Chechen ruler used to fight against Russians. Size of group depends on how much money and weapons Russians got to spread around. If money stops, i don’t doubt pro-Moscow faction will shrink. It’s currently dominant though, and uses the funds to settle scores with opposition.

    4. Well, if you know Russia’s history, you’d know that they’ve been invaded by pretty much every major nation at one time or another (including the US). So the people are real believers in a strong central-state, even putting up with a leadership that is essentially treating them the same way the rapers and pillagers were doing to them. Xenophobia is a way of life. So, in that context, it’s not surprising that having lots of buffering around their borders, and lots of pathways to reach out and touch other nations (i.e. naval forces) are high on the national agenda. That’s the simplistic explanation.

  6. I’m a little surprised that nobody’s tried arguing that a search isn’t “unreasonable” if nothing is taken, broken, or moved, if the target of the search isn’t inconvenienced in any way, and most likely has no way of even telling that a search took place.

    1. Dammit, quit giving them ideas!

    2. Sounds to me like what the NSA et al has been arguing since Snowden flicked ’em in the nose.

    3. With all due respect, using those criteria it seems Snowden’s , um, search wasn’t “unreasonable”.

    4. Mike Rogers already beat you to the punch

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfyhWXfH15I

      at 0:54

      “. . . you can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated, right?”

  7. the Supreme Court denied constitutional protection to information voluntarily turned over to third parties

    Define “turned over”. Does the USPS get to read everyone’s snail-mail?

    1. According to the DMM, only First Class “and above” mail has any privacy from anyone, including your neighbors.

      1. But NSA, FBI, et al. are *international* entities, so they probably spit on your Domestic Mail Manual.

    2. Furthermore, the “metadata” on an envelope is not protected at all and doesn’t need a warrant to collect. Ever wonder about those bar codes at the bottom of an envelope? No tinfoil hat required, just noting that the automated machinery, and supporting clerks for error correction, make it dead easy to record that information.

  8. Are the Dolphins even trying to make the playoffs?

    1. If by trying to make the playoffs you mean helping Pittsburgh make the playoffs, then yes.

      1. Due to the San Diego Chargers (barely) beating Kansas City, Pittsburgh didn’t make the playoffs.

  9. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: GOP Obstruction Causes All Our Problems

    Looking back on the past year, I am amazed by all of the remarkable moments that we have shared as Americans. The Affordable Care Act expanded the promise of affordable, quality health care for millions of Americans. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was struck down, extending federal benefits to same-sex couples nationwide…

    I wish that I could say that I observed that same mentality in Congress over the last year. But, unfortunately, obstructionism was still the name of the game in Washington, D.C. The Republican party’s government shutdown that lasted 16 days and cost the economy $24 billion offered a clear illustration of the dysfunction in Washington. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
    […]
    And the single most important way that we can all resolve to do better in 2014 is to vote — and vote for candidates who are willing to make a commitment to work together to get things done. In my view, to combat the paralysis caused by Tea Party Republican intransigence, we need to elect Democrats up and down the ballot and ensure Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House. As we head into an election year, it is within the power of each and every voter to end the gridlock that has plagued our legislative process.

    When the Dems had a supermajority we had paradise.

    1. If I want to hear the opinions of a paid union thug shill, I’ll ask her.

      Also, will TEAM BLUE ever grow out of “TEAM RED doesn’t allow us to monolithically enact our agenda, we should be a one-party state”? I mean, do they even give lip service any more to the multi-party system?

    2. And the single most important way that we can all resolve to do better in 2014 is to vote — and vote for candidates who are willing to make a commitment to work together to get things done. In my view, to combat the paralysis caused by Tea Party Republican intransigence, we need to elect Democrats up and down the ballot and ensure Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House.

      Because nothing can possibly go wrong in a one party state.

    3. The first thing that jumps out and slaps me in the face:

      “The Affordable Care Act expanded the promise of affordable, quality health care for millions of Americans.”

      Get that? Weasel says it expanded the promise.

      1. I missed where “affordable, quality health care” was ever promised to anyone.

        1. Oh it was promised from the beginning – and the Affordable Care Act expands the *promise*.

          Of course, I’ve known plenty of men who’ve *promised* fidelity to their wives and spent every port visit in a whorehouse. Promises are only worth as much as the person making them.

    4. vote for candidates who are willing to make a commitment to work together to get things done

      Doing nothing cannot possibly be an option, even if the things that get done are FUBAR and worse than useless!

      /D W-S

  10. And the Seahawks defense is off to scoring more than the offense…again.

    1. Why aren’t they resting their superstars

      1. Because letting Bobby Wagner get injured seems like a great idea?

  11. My favorite new Democrat meme is “Blue states tend to be richer!” This of course completely ignores that the South was continuously run by Democrats from the end of the Civil War until basically the ’80s. Southern poverty traces from 120 years of Democrat control, but they somehow think they’ve scored a point when they show that states that were Democrat for over a century tend to be poor.

    Hell, they were run by flat out New Deal Democrats from 1932-1980. Why did 48 years of Roosevelt’s noble plan not result in these poor states becoming wealthy?

    1. Why is that a good thing to Dems, anyways? I thought they thought that wealth was bad?

    2. Shorter above post: Democrats don’t understands the concept of trend lines and know nothing about history.

      1. My favorite example in that area comes from this article:

        Imagine a city where all the major economic planks of the statist or “progressive” platform have been enacted:

        A “living wage” ordinance, far above the federal minimum wage, for all public employees and private contractors.

        A school system that spends significantly more per pupil than the national average.

        A powerful school employee union that militantly defends the exceptional pay, benefits and job security it has won for its members.

        A powerful government employee union that does the same for its members.

        A tax system that aggressively redistributes income from businesses and the wealthy to the poor and to government bureaucracies.

        Would this be a shining city on a hill, exciting the admiration of all? We don’t have to guess, because there is such a city right here in our state: Detroit

        1. I’m so hard right now.

    3. “Why did 48 years of Roosevelt’s noble plan not result in these poor states becoming wealthy?”

      I cant answer that…I mean, it worked in Detroit.

      1. Yeah, Detroit was the richest city in
        America thanks to all that stuff in the Derpsters quote, who could’ve forseen that the American car manufacturers would be undercut by those weasel-ey Japanese folks. It was impossible. No one saw it coming. Really. Out of the blue.

    4. The blue states are richer because they have been more populous.

      Souther poverty can also be attributed to the region’s loss of half a million people in the Civil War, the subsequent plundering that occurred in Reconstruction, a continued reliance on agriculture instead of industry, and the climate–which is not conducive to long work hours. It’s freaking hot! With the development of practical and inexpensive air conditioning, the economic state of the South began to improve. (no empirical data for this last point; just anecdotal observation)

      Generally, the national Democrat Party remained the party of smaller, less intrusive government, until FDR. Locally, there were political bosses that relied on patronage and the like, plus the “good ol’ boys network” that would act as an economic retardant (competent people outside the network would not have opportunity to add to the economy, incompetent people within the network would be allowed to stay in place).

      1. Generally, the national Democrat Party remained the party of smaller, less intrusive government, until FDR

        Uh…no. The Democrats were agitating in favor of inflationist monetary policy, higher spending, and more control for decades prior to FDR.

        I don’t think the party of Woodrow Wilson can be considered the party of less intrusive government.

        1. Neither can the party of Theodore Roosevelt or Taft.

          1. In fact, Wilson’s policies more closely resemble Teddy Roosevelt’s than they did traditional Democratic Party philosophy.

  12. French high court approves 75% tax on executives

    France’s top court on Sunday approved a proposal for companies to pay 75 percent tax on annual salaries exceeding one million euros in line with President Francois Hollande’s drive to limit executive pay at a time of economic hardship.

    The Constitutional Council had earlier in the year thrown out one of Hollande’s key campaign pledges to impose a 75 percent tax on individuals earning more than one million euros ($1.35 million).

    After that setback, Hollande in March mooted a proposal to make companies pay for top earners.

    He had said the idea was “not to punish” but added that he hoped it would spur companies to lower executive pay at a time when the economy is suffering, unemployment is soaring and workers are being asked to accept wage cuts.

    Yeah, you’re not helping asshole.

    Bonus Raw-tard derp:

    Tim Coolio ? 2 hours ago
    Thats what we need here, like back under Ike when the tax rate was over 90%, I like the interstate system we built with that tax money from the rich!

    It’s magic!

    Charlie Morris ? 4 hours ago
    About time. Now impose a 75% VAT as well.

    …which would hurt the poor.

    Amy Susan Fisher ? 5 hours ago ?
    Now I know why the American Taliban hates the French so much. French politicians seem much more rational than American politicians.

    Yeah…

    1. “The problem with soaking the rich is that they can afford towels.”

    2. French unemployment rate over time.

      Notice two things:

      1. French unemployment has not gone below 6 since 1980. Before 1980 isn’t on the graph so I don’t know how far back you’d have to go to see an unemployment rate in this ‘rational’ country that’s under 6%.

      2. French unemployment has actually gone up since the last date on that graph. It is now 10.5%. The lowest unemployment rate since 1982 is 7.8%.

      1. I can’t find it right now, but from memory, the French UE rate is even more bogus than the US.

    3. These people are morons.

      The reason is because Hollande’s Socialist Party in France, support neoliberal policies that are the exact opposite of “real socialism.”

      A French socialist is Neoliberal? What’s socialism to this guy, the Khmer Rouge?

      You make this assumption that these people actually produce something. The vast majority of them just shuffle large amounts of cash around while skimming off the top. What normal human customers were purchasing credit-default swaps and derivatives?

      Yes, executives of corporations produce no value. This is why Steve Jobs was successful everywhere he went. Blind luck.

      Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard Flying Squid ? 6 hours ago ?
      The French have always had a better way to deal with greedy aristocrats than we have.
      11 ?Reply?Share ?
      Avatar

      IMPOed Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard ? 3 hours ago
      Chop, chop,, 🙂

      In which two Rawtards yearn for a Reign of Terror.

      1. Pff, Robespierre was a rank amateur. That Pol Pot, on the other hand, he knew how to deal with aristocrats and counterrevolutionaries.

      2. SOMEONE STOLE MY INSULT!

        “Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard Flying Squid ? 6 hours ago ?

        The French have always had a better way to deal with greedy
        aristocrats than we have.

        11 ?Reply?Share ?

        Avatar

        IMPOed Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard ? 3 hours ago

        Chop, chop,, :)”

        In which two Rawtards yearn for a Reign of Terror.

        It fascinates me that people could be so jealous of the material possessions of other people that they wish violence and death on them.

        It takes a particularly demented and anti-social individual to do that.

        Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.

        1. Quoted. Or rather, misquoted, your part was not supposed to be included, but it works.

    4. My initial impulse is to be angry, but then I realize just how hopeless dealing with these people is. I knew an old Kraut once who had seen the National Socialists rise to power.

      If you brought up Socialists of any stripe he would get red as a beet, veins popping out on his bald head, and slam his fist against the nearest object, clench his teeth and say “Der iss only vun vay to deal vith dem!!”

      Then he would make his hand like a gun, point and pull the trigger.

      1. Which side of the wall was he on? I feel bad for the millions of East Germans who lived through the Third Reich AND the GDR.

        Talk about a shitty life.

        1. He never really said. He was pretty tight lipped about it. He would just say nasty things about socialists and jack boot types.

  13. In my view, to combat the paralysis caused by Tea Party Republican intransigence, we need to elect Democrats up and down the ballot and ensure Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House. As we head into an election year, it is within the power of each and every voter to end the gridlock that has plagued our legislative process.

    GOOBLE GOBBLE GOOBLE GOBBLE!

  14. That’s it? Geezuss kryste Amie Stepanovich, don’t hurt yourself writing a dissertation or anything.

  15. Obama being pushed to appoint unterfuhrer to run Obamacare.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclu…..ector.html

    1. Healthcare Czar, eh? I lost count years ago of the unelected officials supposedly running the place.

      1. The new team would be managed by a CEO, or an executive director, who would run the marketplace like a business and answer directly to the White House, sources familiar with the discussions say.

        So when he fails they can screech that “running the marketplace like a business” didn’t work and call for the industry to be nationalized.

  16. Update:

    F1 champion Michael Schumacher ‘critical‘ after ski fall

    The 44-year-old German “was suffering a serious brain trauma with coma on his arrival” the hospital in the south-east city of Grenoble said in a statement.

  17. I saw an unconfirmed report Schumacher had a brain hemorrhage. Bad news.

    1. If you bring that up the socialists will just cry about imperialism and American slavery proving that capitalism is worse and kills more people.

      They can’t be helped.

  18. Toby Keith opens news restaurant, angers gun owners with no gun policy

    The latest Toby Keith restaurant opened in Woodbridge. Prominently displayed on the front door is a sign saying: “NO GUNS PERMITTED.”

    Virginia happens to be a gun-friendly state, where it’s quite permissible for citizens to strap on a weapon and go into a bar or restaurant, as long as the weapon is clearly visible. State law is silent on the issue of drinking while openly carrying a gun. (State law does prohibit most citizens who are legally carrying a concealed weapon from consuming alcohol, but they, too, are allowed to go into a bar or restaurant.)

    The owners have the right to say “no” to firearms, and that’s the rule at Keith’s Woodbridge restaurant.

    Facebook has erupted over the issue, with one patron saying she’s “disappointed” and believes the no guns policy announces to criminals that “anyone leaving your establishment is likely completely defenseless and easy pickin’s for a robbery.” That poster said she will not patronize the new Toby Keith restaurant.

    Another person wrote on the restaurant’s Facebook page: the no guns policy is “sad” and it creates a “more dangerous environment.”

    I’m glad they do not appear to be claiming they have a right to carry in a private establishment.

    1. Let’s hope Keith’s Woodbridge restaurant goes under. Would send a strong message that people want to be able to protect themselves.

      Or, better yet, for some criminals take advantage of their defenseless status and hold them up at gun-point… Will they then employ armed guards?

    2. +1 Luby’s

  19. I will raise you

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/si…..36440.html

    1. Portuguese Man of Wars are common on my local beach and if you pay at least half of attention you can avoid them – enough. The monthly box jellyfish invasions are a pain but that is a easily tracked and avoided unless you are a tourist that won’t listen to local knowledge. Getting chomped on by a shark is very random in Hawaii but happens around every 3 weeks year round. It keeps me aware- not that it’ll make much difference.

  20. So the government maintains that sharing anything with anyone automatically means it’s public – no longer private – and therefore not subject to the 4th Amendment. Therefore in searching, there’s NOTHING LEFT that’s now not unreasonable.

    The government’s position here, as in many other areas, is a despicable perversion of our Constitution protections…

  21. @the Title;

    No more eroded than the 1st, 2nd, and 10th


  22. my roomate’s half-sister makes 74 dollars an hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her check was 19922 dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    http://www.tec30.com

    1. Whoring on the surface of a laptop has got to be a difficult job. And had on the laptop. Especially if it is not sticky fluid proof.

  23. associate ideological frames with conservative

  24. tracking makes it easy to surreptitiously monitor a person’s location and activities in public.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.