Time To Take Action

Posted on May 26, 2014 by Tony Heller

Forty thousand Americans get killed in automobile accidents every year, and millions more are injured. It is long past time for President Obama to take action, and sign an executive order banning automobile accidents – since Congress refuses to do this.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Time To Take Action

  1. Richard Mallett says:
    May 26, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    I have never understood how America ended up with a system of government where the President can be of one party and the legislative body can be of the opposition party. How do they ever expect anything to get done if that can happen ?

    Reply
    • stevengoddard says:
      May 26, 2014 at 5:49 pm

      The US government has “done” several orders of magnitude more than it was intended to do.

      Reply
    • usJim says:
      May 26, 2014 at 6:01 pm

      How do they ever expect anything to get done if that can happen ?

      Obviously you are ASSUMING that a functional system was designed; it was not, on purpose.

      Note: We have had no H!tlers*, although The O is asymptotic tending to become tanget to that end …

      .

      *See also the experience with FDR when he tried to stack the US Supreme Court.

      .

      Reply
    • B says:
      May 26, 2014 at 6:29 pm

      Should go back to where senators were chosen by the state governments and the vice president was the guy who finished in second place for president. The entire idea of these things was to make government not be able to ‘get things done’. When it is getting things done it is hurting the people.

      As to cars, “progressives” are trying to make them impossibly expensive for regular people to buy, own, and operate to achieve an effective ban.

      Reply
      • usJim says:
        May 26, 2014 at 6:39 pm

        Should go back to where senators were chosen by the state governments

        That would be number 2 on the list of recommendations from Mark Levin’s proposals in “The Liberty Amendments”, as follows:

        2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: … proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

        #3 is worth considering too:

        3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

        – – – – – – – – – – – – –
        Bolding above mine.

        Chapter 1 from the book “Liberty Amendments” can be seen here:

        http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/hosted_files/LibertyAmendmentsCh1.pdf

        .

        Reply
        • norilsk says:
          May 26, 2014 at 9:33 pm

          I know almost nothing about the U.S. constitution let alone that of my country. It is most troubling however to me concerning what happened with the Trail of Tears when the Cherokee were forced out of North Carolina despite a Supreme Court ruling granting them protection. No system is perfect

        • Gail Combs says:
          May 27, 2014 at 2:23 am

          The other big problem is our third branch of government that was meant to be the ultimate veto power of the people.
          ~TRIAL BY JURY and JURY NULLIFICATION~

          This is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite want to remove it and have been doing so by stealth.

          One method use is fostering ignorance of our rights of Jury Nullification
          SEE: What lawyers & judges won’t tell you about juries.

          The fully informed jury movement seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

          The second method is to remove our right to a trial by jury. This is particularly nasty move.
          The 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. As Joan Biskupic stated
          ”

          “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

          The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

          ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….
          http://prorev.com/juries.htm

          To add insult to injury after removing the right to a trial by a jury of our peers, the right to judge our guilt or innocence of breaking a bureaucratic regulation** was given to a ‘within house Judicial Tribunal’ of that same bureaucracy that made the idiotic regulation in the first place! In this way the Supreme Court intentionally trashed the Constitution and Amendment VII.
          (**Regulations are not even voted on by your representative in Congress but still have the full power of a law including jail terms.)

          “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved….” ~ Amendment VII

          Pretty darn clear isn’t it? But the Supreme Court didn’t think so.

          Right to Jury in Civil Cases
          (wwwDOT)heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

          Toward the end of the Constitutional Convention, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina noted that “no provision was yet made for juries in civil cases and suggested the necessity of it.”

          ….The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases, thus leaving the traditional distinction between cases at law and those in equity or admiralty, where there normally was no jury. The implied distinction parallels the explicit division of federal judicial authority in Article III to cases (1) in law, (2) in equity, and (3) in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The contemporaneously passed Judiciary Act of 1789 similarly provided that “the trial of issues of fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.” As Justice Joseph Story later explained in Parsons v. Bedford (1830): “In a just sense, the amendment then may well be construed to embrace all suits which are not of equity and admiralty jurisdiction, whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume to settle legal rights.”

          The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman (1935), or to newly developed rights that can be analogized to what existed at that time, Luria v. United States (1913), Curtis v. Loether (1974). Accordingly, in a series of decisions in the second half of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury in procedurally novel settings, like declaratory judgment actions, Beacon Theatres v. Westover (1959), and shareholder derivative suits, Ross v. Bernhard (1970). The Court also applied the amendment to cases adjudicating newly created statutory rights, Curtis v. Loether, Pernell v. Southall Realty (1974). In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that when factually overlapping “legal” and “equitable” claims are joined together in the same action, the Seventh Amendment requires that the former be adjudicated first (by a jury); and that when legal claims triable to a jury are erroneously dismissed, relitigation of the entire action is “essential to vindicating [the plaintiff’s] Seventh Amendment rights.” Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc. (1990).

          The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice….

          So there went our last constraint on the Federal government. Without a trial by jury we the people, lost our RIGHT to overrule idiotic laws and regulations.

      • Mark Luhman says:
        May 27, 2014 at 2:12 am

        Norilsk, that was in illegal act done by a Democrat president, not much has change in the last two hundred years.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          May 27, 2014 at 2:26 am

          It is also note worthy that the people in the state of North Carolina refused to obey the presidents edit to oust their neighbors and out of state people had to be used instead.

  2. Robertv says:
    May 26, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    What about lowering the speed limit to 20 miles /hour ?

    Reply
    • Andy DC says:
      May 26, 2014 at 6:51 pm

      I recently got a ticket for going 26 in a 15 mph zone. It was in a school zone, but there were no kids within a mile of where I got the ticket.

      Reply
      • geran says:
        May 26, 2014 at 9:30 pm

        You should appeal. Explain that you were trying to mow down school kids to “save the planet”.

        Leftist judges would immediately throughout the case.

        (Heavy science follows—Purposely leaving out the sarc tag to confuse Leftists. Don’t worry, they cannot read inside the parentheses, because I used the “Heavy science” warning.)

        Reply
        • Eric Simpson says:
          May 27, 2014 at 12:09 am

          Well, you’d think that could be the case, considering:
          “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University Biologist
          “Eradicating small pox was wrong.” -John Davis, Earth First
          “Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” -Lyall Watson, The Financial Times
          “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” -Prince Phillip, WWF
          What’s the difference between mowing down kids or killing people with a virus or killing people however Ehrlich envisions doing it?

      • Eric Simpson says:
        May 27, 2014 at 12:25 am

        Yeah, you got to be real careful with your speed — at all times — around those School Zones. Use your cruise control if possible, though mine doesn’t work under 30mph. At any time, because you never know when some off hour affair has “school children present.” A recent story, I was heading through the community of Fawnskin around Big Bear Lake which by the “General Store” puts up a 25mph limit. I know the CHPs camp out to get people there, so I set my cruise to 30mph and snailed forward. I had noticed somebody had just turned on to the road behind me, and he came forward tailgating me. And he got real close and was really pushing my bumper so I thought he wanted me to speed up, so I started to speed up, but thought better of it, because it was night and I couldn’t be sure it wasn’t a CHP behind me. So I go the mile or whatever it is at 30mph with the tailgater behind. Finally, relief, I see the 45mph sign, and I start to speed up, and Wham!, I see the flashing lights behind me, it was a CHP tailgating me! I pull over, but the CHP just drives right on past me. Seemed like a jerk.

        Reply
  3. Windsong says:
    May 26, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    European Assault Vehicles (EAV) have been responsible for two nights of mayhem in Isla Vista since 2001. David Attias killed four and maimed one with a Saab on Feb. 23, 2001. Elliot Rodger struck two longboarders and one bicyclist with his BMW, possibly attempting to kill them. When will we enact common sense restrictions on high-powered imported automobiles? /sarc off/

    Seriously, my state’s medical and law enforcement professionals are extremely limited on what they can do in situations with adults like Elliot Rodger. Many families have begged for assistance, only to see outcomes not unlike the one last week. (Search “Cafe Racer.”)

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      May 27, 2014 at 2:45 am

      Again you can thank the “progressives” In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in O’Connor v. Donaldson that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual’s civil rights. Prior to that people could be placed into a mental institution.

      Much of the push to empty the State Mental istitution was the development of psychotropic medication that allowed people to funtion normally. At first there were 1/2 way houses that “mainstreamed people” and saw to it that they received the required medication. Then the case of Rennie v. Klein established that an involuntarily committed individual has a constitutional right to refuse psychotropic medication without a court order. Rogers v. Okin established the patient’s right to make treatment decisions.

      So now we have cities full of street people who would have been placed in country homes or in mental institutions in the first half of the 20th century. (Street people are always good for whipping up the guilt in voters)

      The ability to involuntarily commit an individual is of course a two edged sword. If you believe in ‘Conspiracy Theories’ like 9/11 was an inside job or CAGW is not a serious problem you may find yourself in a mental institution even today.

      Serious Warning: NEVER talk to any health professional about anything that is controversial. They maybe legally required to report you. With Loony Lew stating Climate Den!ers are mentally ill the way is being paved to incarcerate Den!ers.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        May 27, 2014 at 2:53 am

        CONTINUATION of the WARNING:
        The precedence has already been set and a new international diagnostic manual released. http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=46329572&afid=1Millions of healthy people – may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday. (Reuters ~ 3:07 PM EST February 9, 2012)

        Head Case: Can psychiatry be a science?

        …Within the profession, the manual that prescribes the criteria for official diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the D.S.M., has been under criticism for decades….

        In the case of a patient who exhibits the required number of symptoms, the D.S.M. specifies only one exception to a diagnosis of depression: bereavement…..

        Christopher Lane, a professor of English at Northwestern, argues that this is a blatant pathologization of a common personality trait for the financial benefit of the psychiatric profession and the pharmaceutical industry….

        Turning shyness into a mental disorder has many downstream consequences. As Steven Hyman, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, argues in a recent article, once a diagnosis is ensconced in the manual, it is legitimatized as a subject of scientific research. Centers are established (there is now a Shyness Research Institute, at Indiana University Southeast) and scientists get funding to, for example, find “the gene for shyness”—even though there was never any evidence that the condition has an organic basis. A juggernaut effect is built into the system. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100301crat_atlarge_menand?currentPage=all

        This is what Steven Lewandowsky is up to. Making Climate Denialism a mental disorder ensconced in the manual, … legitimatized as a subject of scientific research.

        And as the The Rosenhan Experiment shows once diagnosed as “mentally ill” the label sticks no matter what. So it is a bit of a facer to find another article by Psychology Today Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist: Dark Minds Thankfully the attack is on Alex Jones and not Climate Skeptics…. This time.

        …Conspiracy theories exist on a spectrum from mild suspicion to full-on paranoia, and brain chemistry may play a role. Dopamine rewards us for noting patterns and finding meaning in sometimes-insignificant events. It’s long been known that schizophrenics overproduce dopamine. “The earliest stages of delusion are characterized by an overabundance of meaningful coincidences,” explain Paul D. Morrison and R.M. Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London. “Jumping to conclusions” is a common reasoning style among the paranoid, find Daniel Freeman and his colleagues, also at the Institute of Psychiatry…

        I had read several years ago a comment from a nurse that in the USA nurses and doctors were told to identify those who were 9/11 truthers, birthers and other “Conspiracy Types” as “mentally ill” She was cautioning people to keep their political opinions to themselves or they might just find themselves in a mental institution.

        I hesitate to link to this but since Skeptics are now being lumped in with other “Conspiracy Types” it is worth paying attention to the example they offer.

        A psychologist Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D. said in August 29, 2009, “…Having been a psychologist for nearly thirty years now I am not at all surprised to find that such a thing has occurred. The United States government has routinely used (or should I say misused) psychologists to do their “dirty work,” and only recently has the American Psychological Association been willing to consider the ethical concerns that individual psychologists have had to deal with….” http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/incarcerated-in-a-psychiatric-ward-because-i-said-911-was-an-inside-job/

        This is definitely a future possibility we need to keep an eye on….

        A CLINICAL ANALYSIS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT PHOBIA

        Ivor E. Tower, M.D.
        Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
        Volume 11, series 3, pages 4-5

        Abstract

        This study conclusively demonstrates that unfounded fear of government is a recognizable mental illness, closely related to paranoid schizophrenia. Anti-Government Phobia (AGP) differs from most mental illnesses, however, in that it is highly infectious and has an acute onset. Symptoms include extreme suspiciousness, conspiracy-mongering, delusional thought patterns, staunch “us against them” mentality, withdrawal from reality, and often religious fanaticism. Having the patient committed to a qualified mental health institution is the best option for family and loved ones. For this reason, all psychiatrists and family physicians should be provided with educational materials which will help them recognize the various symptoms and warning signs accompanying onset. Since comparatively little is known about Anti-Government Phobia at the present time, a government-funded health commission should be set up to oversee, and help focus, future research.

        Acknowledgements

        The writer wishes to thank the following individuals and organizations for contributing their expertise to this report: Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Rick Ross of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), the United States Justice Department (USJD), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

        http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/info_schedule_battle/Anti_Government_Phobia.html

        I do not think Dr. Tower understands the meaning of the word irony.

        Reply
  4. Eric Barnes says:
    May 26, 2014 at 7:33 pm

    Obama is the worst president we’ve ever had. No contest.

    George Will had a great opinion piece today on what a good candidate would (or wouldn’t) do.. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will052414.php3#.U4OWH_ldVng

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      May 27, 2014 at 8:10 pm

      FDR gives him a run for his money, and so does Clinton. However Obummer beats Carter for just plan idiotic.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *