I am overweight and my nominal body temperature is usually only 97 degrees (when I'm 98.6 it is a fever, and this explains why I tolerate cold well and am very intolerant of heat). How can ANY examination of my condition done by someone who isn't a trained physician be evidence of anything?
As an IT person who has had to deal with HIPAA, I can tell you it has more to do with giving people the ILLUSION that their records are private whilst making sure that they are more accessible by more people than ever.
Also there have been cases tossed because the makers of the Intoxylyzer 5000 (the standard breathalyzer used by everyone) refused to produce the source code when ordered.
In addition to the restrictions imposed by the 4th and 5th Amendments, the Constitution grants you the absolute right to face and cross examine your accuser. If your accuser is a machine (the breathalyzer) that includes everything related to how it operates...
California is a bad argument. It is definitely a "State B", and the bailout it will soon be asking the Feds for to save it from it's own irresponsibility will mean that it will get back MORE than the dollars it's sent in taxes... with interest...
New York will be the next one.
Frankly, I think that states that go the bailout route should have to declare outright bankruptcy, surrender their assets (and their congressional representation) and have to reorganize and re-apply to the Union with a plan for fiscal solvency... If their citizens don't like not being represented in Congress or being able to vote for President they can move themselves, wealth, and enterprise to other states that are solvent...
Unless you disincentivize irresponsibility, both personal and collective, you are incentivizing it.
There is no difference between being forced into a breathalyzer or a blood test for no reason other than "you are there" (ie: no observed reckless driving, no observable smell of alcohol) and being forced to answer questions about where you were when X was murdered under a polygraph test "because we're stopping everyone at this intersection" and having a judge order it if you refused.
People who don't own firearms for personal protection are the anomaly, not the norm. This tends to create a place where people are generally polite and courteous, crime is not common (because crooks have a high probability of being shot) and the authorities generally don't cross the line for the same reason.
A society where everyone walked about armed is a polite society:) I made the argument (and got modded down severely by the bed-wetting lib types) that a plane would be safer if the PASSENGERS were armed. Why? When Mohammedan-Allah-Akbar decides to stand up and rush the cockpit he wouldn't make it past the first row:)
There are cases in which the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the federal government but does not limit the power of the states in a corresponding way. So in fact, states have more latitude in their legislation than the federal government does.
The Bill of Rights is one such place where the courts have pretty much ruled that if it states the Feds can't do something, the State also cannot.
I do agree, that this should probably not be the case... The Constitution is to limit the Feds, not the States. The States are to be limited by the fact that they compete against each other. IE: State A allows for personal freedom, a good business and employment climate, and generally protects it's citizens rights vs State B which wants to regulate everything down to monitoring the transfats of a hamburger, taxes everything that even LOOKS like it wants to move, and makes property worthless because it withholds water from farms to protect a useless non edible fish, people are going to move themselves and their enterprise to State A and State B will go bankrupt.
Note that the recent Census is reflecting the fact that the State B's of this country ARE going bankrupt and are losing population (and Congressmen) in droves...
The Founders wanted our States to be competing laboratories of ideas, and wanted the Feds to have limited, few, and specific powers so as to not inhibit them.
They usually, on purpose, pick the place and time that will most inconvenience people, ie, so they can demonstrate their power and teach the peasants who's boss.
About 3 years ago, the Huntington, WV PD set up a DUI checkpoint at 5PM (who the fuck is going to be drunk at 5PM, people are just trying TO GET HOME from work!) at a very busy intersection of one of the main streets in town (it was the way you needed to go to get to the downtown bridge over the Ohio River). I noticed this at the end of the street from the place I work (there was a traffic jam going back several blocks and only getting longer), and doubled back so as to take another route to avoid it.
This got me pulled over, for "trying to avoid our checkpoint". To which my response was to tell the damn cop to fucking "arrest me for the high crime of attempting to avoid a POLICE CREATED TRAFFIC JAM" so I COULD GET HOME. I must have gotten through because he seemed embarrassed by it, but not enough so to warn me to not ever try to do so again...
Most of them, especially small town cops, are mostly ex schoolyard bully types. They don't know HOW to react when you give it right back to them and usually back down...
Whenever a group adopts a name like MADD they probably are.
Police also get funding for a supposedly anti-drug program called DARE, which is not insignificant for small departments (usually even pays for a police car). The program continues despite study after study that shows that DARE programs are completely ineffective and a waste of money. http://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.html
It all makes sense when you look at it in the context that it's all about two things: money and AUTHORITY. There are good cops. The vast majority of them ARE good cops. But one bad one can do so much disproportionate damage which is why their power and authority is supposed to be so severely limited.
Exactly. Even when you are completely innocent and know that you are, and can PROVE that you are, you should NEVER co-operate with the police. They are professionals, you are an amateur, that's why you are supposed to have another professional (an attorney) to intercede for you.
They are trained to use the SLIGHTEST slip up to get a conviction. While I am sure that there are some cops who are truly interested in justice there are enough who are only interested in padding the conviction resume to deal with the WHOLE LOT of them as if they are out to pin it on someone, ANYONE, as fast as possible so as to move on to pinning the next thing on someone else. When you are dealing with the police you are dealing with someone who is interested primarily in "getting someone" and if they are talking to you, YOU are IT.
Which is why anyone who talks to them without an attorney is a fool.
The state does not force your consent in DWI/DUI cases. You willingly consented the moment you signed for your drivers license. Think of it as a contract you entered into for the privilege, not right, to drive.
And what any of this has to do with Obama or national health care, I don't know. Hopefully, somebody will mod you down for having a diatribe.
What if the State requires you to "imply consent" to being raped by an elected government official, as a condition for getting a driver's license?
The state can't force your consent to an otherwise ILLEGAL OR CRIMINAL action on yourself any more than a PRIVATE CONTRACT can! The law is very clear on what hoops the state must jump through to punish you and on what rights you have. This is why, btw, they are bothering to have the judges present, so they can make a mockery of this by having them bless their lawbreaking.
And Obama very much needs to be in this debate as an example of overreaching state thuggery. A PILOT exposed the hypocrisy and inefficacy of the TSA and the Regime's director of it, Janet Incompetano and promptly had his computers and legally owned firearms confiscated by government goons. Since he didn't stop it, I'd assume he agrees with it.
Our current government is VERY much moving towards authoritarianism. I didn't like it when George Bush did it, and I certainly don't like it when Obama is DOUBLING DOWN on it. This is because my belief in liberty doesn't end when "my team" is in charge.
If Obama is the anti-Bush, if democrats are AGAINST the PATRIOT act and other illegal power grabs the government made exploiting the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they REPEAL IT (which I favor!) during the 2 years that they had a fillibuster proof Senate, a huge majority in the House, and the Presidency?
The fact that they didn't proves to me they aren't against abuses of government power, so long as THEY are the ones in charge and doing the abusing!
"One" judgement reversed, out of how many cases? From what I understand, most judges hear upwards of 100 cases a year. If they had a reversal percentage of 5%, I'd consider that "knowing the law" to an acceptable degree, since appeals going up the chain can also be reversed, and there's chances those appellate judges don't actually know the law, or are merely erring on the side of legal precedent, rather than the merits of the case (not that the second case is a bad thing, always).
As we've been giving more and more power to the judiciary over the past decades, they have become increasingly political. Judges, especially unelected, unaccountable, serve for life unless impeached by Congress Federal Judges often are chosen by a certain political party FOR their activism.
Clearly there needs to be an easier method to remove bad judges from office, as judges who get constantly reversed (such as the whole 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) aren't serving justice, they are OBSTRUCTING it!
Such a scoring system might not rid the system entirely of bad judges but it WOULD serve as a deterrent for extreme activism and flat out putting one's political opinion above the law (and do so more effectively than "no refusal" DUI checkpoints) as they'd have to prevent making more egregiously biased rulings than would allow them to keep their lifetime job with their platinum plated benefits package...
Around here, there is quite a lot of popular support for lifetime driving bans for the first offense. This might be an overkill, but I'd support that for 2nd one.
I'm quite shocked by the US where they catch a drunken bozo for the 5th time in a month and he still is allowed to drive to work and back.
Here in West Virginia, it's something of a scandal. The state has very lax DUI laws which has been traced to the frequency in which state politicians seem to be finding themselves caught driving drunk...
I am all for taking the license away for good for repeat offenders, AND jailing them, even executing them, if they harm or kill someone due to their actions, but I don't agree that wrecking the Constitution is a fair price to pay.
The Constitution is quite clear on the hurdles that the government must clear in order to get a warrant, seize or search private property or persons, and get criminal convictions. You have a right to NOT incriminate yourself, and you have a right to an attorney to make sure that your rights are respected.
Not to mention, Judges are supposed to be impartial, unbiased "umpires" who only serve the law. It would be hard to argue that a judge assigned to one of these is going to be impartial to both sides.
Also, a judge can't do shit to someone without them being represented before them by an attorney if the person so chooses. You can't have impromptu "Judge Wopner" trials on the side of the road.
The 4th Amendment also states that the warrant must SPECIFY what is to be searched and what they are searching FOR.
Which means "suspicion" is insufficient cause, warrants aren't intended to allow for fishing expeditions but to look for something very specific of a very specific person based on prior investigation that turned up sufficient probable cause.
Driving lawfully down the highway or street at or below the speed limit, non recklessly isn't probable cause. Checking someone who is speeding or driving erratically, yes, that would probably be probable cause.
Arguing that DUI checkpoints are legal because they are random or that they check everyone makes no more sense than arguing that the government can search homes at will without a warrant if they search EVERYONE'S in a given area...
Which is why there is no way these "no refusal" insta warrants can't possibly be legal. You have an absolute, enshrined right to an attorney IN THE CONSTITUTION. Indeed, "Universal Lawyercare" could be argued to be Constitutional (while mandatory health insurance is not, as in you breathe, therefore you must buy as Obmamacare requires) as the right to an attorney when having the weight of the State thrown at you was important enough to the Founders that it was put in the Bill of Rights.
The State cannot possibly force you to consent to ANYTHING where there are criminal penalties involved without you first consulting an attorney if you choose. Any judge who has an "on the spot, I'm working with the cops kangaroo court" to rubber stamp their requests is committing a greater crime than ANY drunk driver.
What this is all about, ultimately, is forcing us to accept greater and greater control by the State. Just as it is pretty much a waste of time to do "junk touching" of non muslim males between the ages of 18 and 50 (as they represent 99.9999999999999999999999% of the recent cases of attempts at terrorism it is completely unnecessary to even TRY to subject someone who wasn't driving improperly who doesn't smell like a brewery to a DUI check.
But they want to force us ALL into both just to show us who is in charge: The STATE, not the People. It's supposed to be the OTHER way around, the cops and judges work for US, we are THEIR employer and boss, not the other way around.
This is very important. Consider that FNC is the ONLY news channel that will mention the IPCC climate gate scandal, for example. People who watch FNC who would answer no to the question of "does man made global warming exist?" would be considered "wrong" if you are using the IPCC's data as the judge.
As for Obama's birthplace it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. The birth certificate exists but they will not produce it. Contrast that with what each and every one of us have had to do multiple times in our lives (you can't even play little league sports without producing your long form birth certificate). Do I think Obama was born in the US? Probably, more because the Clinton machine wouldn't have let THAT one slide than because of anything Obama has produced. I think it's been hidden more because there is something that he's claimed (such as his birth name, parentage, etc) that would be proven a lie and an embarrassment, as in why they also hide his college transcripts to hide the fact he was an affirmative action graduate. Frankly, Obama has only himself and his actions to blame for the fact that ANYONE doubts his birth because they won't take 5 seconds and release a document.
Seriously, if you hate Fox News, go watch MSNBC, you'll be happier.
And the patent office has STILL not stopped granting patents for X that has been done for years and years if you add "on the internet" to it. Also, online gaming dates back over a decade now, how can that not be prior art?
Drudge makes money, and these charlatans want to be paid. I'm sure they are trolling for a cheap settlement.
If Drudge fights this (and he will, he's in the free speech business) this one shouldn't last very long, first off, even if he used a photo, it's covered by fair use, and secondly, is Righthaven the copyright owner? If they aren't, they have no standing.
These righthaven lawyers need to be disbarred. They are the Jack Thompson of insane IP barratry.
The "individual mandate" is the most controversial part of obamacare, and it's unprecedented. "You breathe therefore you must buy X" has NEVER been tried before. Hillarycare got around this by being all out single payer (ie: government) health insurance.
Should this mandate survive the Supreme Court (where it is clearly headed) beware, the commerce clause would be ruled to be so all powerful that it can MANDATE PARTICIPATION in interstate commerce... ie, lobbyists could grease the right skids and get virtually ANY product to be mandatory to purchase...
Slashdot Mirror
I am overweight and my nominal body temperature is usually only 97 degrees (when I'm 98.6 it is a fever, and this explains why I tolerate cold well and am very intolerant of heat). How can ANY examination of my condition done by someone who isn't a trained physician be evidence of anything?
As an IT person who has had to deal with HIPAA, I can tell you it has more to do with giving people the ILLUSION that their records are private whilst making sure that they are more accessible by more people than ever.
Also there have been cases tossed because the makers of the Intoxylyzer 5000 (the standard breathalyzer used by everyone) refused to produce the source code when ordered.
In addition to the restrictions imposed by the 4th and 5th Amendments, the Constitution grants you the absolute right to face and cross examine your accuser. If your accuser is a machine (the breathalyzer) that includes everything related to how it operates...
I'll grant you that driving on taxpayer funded roads is a PRIVILEGE not a right the moment that collecting taxes from me to build them is likewise.
On site judges are under the same pressure to mass produce.
This is why the judicial process is SUPPOSED TO BE cumbersome... for the state...
The defendant has the right to a speedy trial. That is in the Constitution.
The state doesn't have a right to a speedy prosecution. This IS NOT in the Constitution.
Yep. Our predecessors had to do far worse than risk some sunburn to GET US those rights in the first place!
If we don't stand up and protect our rights as sovereign citizens of the Republic we betray them.
California is a bad argument. It is definitely a "State B", and the bailout it will soon be asking the Feds for to save it from it's own irresponsibility will mean that it will get back MORE than the dollars it's sent in taxes... with interest...
New York will be the next one.
Frankly, I think that states that go the bailout route should have to declare outright bankruptcy, surrender their assets (and their congressional representation) and have to reorganize and re-apply to the Union with a plan for fiscal solvency... If their citizens don't like not being represented in Congress or being able to vote for President they can move themselves, wealth, and enterprise to other states that are solvent...
Unless you disincentivize irresponsibility, both personal and collective, you are incentivizing it.
There is no difference between being forced into a breathalyzer or a blood test for no reason other than "you are there" (ie: no observed reckless driving, no observable smell of alcohol) and being forced to answer questions about where you were when X was murdered under a polygraph test "because we're stopping everyone at this intersection" and having a judge order it if you refused.
Same deal with West Virginia.
People who don't own firearms for personal protection are the anomaly, not the norm. This tends to create a place where people are generally polite and courteous, crime is not common (because crooks have a high probability of being shot) and the authorities generally don't cross the line for the same reason.
A society where everyone walked about armed is a polite society :) I made the argument (and got modded down severely by the bed-wetting lib types) that a plane would be safer if the PASSENGERS were armed. Why? When Mohammedan-Allah-Akbar decides to stand up and rush the cockpit he wouldn't make it past the first row :)
There are cases in which the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the federal government but does not limit the power of the states in a corresponding way. So in fact, states have more latitude in their legislation than the federal government does.
The Bill of Rights is one such place where the courts have pretty much ruled that if it states the Feds can't do something, the State also cannot.
I do agree, that this should probably not be the case... The Constitution is to limit the Feds, not the States. The States are to be limited by the fact that they compete against each other. IE: State A allows for personal freedom, a good business and employment climate, and generally protects it's citizens rights vs State B which wants to regulate everything down to monitoring the transfats of a hamburger, taxes everything that even LOOKS like it wants to move, and makes property worthless because it withholds water from farms to protect a useless non edible fish, people are going to move themselves and their enterprise to State A and State B will go bankrupt.
Note that the recent Census is reflecting the fact that the State B's of this country ARE going bankrupt and are losing population (and Congressmen) in droves...
The Founders wanted our States to be competing laboratories of ideas, and wanted the Feds to have limited, few, and specific powers so as to not inhibit them.
They usually, on purpose, pick the place and time that will most inconvenience people, ie, so they can demonstrate their power and teach the peasants who's boss.
About 3 years ago, the Huntington, WV PD set up a DUI checkpoint at 5PM (who the fuck is going to be drunk at 5PM, people are just trying TO GET HOME from work!) at a very busy intersection of one of the main streets in town (it was the way you needed to go to get to the downtown bridge over the Ohio River). I noticed this at the end of the street from the place I work (there was a traffic jam going back several blocks and only getting longer), and doubled back so as to take another route to avoid it.
This got me pulled over, for "trying to avoid our checkpoint". To which my response was to tell the damn cop to fucking "arrest me for the high crime of attempting to avoid a POLICE CREATED TRAFFIC JAM" so I COULD GET HOME. I must have gotten through because he seemed embarrassed by it, but not enough so to warn me to not ever try to do so again...
Most of them, especially small town cops, are mostly ex schoolyard bully types. They don't know HOW to react when you give it right back to them and usually back down...
Whenever a group adopts a name like MADD they probably are.
Police also get funding for a supposedly anti-drug program called DARE, which is not insignificant for small departments (usually even pays for a police car). The program continues despite study after study that shows that DARE programs are completely ineffective and a waste of money. http://www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.html
It all makes sense when you look at it in the context that it's all about two things: money and AUTHORITY. There are good cops. The vast majority of them ARE good cops. But one bad one can do so much disproportionate damage which is why their power and authority is supposed to be so severely limited.
Exactly. Even when you are completely innocent and know that you are, and can PROVE that you are, you should NEVER co-operate with the police. They are professionals, you are an amateur, that's why you are supposed to have another professional (an attorney) to intercede for you.
They are trained to use the SLIGHTEST slip up to get a conviction. While I am sure that there are some cops who are truly interested in justice there are enough who are only interested in padding the conviction resume to deal with the WHOLE LOT of them as if they are out to pin it on someone, ANYONE, as fast as possible so as to move on to pinning the next thing on someone else. When you are dealing with the police you are dealing with someone who is interested primarily in "getting someone" and if they are talking to you, YOU are IT.
Which is why anyone who talks to them without an attorney is a fool.
The state does not force your consent in DWI/DUI cases. You willingly consented the moment you signed for your drivers license. Think of it as a contract you entered into for the privilege, not right, to drive.
And what any of this has to do with Obama or national health care, I don't know. Hopefully, somebody will mod you down for having a diatribe.
What if the State requires you to "imply consent" to being raped by an elected government official, as a condition for getting a driver's license?
The state can't force your consent to an otherwise ILLEGAL OR CRIMINAL action on yourself any more than a PRIVATE CONTRACT can! The law is very clear on what hoops the state must jump through to punish you and on what rights you have. This is why, btw, they are bothering to have the judges present, so they can make a mockery of this by having them bless their lawbreaking.
And Obama very much needs to be in this debate as an example of overreaching state thuggery. A PILOT exposed the hypocrisy and inefficacy of the TSA and the Regime's director of it, Janet Incompetano and promptly had his computers and legally owned firearms confiscated by government goons. Since he didn't stop it, I'd assume he agrees with it.
Our current government is VERY much moving towards authoritarianism. I didn't like it when George Bush did it, and I certainly don't like it when Obama is DOUBLING DOWN on it. This is because my belief in liberty doesn't end when "my team" is in charge.
If Obama is the anti-Bush, if democrats are AGAINST the PATRIOT act and other illegal power grabs the government made exploiting the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they REPEAL IT (which I favor!) during the 2 years that they had a fillibuster proof Senate, a huge majority in the House, and the Presidency?
The fact that they didn't proves to me they aren't against abuses of government power, so long as THEY are the ones in charge and doing the abusing!
"One" judgement reversed, out of how many cases? From what I understand, most judges hear upwards of 100 cases a year. If they had a reversal percentage of 5%, I'd consider that "knowing the law" to an acceptable degree, since appeals going up the chain can also be reversed, and there's chances those appellate judges don't actually know the law, or are merely erring on the side of legal precedent, rather than the merits of the case (not that the second case is a bad thing, always).
As we've been giving more and more power to the judiciary over the past decades, they have become increasingly political. Judges, especially unelected, unaccountable, serve for life unless impeached by Congress Federal Judges often are chosen by a certain political party FOR their activism.
Clearly there needs to be an easier method to remove bad judges from office, as judges who get constantly reversed (such as the whole 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) aren't serving justice, they are OBSTRUCTING it!
Such a scoring system might not rid the system entirely of bad judges but it WOULD serve as a deterrent for extreme activism and flat out putting one's political opinion above the law (and do so more effectively than "no refusal" DUI checkpoints) as they'd have to prevent making more egregiously biased rulings than would allow them to keep their lifetime job with their platinum plated benefits package...
Around here, there is quite a lot of popular support for lifetime driving bans for the first offense. This might be an overkill, but I'd support that for 2nd one.
I'm quite shocked by the US where they catch a drunken bozo for the 5th time in a month and he still is allowed to drive to work and back.
Here in West Virginia, it's something of a scandal. The state has very lax DUI laws which has been traced to the frequency in which state politicians seem to be finding themselves caught driving drunk...
I am all for taking the license away for good for repeat offenders, AND jailing them, even executing them, if they harm or kill someone due to their actions, but I don't agree that wrecking the Constitution is a fair price to pay.
The Constitution is quite clear on the hurdles that the government must clear in order to get a warrant, seize or search private property or persons, and get criminal convictions. You have a right to NOT incriminate yourself, and you have a right to an attorney to make sure that your rights are respected.
Not to mention, Judges are supposed to be impartial, unbiased "umpires" who only serve the law. It would be hard to argue that a judge assigned to one of these is going to be impartial to both sides.
Also, a judge can't do shit to someone without them being represented before them by an attorney if the person so chooses. You can't have impromptu "Judge Wopner" trials on the side of the road.
The 4th Amendment also states that the warrant must SPECIFY what is to be searched and what they are searching FOR.
Which means "suspicion" is insufficient cause, warrants aren't intended to allow for fishing expeditions but to look for something very specific of a very specific person based on prior investigation that turned up sufficient probable cause.
Driving lawfully down the highway or street at or below the speed limit, non recklessly isn't probable cause. Checking someone who is speeding or driving erratically, yes, that would probably be probable cause.
Arguing that DUI checkpoints are legal because they are random or that they check everyone makes no more sense than arguing that the government can search homes at will without a warrant if they search EVERYONE'S in a given area...
Which is why there is no way these "no refusal" insta warrants can't possibly be legal. You have an absolute, enshrined right to an attorney IN THE CONSTITUTION. Indeed, "Universal Lawyercare" could be argued to be Constitutional (while mandatory health insurance is not, as in you breathe, therefore you must buy as Obmamacare requires) as the right to an attorney when having the weight of the State thrown at you was important enough to the Founders that it was put in the Bill of Rights.
The State cannot possibly force you to consent to ANYTHING where there are criminal penalties involved without you first consulting an attorney if you choose. Any judge who has an "on the spot, I'm working with the cops kangaroo court" to rubber stamp their requests is committing a greater crime than ANY drunk driver.
What this is all about, ultimately, is forcing us to accept greater and greater control by the State. Just as it is pretty much a waste of time to do "junk touching" of non muslim males between the ages of 18 and 50 (as they represent 99.9999999999999999999999% of the recent cases of attempts at terrorism it is completely unnecessary to even TRY to subject someone who wasn't driving improperly who doesn't smell like a brewery to a DUI check.
But they want to force us ALL into both just to show us who is in charge: The STATE, not the People. It's supposed to be the OTHER way around, the cops and judges work for US, we are THEIR employer and boss, not the other way around.
Patents that don't have a specific invention attached to them should be invalid. Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable, specific inventions are...
This is very important. Consider that FNC is the ONLY news channel that will mention the IPCC climate gate scandal, for example. People who watch FNC who would answer no to the question of "does man made global warming exist?" would be considered "wrong" if you are using the IPCC's data as the judge.
As for Obama's birthplace it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. The birth certificate exists but they will not produce it. Contrast that with what each and every one of us have had to do multiple times in our lives (you can't even play little league sports without producing your long form birth certificate). Do I think Obama was born in the US? Probably, more because the Clinton machine wouldn't have let THAT one slide than because of anything Obama has produced. I think it's been hidden more because there is something that he's claimed (such as his birth name, parentage, etc) that would be proven a lie and an embarrassment, as in why they also hide his college transcripts to hide the fact he was an affirmative action graduate. Frankly, Obama has only himself and his actions to blame for the fact that ANYONE doubts his birth because they won't take 5 seconds and release a document.
Seriously, if you hate Fox News, go watch MSNBC, you'll be happier.
And the patent office has STILL not stopped granting patents for X that has been done for years and years if you add "on the internet" to it. Also, online gaming dates back over a decade now, how can that not be prior art?
Drudge makes money, and these charlatans want to be paid. I'm sure they are trolling for a cheap settlement.
If Drudge fights this (and he will, he's in the free speech business) this one shouldn't last very long, first off, even if he used a photo, it's covered by fair use, and secondly, is Righthaven the copyright owner? If they aren't, they have no standing.
These righthaven lawyers need to be disbarred. They are the Jack Thompson of insane IP barratry.
The "individual mandate" is the most controversial part of obamacare, and it's unprecedented. "You breathe therefore you must buy X" has NEVER been tried before. Hillarycare got around this by being all out single payer (ie: government) health insurance.
Should this mandate survive the Supreme Court (where it is clearly headed) beware, the commerce clause would be ruled to be so all powerful that it can MANDATE PARTICIPATION in interstate commerce... ie, lobbyists could grease the right skids and get virtually ANY product to be mandatory to purchase...
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
None.
This is the insidiousness the IP monopolists are trying to get away with, the ability to sell something yet still OWN it.
Unless the XBox modder bought an XBox, then used it to make other XBoxes, they have no beef.