“In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.”
Business Week reports that the Obama Administration will consider taxing households that make less than $250,00 per year:
“Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“’The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,’ the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. ‘So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.’”
I did research with the FBI and the police for the novel I just turned, WANT TO GO PRIVATE? about a girl who gets involved with an Internet predator. I purposely didn't use it in my novel because of plot considerations, but cell phone tracking is one way law enforcement is able to track down minors when they are in harm's way.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall anybody from the government asking me what my expectations of privacy are. How dare they make an asumption on my behalf.
ReplyDeleteTaxes on those making less than $250,000 per year? How quickly the administration forgets it's own campaign retoric once they get in office and drive us even deeper into debt.
It's becoming apparent that Obama's statements come with an expiration date.
ReplyDelete>> Taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year?
ReplyDeleteHe already did that.
SCHIP
Who do you think smokes, rich people?
Hardly.
Per-capita cigarette consumption in Torrington for example, where the per-capita income (according to census) is $20K is 55 packs per year, while in more tony Wilton, where the per-capita income is $68K consumption drops to a mere 3.4 packs per-year.
Never mind that SCHIP sent roll your own, bulk tobacco tax from about $1.00 per-pound to $24.67.
A massive increase in taxes on the poorest among us.
The cavalier, "They should just quit!" mindset is out of line as no one should be dictating the legal behavior of others for that is a tyrannical line of thought.
[Danger!- Serious thread drift ahead]
ReplyDeleteCharles said:
Obama's statements come with an expiration date.
Totally off topic, but regarding a Kraft®-Plastic-Cheese-like expiration date:
I've been in Waterbury more over the past year or so than I have been since the 1980's when I was in and out of there with frequency and developed at the time several strong political alliances, which I now realize will be lifelong friendships.
I've encountered people for the first time in over 20 years and they're right where I left them; they're political loyalty (the stuff of legend in Waterbury) just as strong.
One fellow introduced himself saying;
You don't know me, but my late father always spoke highly of you and I want you to know you can rely on me.
Not a remark one should take lightly; certainly a greeting I'll never forget.
When my step-son passed on two weeks ago; the 1st people in line at an inconveniently timed bitterly cold weekday morning wake was a large contingent from Waterbury led by non-other than the Santopietro brothers.
Cynics can rail on about Waterbury; however one can't put on a price on personal loyalty ...which if sincere never has an expiration date.
I know whose word and handshake I would rather rely on, and a Santopietro's trumps Obama's.
That is terrible about your stepson, I am sorry to hear that. A parent should never have to bury a child.
ReplyDelete