First Trump Inauguration Protester Is Sentenced, and Let’s Just Say the Punishment Fits the Crime

Getty Images

Dane Powell will serve four months followed by two months of probation after being convicted of a felony rioting charge and assaulting a police officer during the President’s inaugural ceremonies in Washington.

Check it out (via Roll Call):

Powell, who faced 14 charges, pleaded guilty to charges of felony rioting and felony assault on a police officer.

He told prosecutors he broke windows and threw “a brick, large rock, or piece of concrete at uniformed law enforcement,” WTOP reported. The U.S. attorney’s office for D.C. said in a statement that Powell “admitted being part of a group of rioters who moved approximately 16 blocks over a period of more than 30 minutes.”

“The group formed a ‘black bloc’ in which individual defendants wore black or dark colored clothing, gloves, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, gas masks, goggles, helmets, hoodies, and other face-concealing and face-protecting items to conceal their identities in an effort to prevent law enforcement from being able to identify the individual perpetrators of violence or property damage. Some of the members of the black bloc were armed with hammers, crowbars, wooden sticks, and other weapons.”

Full article: First Trump Inauguration Protester Is Sentenced, and Let’s Just Say the Punishment Fits the Crime

Yes, people showed up to paint him as hero and had a video of him saving a child from pepper spray. Why was there even a child there?! And do they not realize that if they hadn’t gotten violent, there wouldn’t have been pepper spray? Duh, folks.

Anyway, glad to see this happening. Demonstrating and protesting is fine. Rioting is not. The two are not one and the same.

Advertisements
Comments Off on First Trump Inauguration Protester Is Sentenced, and Let’s Just Say the Punishment Fits the Crime Posted in America, Elections, Law

In Groundbreaking Decision, DC Court Orders IRS to Return Money to Victims

CaptureIn the class action suit of Steele v. United States, the Court ruled that the IRS would be required to return an estimated $270 million in “user fees” charged to Americans in what a U.S. District Court determined was an unlawful expansion of the agency’s authority.

In 2010, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued a tangle of new regulations, including a requirement that tax preparers register for a specific ID number (PTIN) to be entered on all returns. For anyone who had previously been preparing tax returns for others without a state-sanctioned “professional” preparer’s status, this new regulation required them to pass a competency exam before receiving the required PTIN.

After paying the required fees to take the exam and the costs associated with the mandated annual IRS “education courses,” preparers would then have to purchase the mandated PTIN from the IRS. The initial charge was $64.25, and renewal costs were $63. In 2015, the fee was lowered to $50.

Full article: In Groundbreaking Decision, DC Court Orders IRS to Return Money to Victims – Foundation for Economic Education – Working for a free and prosperous world

Comments Off on In Groundbreaking Decision, DC Court Orders IRS to Return Money to Victims Posted in Alphabet Soup, Law, Taxes Tagged

New Hampshire Lawmakers Accidentally Pass Law Allowing Pregnant Women to Kill People

This whole debacle began when Republicans passed a bill that would make killing a fetus “fetal homicide.” After 20 weeks of pregnancy, the unborn child would be legally be defined as a person. Similar laws are already on the books in some 38 states.

Senate Bill 66 did attempt to make some exceptions. Women who wanted abortions and their doctors could still take drastic measures. If a legal abortion were to take place, it wouldn’t violate the new law.

In that effort, though, the language got a bit muddled.  It read “any act committed by the pregnant woman” would be legal, even “in cases of second-degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or causing or aiding suicide.”

It is difficult for some to see this as a simple accident. The wording seems quite specific, and based on some legal interpretations of the law, a pregnant woman could kill anyone over 20 weeks old with impunity and without consequence. Even so, many of the lawmakers who voted for Senate Bill 66 had not noticed the language. When it was brought to their attention, they scrambled to find a fix.

Full article: New Hampshire Lawmakers Accidentally Pass Law Allowing Pregnant Women to Kill People. | Tribunist

For anyone wondering, yes, it’s been fixed.

But I think we’re going to need to add this one to the list of crap I shouldn’t laugh at, but did anyway.

I was out to dinner with friends tonight and read this during a bathroom break. Went back to the table and the one couple there has four kids, so I told them about this, chuckling. The husband says, “Oh they need to fix that, people are going to die!” At which point his wife busted out in maniacal laughter. LOL!

That about sums it up.

N.C. law: Woman can’t back out of sex once underway

Aaliyah Palmer was at a party when a man pulled her into a bathroom for sex.

She was willing.

But, she told Fayetteville police, when the sex turned violent, she told the man to stop. He didn’t listen.

She thought what happened to her was rape, but she found out that under North Carolina law a woman is not allowed to back out of sex once it is underway.

“It’s really stupid,” Palmer, 19, said of the law. “If I tell you no and you kept going, that’s rape.”

In 1979, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in State v. Way, ruled that women cannot revoke consent after sexual intercourse begins.

Full article: N.C. law: Woman can’t back out of sex once underway

Wow. I don’t even know where to go with this one. My brain immediately took on the ways this could go bad or go well.

OK, so my initial reaction to this is that it is completely insane. In this woman’s situation, if the sex became violent and she didn’t want to take part in that, she should have had the right to say no, this needs to stop. And when he refused, yes, I would call that rape.

My mind is in a uproar over this, however, because we all know damn well that some woman somewhere is going to claim she told the guy half way through that she wanted to stop and was then raped. Whether she actually told him to stop or not. I mean, how the hell do you prove that she did or did not tell him to stop half way through?!

BUT! Either party should be allowed to say stop at any time during the act and have that respected. It’s still your body, and sex takes an intense amount of trust to engage in.

Let me know what you think here, guys. What’s your take on this?

Tennessee Makes the First Amendment Legal Again

columbia-campus-protest-getty-640x480

Mario Tama/Getty Images

According to this and this, Tennessee is the first state to reinstitute the 1st amendment as it was intended on college campuses!

The new law makes it illegal to shut down conservative speakers or cancel them because administrators don’t agree with them. They also cannot punish professors who speak of conservative topics as long as it is in line with the class subject. Free Speech Zones are no longer allowed, making the entire campus a free speech zone. It disallows viewpoint based discrimination for funds for student groups. And the legal definition of student-on-student harassment must be used instead of the one set up by liberal administrators.

The law also demands campuses use the actual legal definition of student-on-student “harassment” handed down by the Supreme Court, behavior “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

H/T Breitbart

One down, 49 to go! Let’s make freedom legal again!

Read the text of the Campus Free Speech Protection Act.

Don’t Agree With Canadian Government Opinions? No Adoption or Fostering for You!

Lifesite News reports:

Pro-family advocates warn Bill 89 gives the state more power to seize children from families that oppose the LGBTQI and gender ideology agenda, and allows government agencies to effectively ban couples who disagree with that agenda from fostering or adopting children.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, repeals and replaces the former Child and Family Services Act that governs child protection services, and adoption and foster care services.

It adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered “in the best interests of the child.”

At the same time, it deletes the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child as a factor to be considered, and mandates child protection services consider only the child’s own “creed” or “religion” when assessing the best interests of the child.

Full article: Canada Passes Bill to Let Government Remove Kids from Christian Homes ⋆ The Constitution

Comments Off on Don’t Agree With Canadian Government Opinions? No Adoption or Fostering for You! Posted in Foreign Affairs, Law

Trump signs bills to help police officers, veterans

Fox News

Seated at a table in the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room, Trump approved a measure giving priority for federal grants to those federal and state law enforcement agencies that hire and train veterans.

The American Law Enforcement Heroes Act and the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Improvement Act is the product of a bipartisan effort by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

The second measure – the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Improvement Act – takes steps to reduce the backlog of families awaiting approval of survivor benefits of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

Full article: Trump signs bills to help police officers, veterans | Fox News

Save

Comments Off on Trump signs bills to help police officers, veterans Posted in Law, Military, Police