"Unannounced Visits" or Fourth Amendment Violation?

Source: Washington Post
"Court Won't Review San Diego Home Hunts"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112600765.html

Earlier this week the Supreme Court allowed California to uphold a court decision to let law enforcement officials to bombard into people's homes without a search warrant. They reportedly can do anything that they can do with a search warrant. This is targetted largely at low income/welfare families that are surprised by unannounced visits by officials as a part of the welfare program to prevent fraud.

So, the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant and some sort of suspicion of breaking the law. So why did the Supreme Court not look at this and try to end the program?

I think that it is ridiculous that the Supreme Court would let this happen. This not only effects the people on welfare but it leaves a reason for law enforcement to do it in many other houses of people that may not even fall under this category. What is next? We already have people listening to phone conversations and now we are moving towards more breaches in our Fourth Amendment rights. Hopefully, people will realize what wrong doing this is and speak out.

Response to "A Human Problem"

In response to Ich Bein Berliner's "A Human Problem"

I don't think Ann Coulter was just trying to say and use what the democrats' ideas as "division and miscommunications", but rather in regards to the growing outcry of many American liberals that the War in Iraq is a failure and we should just withdrawal. I apologize that the world has generalizations that a lot of people don't like it, but it's hard to not generalize liberals (among other variations of people) by saying, "Liberals said....", because there are many people in this world and it would be hard to single them all out when they share similar views.

Back to the point that Ann Coulter was trying to make in her article “From the halls of Malibu to the shores of Kennedy”. Like I mentioned “many” liberals in the nation do nothing but bash and bang on the Administration for the war in Iraq, and it is true that more democrats voted for the war, then against it. So why? Why are people after Sept. 11th going to agree to the war, then turn around and blame it on the U.S. President for the invasion after they had their chance to go against it? Also, do not lie to yourself, weren’t you pretty happy after seeing what they did that we were going to go try and destroy Al-Qaeda?

The war is not just “…people killing people over pieces of the ground…”; it is what the vast majority of the people at the time wanted. We wanted justice and a world without terrorism, and by us striving to make it a reality, we are also striving to make the lives of other people around the world lives without having to “…fear their governments,” as you say. So I think that to say that the war we are currently in is nothing more than a bunch of people clubbing each other is just as much disrespect to the military, as well as the people that many have forgotten that died painful deaths from the terrorists many liberals claim are beating us today.

The other claim made is that the Bush Administration had practically overlooked other terrorist nations and jumped into Iraq. This is factually inaccurate because there have been troops in Syria and Iran and for a few years after the attack, they were providing intelligence to the U.S. about Al-Qaeda. The United States does have a large military but when dictators like Suddam Hussein run countries and contribute to terrorism we need to go after them, especially if terrorism is what we are fighting. Like Ann Coulter said, we did catch Suddam contrary to what democrats said. This is just stating the obvious, not dividing people, but summing up the ones that divide the country and the military.

If anything is to be argued about, and if a positive outlook was your topic, I think you could have turned it around to something along the lines of “We have made a lot of progress in the Iraq War, Mark Bowden predicted a casualty rate of 60,000 to 100,000 of U.S. troops in Iraq, and we have less then 5% of that rate as of today, and that we have not turned our backs on the Kurds like predicted.” I think there is something more positive that can be pulled out of Ann’s “…aggressive style argument.”

Crime in "Killadelphia"

Article Source:
MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18278063/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21418521/

Image Source: MSNBC Matt Rourke / AP


The current crime situation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is mind-boggling. These days, it’s not uncommon in to have a friend that’s busy on the weekend because they have a funeral to attend. The city has an average of one homicide a day. The cities violence and homicide rate has been increasing over the past 10 years and is 17 percent higher then this time last year alone. Homicide in Philly is 3 times that of other cities in the U.S.

Sunday October 22nd, the city called for citizens to rally against the cities security downfall and
begin patrolling the streets unarmed. The only thing is, how is this going to help stop ruthless criminals who don’t even mind shooting or killing an officer or two in a Dunkin’ Donuts robbery that happened today (November 1st). It is apparent that something needs to be down to deter crime and criminals but putting more citizens in harms way to make up for the lack of police and re-enforcement progress is outrageous.

Something else needs to be done about the downfall of “Killadelphia”. Shouldn’t the government be stepping in when you have people shooting at children on their way to work for riding their bikes in the street? Police need to step up to the plate and take care of their city and it’s people when citizens pay taxes and rely on them to do their job. Not ask citizens to do it for them. They need to crack down on gun control, gangs, truancy, and behavior of its people.

The majority of the population of the city is low-income and below education standards. This is probably a major contributor to the crime epidemic, and the police are not the only to blame, but enforcement of gun control and law is their responsibility. Yes, there has been a first stage of progress with the city seeking to hire dozens of truancy officer to keep children in school and out of criminal activity, but Mayor John Street needs to address the root cause as well.

Unemployment, education, and bad economy are major contributors as well. The Mayor Street has done little to reassess his current crime plans. Police employment is low in the city and so is the push to hire more officers. This is something that should not be a problem in a country that has enough power to help in violence in other countries. It’s time the people start worrying about who is in office doing something, rather then who is in office saying they will do something. Mayor Street, city, and state officials need to do something.