MOSTLY LEGAL
How to Succeed in Today's Legal Environment
MOSTLY LEGAL NEWS
News in the USA
Here is a picture of a Greek or Roman fellow who has been listening to Congress and trying to understand just exactly what it is they're trying to pull over on the Citizens, and decide whether he's going to stand for it or not.
We saw one of the network (that is to say, MSM) news programs glowing about the Congressional passage of the $1.2 Trillion infrastructure bill which includes spending for:
- Roads, Bridges, Major Projects: $110 Billion
- Transit: $39 Billion
- Railways: $66 Billion
- Broadband: $65 Billion
- Water Infrastructure: $55 Billion
Wow! That’s sure a lot infrastructure. However, just from eyeballing the numbers, it seemed to come up short. So, since they didn’t do it it, we took a moment to add up all those Billions of Dollars.
It’s $335 Billion.
Which prompts us to ask this burning question:
Where’s the other $865 Billion going?
Besides the specific items, the list included Major Projects. Does this mean the other $865 Billion is for Minor Projects?
On another MSM news program, we heard a Senator say that when he thinks of infrastructure it means roads, bridges, airports and seaports. Okay, airports and seaports probably qualify as infrastructure. They weren’t on the list of what the other program seemed to think were important items, although they could certainly fall under Major Projects. We think it’s unlikely $865 Billion is going to airports and seaports.
We reckon we’ll have to take a look at the bill to see how much is allocated to what category of infrastructure. It would be easier if somebody willing to publicize it has already done so. Now that it’s apparently “bipartisan”, we suspect there’s an awful lot of stuff in the bill that neither party really wants us to scrutinize.
UPDATE: We just saw a news report that $47 Billion is earmarked for Climate Change. So, $382 Billion identified, only $818 Billion still a mystery. We’re still wondering, though, what is “transit” if it’s not railways, roads, bridges and airports? Subways and buses, maybe? What about electric vehicles, or are they under climate change?
More News in the USA
Here is a picture of a citizen patriot exercising the Constitutional Rights that were protected and defended by heroes who fought, bled, and died for them like those shown above.
Here is a picture of a citizen patriot exercising the rights of free expression and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
It has been said, repeatedly, by the main stream media and the "left" and other liberals and so-called "progressives" and Democrats and probably Stephen Colbert and a lot of other prominent media entertainers, that the protesters who trashed Portland and New York City were exercising their First Amendment rights. Apparently, it is asserted that a “protest” is covered by “freedom of speech”. We (which we use as the "royal we") cannot agree. A protest more appropriately falls under “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. In either case, we cannot discern any right to pillage and vandalize property, nor any right to stop traffic, nor any right to throw water bottles and other projectiles at police, nor any right to assault and batter people, within the parameters contemplated by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, these illegal activities are embraced by the aforementioned main stream media, et al., as forms of “protest” that are protected by the First Amendment. It appears that they are overlooking the word “peaceably”. Or, perhaps, they have re-defined the word “peaceably” so that those activities will fall within its definition; but, this seems to us (that would be the "royal us") that this makes "peace" or "peaceably" meaningless. We shake our head in dismay, disappointment and fear. Need we really have to explain?
There is no Constitutional right to petition for redress by breaking windows, spraying graffiti, throwing projectiles, looting, or assaulting; nor are such activities covered by freedom of speech. They aren’t speech, they are crimes. Some of the protesters, however, seem to be asserting that crime is speech. We may need to review some legal history, as we don’t recall whether burning draft cards and/or the flag was finally decided by the courts to be a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Even so, those would be victimless crimes. We actually heard some MSM talking heads assert that the destruction of a few small businesses and the beatings of a few innocent bystanders was a small price to pay in relation to the bigger picture of protesting systemic racism in America. Well, there's a “slippery slope” if we ever saw one.This shift in terminology brings criminal conduct (crime) within the scope of First Amendment protection. This is both crazy and dangerous, and we will oppose it to the best of our ability. The First Amendment, and all provisions of the Constitution, must be preserved and protected, not re-defined into meaningless slogans to fit the political correctness of the moment.