Good riddance

Gahanna, Ohio police officer Christopher Thomas, the buffoon whose saga we've been following closely, was fired by his department on August 24, the reason being given that "'intentional violation of the law and disregard for public safety is evidence that you are not suited to be a police officer.'"

Since he was clocked doing 149 mph on his motorcycle while being still on paid medical leave for a supposed on-the-job injury last December, we can certainly agree with the reasoning for his dismissal.

Naturally, it appears that he's not going to go quietly into the good night:

"Jim Gilbert, head of the local FOP, said Thomas is trying to decide whether to file a civil lawsuit against the city or file a grievance through the union, which would result in arbitration."

Thomas is probably just upset that his high-speed riding compadre, Ohio State Trooper Jason Highsmith, only received a five-day unpaid suspension from his agency as punishment for acting in a similar fashion, again due to union involvement:

"'Termination was recommended, but we came to an agreement with the union,' said Lt. Tony Bradshaw, a patrol spokesman."

Once again, the police unions seem to have never come across a lawbreaking or incompetent cop that they won't go to bat for, no matter how egregious the behavior.

At least Highsmith will no longer be on motorcycle patrol; he's been transferred to a car unit in another district, where he presumably won't have deal with the laughably obvious hypocrisy of having him pulling over and ticketing motorists for speeding on the exact same stretch of highway where he himself so cavalierly and spectacularly flouted the limit.

We are pleased to note in all of this, however, that at least one person in the Gahanna Police Department appears to be a stand-up individual:

"[Gahanna Safety Director Robert] Keyes revealed in his letter that, three days after the speeding stop, a patrol captain told Gahanna Deputy Chief Ken Bell that the patrol planned to cite Highsmith but not Thomas.

'The deputy chief indicated to the captain his strong preference that you also be cited for your speeding offense," Keyes wrote Thomas.'"

Sincere thanks, Chief Bell, for making sure that one of your officers didn't get a free pass from having to answer for his blatant lawbreaking just because of what he (nominally) did for a living.

The voices are starting to be raised about all of the tax cheats in D.C.

"It’s the same old story for Rangel, who last year reluctantly acknowledged what he described as an inadvertent failure to report $75,000 in rental income for a beachfront property in the Dominican Republic. Then, many critics—including this page—called on him to step down from his chairmanship, at least until his professed innocence could be established. He didn’t.

Now, it gets worse. Newly-filed disclosures show that Rangel failed to report at least half a million dollars in assets in 2007. They also show that his net worth is between $1 million and $2.5 million, or about twice what he claimed in 2008."

From today's Buffalo News (certainly no beacon of conservatism) editorial that urges House Ways and Means Committee Chairman (which means he is in charge of writing the nation's tax laws, for Pete's sake) Charlie Rangel to do the honorable thing and resign before any more disturbing news about his numerous financial ethical lapses leaks out.

Why is it always that the people who are the most eager to confiscate more and more of our tax dollars for their doomed social engineering experiments ("Turbo-Tax Tim" Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Rangel, etc.) never seem to get around to paying their "fair share" themselves?

Today's TASER Travesty

Cincinnati, Ohio police officer Anthony Plummer has been suspended from the force while local officials investigate his TASERing of an woman following a traffic accident.

The unarmed passenger had her hands raised in the air and was kneeling on the ground when she was shocked by Plummer, in direct violation of department policy which "dictates a Taser should only be used if a suspect is resisting arrest or has assaulted the officer", neither of which obviously applies in this incident.

According to the article, it seems that "Officer" Plummer should have been forcibly removed from his position long ago:

"He has had use-of-force complaints against him several times, resulting in a suspension and two reprimands. He was once fired from the force, but was reinstated after an appeal."

The handiwork of the local police union, no doubt.

Hopefully this latest debacle involving Plummer means that he will now be bounced for good, as well as hauled up on criminal charges for his abusive behavior.

Kudos must go to Cincinatti's chief of police for immediately taking steps to get this thug off his force:

"'A preliminary review shows he is not in compliance with our standards and he is being investigated for unnecessary and excessive use of force,' Police Chief Thomas Streicher said."

An unequivocal and direct statement, just as it should be. Very refreshing, especially when it's coming from a police administrator.

At least he's consistent

Incoming San Francisco Chief of Police George Gascon, who as the recent head of the Mesa, Arizona Police Department advocated a policing policy that basically amounted to a "don't ask, don't tell" amnesty for illegal aliens, now also wants to give blanket amnesty to upwards of 75 Frisco officers accused of wrongdoing, simply because there happens to be a backlog of such cases that are awaiting resolution by the civilian Police Commission:

"The new police chief told The Chronicle on Wednesday that he wants to see "the great majority" of roughly 75 discipline cases pending before the civilian Police Commission end with little or no punishment for officers accused of minor misconduct.

Those cases, he said, include charges such as use of inappropriate language, being discourteous, failing to properly fill out a police report or a first-time misdemeanor drunken-driving arrest." (Emphasis mine)

(A DUI charge by an officer sworn to arrest those who behave in such a manner certainly doesn't strike us as "minor misconduct", by the way.)

Gascon wants the power to unilaterally suspend an officer for up to ten days without pay for a first offense (seemingly regardless of the infraction), and only refer cases to the Police Commission for a second offense (or apparently for what he considers to be a serious enough first offense; the story is a little unclear on that particular point).

Sounds OK on the surface, but, as the piece describes, people who live in that city recently took disciplinary discretion away from the last police administration after they perceived that privilege was being abused by the brass:

"Six years ago, San Francisco voters gave residents a uniquely big say over police officers following the notorious Fajitagate street brawl. In that case, three off-duty officers were accused of picking a fight with two men, one who refused to hand over his to-go bag of fajitas. That incident became a scandal when some top police brass were accused of a cover-up. Charges were dropped in the case, and many of the top brass had their names cleared by the courts."

We're sure the chief's proposed plan is a whopping big comfort to those citizens or fellow cops who stuck their neck out to report an officer for a legitimate reason, and who will now have to sit by and watch that person skate with no punishment whatsoever for their wrongdoing or incompetence.

How about this - either appoint people to the commission who will firmly commit to working enough hours in order to reduce the backlog (the gist of the problem, according to the article), or give the chief what he wants going forward while still resolving outstanding cases brought under the current policy. That way, a solution is reached without letting any officers who broke the law or official rules arbitrarily off the hook.

Fair enough?

It's not getting any better over there

Four random news tidbits from the freedom-sapping wasteland that is the country of England, two health care-related and two which illustrate just how useless that particular Nanny-state's liberty-confiscating tactics are at preventing and solving crime:



1. The National Health Service itself admits that upwards of 4,000 women in that country gave birth in places other than delivery rooms (including parking lots, corridors and elevators) because of a lack of resources, specifically that the maternity wards were already packed to the gills:

"Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full."

What's causing all of the difficulty? Why, saving money, of course:

"Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas."

Rationing, in other words. Don't think it won't happen here as well.

An astute U.S. commenter to the article points out another salient point:

"Note that in the NHS pregnant women only have access to midwives and probably have to jump through hoops to get a real obstetrician and only if they are 'high risk'"

Interesting. Does anyone wish for that nightmare scenario to be repeated here?



2. The Patients Association, a UK charity, estimates that up to one million medical patients in England have been exposed to "cruel and neglectful care" over the last six years:

"The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff."

Socialized medicine just looks more and more like the ideal solution for our country, doesn't it?

"Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was concerned that public confidence in the NHS could be undermined by the examples cited"

We'd be quite "concerned" too, if we were him. Here's just some of what Dr. Carter didn't want the public to find out about:

"Pamela Goddard, a piano teacher from Bletchingley, in Surrey, was 82 and suffering with cancer but was left in her own excrement and her condition deteriorated due to her bed sores.

Florence Weston, from Sedgley in the West Midlands, died aged 85 and had to remain without food or water for several days as her hip operation was repeated cancelled."

We'd be astounded if "public confidence" wasn't "undermined" over there these days, now that these horrific examples have become public knowledge. Why aren't the British people in revolt over this?

Our current system, flawed as it is, looks quite adequate when compared to this absolute mess, no?

3. There are over one million surveillance cameras in England, equipment that was installed at a cost of over one billion public dollars, creating a Big Brotherish nightmare of lost privacy and intrusiveness. Have they been effective at solving crime? Well, not exactly:

"But [Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville of Scotland Yard] admitted just 1,000 crimes were solved in 2008 using CCTV images as officers fail to make the most of potentially vital evidence."

A pitiful 0.1% success rate. That's just not going to cut it, especially when one factors in how the sheep-like peasants over there were repeatedly told how much giving up their privacy was going to protect them from the ever-increasing numbers of predators and thugs:

"Writing in an internal report, Mr Neville said people are filmed many times every day and have high expectations when they become victims of crime.

But he suggested the reality is often disappointing as in some cases officers fail to bring criminals to justice even after they are caught on camera and identified"

The British subjects gave up essential liberty for temporary safety, and yet received neither from their benevolent dictators. Looks like the wise Ben Franklin is still correct, even after all these years.

4. "Pint glass" control?

Yep, it sadly appears now to have come to that in today's England, as the Home Office there is preparing to mandate that plastic pint glasses be used in pubs instead of the traditional ones made of, well, glass, in a no doubt futile attempt to prevent them from being used as weapons in criminal assaults:

"Official figures show 5,500 people are attacked with glasses and bottles every year in England and Wales."

People are attacked every day with just about every conceivable object ever made, from gardening implements to kitchen appliances to office supplies to computer components. You name it, it's been used as a weapon at some point. Are the mental midgets over there going to eventually ban everything?

They're certainly on their way, that's for sure.

Here's a novel idea: how about allowing the common peasant the means to successfully defend themselves from attacks from the kinds of thugs who will use any object in order to rob or injure someone?

We'd bet good money that the assault rate would fall quite precipitously once the criminal "yobs" in that defenseless victim paradise puzzle out that they might get themselves injured while attempting to mug their law-abiding victims with the likes of a beer glass.

How swiftly (and favorably) the wheels of justice turn, if one is a "special person"

Chandler, Arizona Police Detective Brett Lockwood was arrested on August 11 of this year after someone reported having knowledge of a recent physical altercation between him and his wife at their home:

"Chandler police got a call from someone 'close to the family' reporting that his wife had bruises after a fight the couple had two days earlier." (Emphasis mine)

Last week, on Friday, August 21, Lockwood was sentenced to "36 months of probation and substance-abuse counseling in a deferred prosecution deal in Gilbert Municipal Court".

Boy, that was amazingly fast, eh? The rocket-like speed of this case's resolution wouldn't be because the suspect was a cop or anything, now would it?

Curiously, Lockwood was charged only with "misdemeanor" assault and not "domestic" assault, despite his wife admitting to responding Gilbert police officers that her husband had hurt her on more than one occasion, and despite the creep's lying about putting his hands on her in the first place. This is a very interesting turn of events, as domestic battery would seem to be most descriptive of Lockwood's reprehensible behavior, and undoubtedly the charge that would be applied to any non-cop found in the exact same situation.

Why the reduced charge, then? Well, perhaps because the execrable and unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment mandates that anyone convicted of any crime of domestic violence, no matter how trivial, be barred from owning or carrying firearms for life, which naturally would be a real career-killer for "Officer" Lockwood. That would seem as likely a reason as any for the overlooking of the obvious "domestic" nature of this crime.

See, it really is good to be a "special person".

"The closure of the criminal case paves the way for the department to start its own investigation into Lockwood, a routine internal affairs investigation that opens when any officer is arrested and charged with a crime."

We certainly hope that the Internal Affairs folks who investigate Lockwood's egregious conduct take into consideration that he is now a convicted wife-beater who deliberately lied to fellow officers when they decide whether or not to recommend keeping him employed as a homicide detective.

After all, when one thinks about it, what possible credibility could he have, both in the field and in the courtroom, when working a domestic murder?

The courthouse saga continues

On Wednesday, August 19, having utterly lost all patience with waiting for the courtesy of a response from Arizona U.S. Marshal David Gonzales regarding my formal complaint about being rousted, unlawfully detained and threatened with arrest by two of his employees for doing nothing more than engaging in lawful behavior on the sidewalk outside the Sandra Day O'Connor Federal Building on April 6, 2009, I decided to call Marshal Gonzales once more (I had previously left a voice mail on his direct line that went unreturned) and speak to him personally about the status of the inquiry.

The attendant "Pete" who answered the phone asked me to hold while he checked to see if the Marshal was available to take my call. He came back and asked me to hold while he connected us, but I was subsequently transferred to some other minion's voicemail.

I called right back and explained to Pete that I had been expecting to speak with the Marshal, not get shuttled once again to someone else's mailbox. He dithered a bit, then consulted with (and brought on the line with us) another (very friendly and helpful) female employee, who subsequently asked me if I would instead be willing to speak with the head of Judicial Security, one Jennifer Harkins.

Are you kidding? Would I ever! As readers may recall, I tried mightily on multiple occasions to politely get ahold of the elusive Ms. Harkins, only to be completely (and rudely) ignored by her. Truthfully, I was starting to doubt her very existence.

Sure, I replied to Pete and the other employee. Seeing as how Marshal Gonzales is apparently unavailable to converse with a citizen about a complaint, I'll chat with Ms. Harkins, if for nothing else than to prove that she is in fact an actual person. I was transferred to her extension, and wonder of all wonders, she actually picked it up. Here's our conversation:



Oh, and lest I be accused of some sort of creative editing, here's the recording of the entire second phone conversation I had with the agency's employees today. It's approximately 6:30 in length:



After this amazing call ended, I began composing this post, and then after further reflection decided to give Marshal Gonzales one more try at personally explaining his and his employees' actions before I went public with this update. I called back once more, and miraculously was put right through to him:



I decided to hold off publishing this update for a few days in order to give Marshal Gonzales a fair chance to follow through on his promise to send me a formal response, even though he had already not returned one phone message left for him and I was beginning to suspect that I was being "slow-played".

On Tuesday, August 25, I received the following letter (please click on it for a bigger image; the original was slightly faded, possibly due to a lack of ink in the printer used to generate it):





First of all, sincere thanks have to be given to the Marshal for actually fulfilling his promise to me, which is a refreshing change from the very unprofessional attitudes of some of his employees.

As to his response (which was obviously hastily thrown together the day before, in my opinion, as shown by the date on the letter), I must respectfully disagree with his conclusions:

1. "you came to the Federal Court House with a video camera"

I did not come to the courthouse, nor was I anywhere near the entrance, as the video plainly shows. I was on the public sidewalk adjacent to the building. In fact, at no time whatsoever during the incident was I on courthouse property.

2. "We take these threats [to blow up a court house] seriously."

As you should, and I do as well, believe it or not. However, I fail to see how a law-abiding citizen engaging in legal behavior would be perceived as a bomb threat. In fact, I take offense to that particular labeling of my activities that day.

3. "You were not detained in any way"

I was told "not yet" by the officers in answer to my question "Am I free to go?". That constitutes "detained" in anyone's book, I'd wager.

4. "Court Security Officers having a conversation with you on the sidewalk does not constitute grounds for a formal complaint."

I would hardly characterize my being threatened with arrest if I continued my lawful behavior a "conversation". By the way, notice how the marshal finally does admit in this sentence that I was indeed on the sidewalk, and not on courthouse property as he earlier infers.

It is quite obvious that I have reached a dead end with Marshal Gonzales in my attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution to the incident that happened to me on April 6, 2009. I will now file a civil rights complaint with the local U.S. Attorney, as well as contact my local Congressman for assistance. These next steps may very well turn out to be exercises in futility as well, but at least I will know that I did everything I could to prevent other law-abiding citizens from being similarly harassed (and having their civil rights trampled in the process) in the future.

If only he were so attentive about confirming the IDs of voters

Check out this video:



Representative Jim Moran, D-VA, an emphatic coddler of illegal immigrants who would presumably be against any requirement for someone to present a valid ID before voting in a national election, demanding to see identification from an attendee at one of his town halls before deigning to entertain the citizen's question.

(Yes, the questioner did indeed live in Moran's district.)

We wonder if the IDs of all the manufactured sign-waving, bused-in union shock troops were as carefully scrutinized before they were invited to ask their pre-printed questions.

Disgusting, but oh so predictable

To infuse Kennedy into the health-care debate, Democrats are planning to affix the former senator's name to the health-care legislation that emerges from Congress.

Are you liberals sure you want to go down this road again?

"Democrats are hoping that the memory of Sen. Ted Kennedy will revive the Democratic Party's flagging push for health care reform.

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News."

This shameless exploitation, currently being disguised as "honoring" the memory of someone who has barely assumed room temperature, certainly brings back memories of the Paul Wellstone "memorial" debacle, and only further steels our resolve to fight this government takeover of health care with every fiber of our being.

By the way - don't shed any tears for Mr. Kennedy. He got to have 40 more years of life than did Mary Jo Kopechne.

We've got an interesting afternoon planned

At the special request of our friend Joel Rosenberg, we're going to be "live"blogging the House Public Safety and Senate Judiciary Committees of the Minnesota Legislature as they hear testimony today from the Office of Legislative Auditor concerning their recent report, which documents in great detail the shameful goings-on of the (thankfully now-defunct) Minnesota Gang Strike Force.

(We put "live" in quotations because we're going to be covering the hearing online. Anyone interested in a rare front-row seat to the unveiling of the outrageous shenanigans of an utterly out-of-control law-enforcement agency should tune in, as well.)

Joel will be in the hearing room providing on-the-scene commentary; others, including us here at the Muckraker, will be watching the hearing and posting various revelations and tidbits right here. You're welcome to head on over and check it out beginning at around 2 p.m. Minnesota time.

Our main reason for doing this? To find out if the crimes, abusive behaviors and systematic denials of the due process rights of citizens allegedly committed by Strike Force officers are going to be excused, and the accused perpetrators not brought to justice, simply because they are "special people" who happen to currently possess badges and guns.

Here's a small sampling of some of the vile acts that officers assigned to the Strike Force are accused of committing:

1. Confiscating money, vehicles and property from individuals without evidence of gang involvement, or even of any wrongdoing at all;
2. Conducting warrantless searches of people and their property, including their cell phones, without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed;
3. Forcing innocent individuals (including children) to be photographed "holding Metro Gang Strike Force identifying information" as if they were convicted and validated gangbangers;
4. Ignoring even the most basic of police procedures with regard to such vital investigative details as documenting and ensuring a chain of custody for evidence, poor or nonexistent record keeping of confidential informants and overall "poor security and safety practices";
   
5. Improperly accessing the national NCIC criminal database for "non-governmental purposes";
6. Selling themselves confiscated property (some that was subsequently found to be improperly seized) for pennies on the dollar, and out-and-out stealing certain items "for their own personal use";
7. Finally (and most damningly, in our view), trying to shred documents and delete computer files once their wrongdoing was uncovered.
   

This list is just from a cursory reading of the report, and is only part of what these rogue cops are accused of doing under color of their authority.

We will be watching the testimony closely, and hopefully will get the opportunity to put names to some of the rotten people who have betrayed the public trust in such a blatant fashion.

Hopefully we've laid in enough of a popcorn supply.

Another English socialized medicine "success" story

British subject Mark Wattson recently had his appendix removed at a National Health Service hospital.

"Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home."

Roughly three weeks later, his appendix ruptured, and he was rushed to the same hospital to have an emergency operation to remove it.

?

(To be completely fair, a very small percentage of people [1 in 100,000, according to our online colleague Scott Jordan, who called our attention to this story] have two of the organs, but that doesn't appear to be the case in this incident. Nope, this was just good ol' fashioned medical incompetence.)

"A spokesman for Great Western Hospital confirmed that a representative had met Mr Wattson and that an investigation had been started.

He was unable to confirm what, if anything, was removed in the first operation."

We sure hope they inform Mr. Wattson once they figure out what they took out from him the first time, as he might need his unknown missing body part at some point in his future.

To make matters worse, Mr. Wattson was fired from his job because his bosses suspected he was faking his first surgery, since he ended up giving them two doctor's notes for the same condition to explain his time off, so he's now unemployed. He's also in a lot of physical pain as well, as the life-threatening rupture caused him to have a lot of complications, including a third surgery to treat an infection at his incision site.

One more little tidbit is given at the end of the article:

• Compensation payments to NHS patients have risen by 20 per cent in the last year to a record high of £769million.

At this rate more than £2million a day is being paid over claims against the Health Service. (Emphasis mine)

Yet the Messiah incredibly claims that the exact same system, once it's imposed upon the peasants here in America, will somehow actually end up saving us money, in direct contrast to everywhere else in the world socialized medicine has been implemented.

Umm, how, exactly?

And, more importantly, does anyone wish for themself or their loved ones to receive the same sort of substandard care that was given to this patient?

One thing's for sure - since his care was "free", it appears that Mr. Wattson got exactly what he paid for.

Selective privacy

The Messiah's minions are threatening members of the media with expulsion from the coverage pool if they don't "respect the privacy of his daughters" during the First Family's vacation to elite and snooty Martha's Vineyard.

He's all about keeping his daughters out of the public eye, you see.

Except, of course, for the time he decided to publish an open letter to them, complete with obviously posed photographs, for seeming propaganda purposes in a nationally distributed magazine. Then it's perfectly OK, right?

Right?

Canadian socialized medicine is great - for U.S. hospitals, that is

Socialized medicine in Canada is working out so well for them that they're actually paying U.S. hospitals in Michigan large sums of money to provide the care for their citzens that they can't seem to accomplish themselves:

"Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border."

One confused Canuck just doesn't see how his own situation starkly illustrates that his country's health system is strained to the breaking point:

"Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system"

It doesn't? You were shipped to another country for an emergency procedure, you dolt. How does that not show a "gap" in your system?

Here's another example of someone whose life was saved by coming to America for treatment after they were cruelly denied care in Canada:

"Dany Mercado, a leukemia patient from Kitchener, Ontario, is cancer-free after getting a bone marrow transplant at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit.

Told by Canadian doctors in 2007 he couldn't have the procedure there, Mercado's family and doctor appealed to Ontario health officials, who agreed to let him have the transplant in Detroit in January 2008."

Unbelievable.

Canadians who wish to have a bariatric procedure because they're dangerously obese from scarfing poutine and Tim Horton's donuts? Don't hold your breath, hosers, as the story reports that the average wait for that sort of surgery is more than five years.

The question still remains unanswered - where are we going to go for timely, quality medical care once the Messiah gets his wish and the U.S. begins to emulate Canada by rationing medical resources in this country?

Just more reason why we may never again visit England

Some typically out-of-control English feral youth, amusing themselves by setting a Swedish woman's hair on fire while riding a train.

Those omnipresent surveillance cameras in that country are really helping to reduce that impressive crime rate, aren't they?

And yet common law-abiding English subjects are denied any means to protect themselves against these sorts of "yobs", who are frighteningly present in ever-greater numbers there.

We certainly won't be visiting that cesspool of a once-noble country anytime soon.

One of England's offshoots starts to act like its parent

We are eternally grateful that we don't live in a place like New Zealand, where after a tragic shooting incident there that resulted in the death of a police officer the police have unilaterally decided to reclassify all semiautomatic firearms that happen to have a pistol grip as "military-style semi-automatic weapons", and have ordered residents to either update their gun licenses, with all of the concomitant headache-causing paperwork and exorbitant fees that go along with that process, or else turn them in:

"Gun owners have been told that if they own a semi-automatic firearm with a "military pattern, free-standing pistol grip'', it is now considered a military-style semi-automatic firearm.

Owners must undergo more stringent vetting than for standard A-class endorsed licences and are required to have a more secure safe for weapons, costing upwards of $1000." (Emphasis mine)

Do the cops there in fact have the authority to make such a decision entirely on their own? No, say law-abiding New Zealand gun owners, some of who have filed a court action to stop the arbitrary relabeling of their firearms. They quite reasonably point out that these new harsher restrictions on their freedoms wouldn't have stopped the suspected shooter from committing his crime because the cops themselves didn't even bother to contact the man after his current license had expired:

"Mr. [gun auction site owner Mark] Fogarin said no check was made after [alleged killer Jan] Molenaar's licence expired to ensure he no longer had guns"

So an unlicensed gun owner appears to have committed a crime with his now-illegal firearms, and the first thing the cops do is go after the licensed ones?

We'd be pretty hot if we were Kiwi gun owners as well. After all, what's the point of making everyone get a license if the "authorities" aren't even going to keep track of who's obeying the law by renewing them?

Ain't it the truth

While out and about this evening, we caught the act of a very funny young comedian named Nate Boratzke.

We found his entire routine to be wildly hilarious, but one of his jokes was also right on target in its mockery of the useless legal phenomenon known as the restraining order, the use of which is often put forth as a reason that women have no need to arm themselves against a spurned suitor who is furious about having his advances rejected, and who is currently threatening physical harm against the lady in question.

Here's Boratzke's (paraphrased) take:

What's the deal with those restraining orders? "Okay, ma'am, if your psycho boyfriend (the one who's completely out of control and has announced that no law or person is going to keep him away from you) shows up at your house, just show him this piece of paper... he does know how to read, doesn't he?"

We think he masterfully illustrated in just a few words how utterly stupid the argument for relying on a legal document for protection against being assaulted or killed (usually put forth by the likes of feminist women's groups, police administrators and anti-gun organizations) really is.

Can I help the next person in line?

An interesting anecdote we spotted on (The Customer Is) Not Always Right, an online forum for retail employees to sound off about the dingbat consumers they deal with on a daily basis (We can certainly vouch, after spending seven years of our youth working at a grocery store in a bad neighborhood, for the fact that some customers aren't "always right"):

Toy Store | New Hampshire

Customer: “Do you have any Wiis?”

Me: “No sir, Wiis are all sold out.”

(Customer pulls out a badge and flashes it briefly.)

Customer: “You sure you don’t have any Wiis?”

Me: “No sir, no Wiis. What exactly was that badge?”

Customer: “Border Patrol.”

(This being New Hampshire, I have to ask:)

Me: “Which border?”

Customer: “Canadian.”

(Customer walks away with a self-important air.)

To be fair, there's no way to independently verify this story, although we don't have much of a problem with believing that some arrogant Federal employee would actually misuse their authority in such an unprofessional manner, all in a pathetic attempt to snag a popular video game console.

A very insightful analysis

Thomas Sowell:

"That such a massive change of the entire medical care system, from top to bottom, was attempted to be rushed through Congress before the August recess-- before anybody in or out of Congress had time to read it all-- should have told us from the outset that we were being played for fools."

We suppose this accomplished academic, who happens to be black, will also be labeled a "racist" for daring to oppose the Messiah's socialized medicine scheme.

It's not your birthright

Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts apparently wants to score himself some special treatment (surprise, surprise) by urging his state's lawmakers to change the rules in the middle of the game to allow the governor to appoint an interim replacement should Kennedy have to resign his seat due to his current illness. Massachusetts law currently has no such provision, and only mandates that a special election be held within 5 months of a senatorial vacancy.

Ironically, the process that Kennedy is complaining about was instituted by his own Democratic Party in 2004 because they were playing petty politics at the time:

"Kennedy's letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election be held 145 to 160 days after the vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president."

Ah, so the law was plenty good enough for a Republican governor, but a Democratic one is unfairly constrained?

Pathetic.

The state is free to modify their rules as they see fit, of course, but for fairness purposes the changes should not apply until the next Senator is elected, as implementing them immediately would certainly be a blatant example of favoritism. That seat isn't yours to dispose of as you see fit once your withered claws can no longer hold onto it, Senator. It belongs to your constituents.

Oh, and here's a suggestion for ol' Splash - Why not simply resign now and allow the process to begin right away? After all, it's not like you've been getting any work done lately.

Eerily coincidental timing

Carlos Miller has an exclusive interview with Randall Thomas, a photographer who was arrested on Monday in New York City for filming the FBI building there from across the street:

"During his incarceration, the feds persuaded Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV to sign a search warrant that authorized them to confiscate his camera and memory card, which were not returned to him when he was released six hours later."

We wonder exactly how far away a person has to be from a public building before it's legal to take a picture of it, especially when you don't even have to be physically present to do so these days:

"'It’s crazy how they can arrest me when you can see the same building on Google Maps,' he said."

Following Homeland Security's "logic", why aren't the people in charge of Google Maps in the clink as well?

This situation is starting to get out of hand, and in our minds only reaffirms the necessity of following through with our own complaint in an attempt to force the Feds once and for all to discontinue blatantly breaking the law by repeatedly engaging in this thuggish behavior.

Good work, Carlos.

Okay, I'll bite

Since it's a slow news day and because I feel like doing so, I'll play along and respond to some of the comments from the four or five "anonymous" (as always, I appreciate all comments, but weigh accordingly the statements from people who decline to post under their own name) posters who seem to have a problem with my actions at the O'Connor Federal Building on April 6 of this year. I do find it interesting that these responses all came the same day that I finally managed to speak on the phone with the very unprofessional employee at the Arizona U.S. Marshals Service office who has been ducking me for quite some time. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

1. "all he did was ask you a question which you responded to very rudely"

Was I rude? From the transcript of my audiotape recording of our interaction:

Guard 1: Good morning, sir.

Me: Good morning.

1: Are you just doing meter checks, or are you videotaping the, uh, building?

Me: I’m a private citizen standing on public property.

1: I know but I’m just asking you a question – are you videotaping the building?

Me: I’m kind of busy right now; I’d rather not answer any questions.

1: You’re not under arrest or anything.

Me: Well, then I’d like to go about my business, thank you.

1: May I see your driver’s license or ID please?

Me: I don’t have any on me, sir.

I think the transcript clearly shows that I was perfectly polite and respectful to the guard when he first approached me. I simply chose to not submit to his interrogation (which is a Constitutional right, at least the last time I checked).

I think you're confusing politeness with cooperation. Since I was engaged in perfectly lawful behavior on a public sidewalk and the guard isn't a sworn law enforcement officer, I was under no obligation to explain myself to him, just as I would feel free to ignore any other private citizen that came up and started quizzing me about what I was doing. I made it clear that I was busy and didn't wish to talk with him further; his lawful options at that point were to either leave me to go about my business or call the Phoenix police and let them handle the situation (remember, I was standing in a place where the guard had no authority over me whatsoever), but he chose to continue to attempt to pry information out of me, at which time I decided to ask if I was free to leave. He responded "Not yet" which constitutes proof that he was in fact detaining me, unlawfully in my opinion.

Once I believed that I was in fact being detained (whether lawfully or otherwise), I naturally refused to provide any other information without having the assistance of legal counsel (again, one of my Constitutional rights), which is precisely why I only said "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" to him until he threatened me with arrest, and then only to ask with what offense I would be charged with, a question he was unable to answer.

2. "He was just doing his duty and trying to protect a federal building"

I understand and appreciate that fact. The guard's authority and duties, though, do not trump the rights of a law-abiding citizen, however much the government apparently wishes that fact to not be true.

3. "do something productive with your life instead of abusing the civil legal system and trying to bilk money from governement [sic] agencies through using false allegations"

I have filed no legal action and have not asked for a single dime from anyone. The only thing that I have requested from U.S. Marshal David Gonzales is that the officers involved be disciplined as he sees fit for their unlawful actions, and that further training be provided to the officers regarding the limits of their authority. I have further asked that one of his Deputy Marshals be provided counseling regarding acceptable professionalism from a public employee, as well as instruction concerning basic telephone etiquette. My allegations are all factual and fully documented, by the way.

4. "If you are photographing a federal building you need to be looked into"

I wonder what perfectly normal activities you do as part of your daily life that "need to be looked into" by some "authority" or another?

5. "Especially with your anti government views"

I reject that label entirely. I am not anti-government. I am, however, anti-intrusive and authoritarian government, one that would so casually violate the very rights that they purport to hold so dear. I also agitate for it and its official agents to be held accountable under the same laws that they impose on the general population. I don't think that's too much to ask for.


Again, I'll have much more on this topic late next week or early the week after, as I am sincerely giving Marshal Gonzales every possible chance to resolve my long-outstanding complaint in a professional way.

Rest assured that we're still hard at work on the case

I spent most of the afternoon today diligently following up on my still-unresolved complaint with U.S. Marshal David Gonzales regarding my being rousted, unlawfully detained and threatened with arrest by two of his security guards outside the Sandra Day O'Connor Federal Building for doing nothing more than taking pictures of the structure from an adjacent public sidewalk.

There have been some recent developments in the case, but I'm not quite ready to reveal them just yet, as I am attempting to give U.S. Marshal David Gonzales every possible chance to do the "right thing" in this incident.

I apologize for being so deliberately cryptic, but I did want to let everyone know that I'm still working towards a resolution to my complaint without also prematurely tipping my hand in the matter.

Hopefully by late next week I'll have some concrete results to report.

Isn't this illegal?

The Messiah has been reduced to leaning on sympathetic religious leaders to help get his propaganda out about supporting his socialized medicine scheme, presumably right from their pulpits:

"Obama asked religious leaders to help him 'spread the truth' about reform"

Any religious organization that so shamelessly advocates a President's specific agenda on his direct request should immediately have their tax-exempt status pulled by the IRS.

The silence from certain quarters is quite deafening. If, for example, a pro-life President staged a similar conference call to urge church leaders to advocate legislation banning abortion, the ACLU and the "separation of church and state" crowd would be going bananas, and rightly so. Well, where are they in this case?

If anyone belongs to one of the following groups, you might want to think twice before putting something in the collection plate this Sunday:

"More than 30 religious groups have banded together to support the Democratic-led reform efforts, including the progressive group Catholics United, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., the National Council of Churches in Christ and the United Church of Christ."

What a shameful misuse of one's religious authority.

Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 21

So that if my spouse and I are attacked by a pack of wild dogs while out for a leisurely walk, I will be able to defend us from being torn to pieces, which is exactly what happened to elderly retired professor Lothar Schweder and his wife Sherry in rural Georgia the other day:

"Authorities have rounded up about 11 dogs suspected in the rare attack and returned to the area Tuesday to find four more spotted by a deputy. The dogs were being held by animal control officials while authorities decide what to do with them, said Jim Fullington, special agent for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation."

Here's an idea, guys - put them down posthaste. What, the GBI thinks that these mutts can somehow be rehabilitated? Somehow I doubt these dogs are going to rate very highly on the adoption list.

"'You are more likely to killed by a bolt of lightening [sic] than by a dog,' said Adam Goldfarb, a spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States "'It's one in millions.'"

Maybe so, Mr. Goldfarb (although your specific lightning analogy is debatable), but the chance of such an attack is 100% when it happens to you personally, so if you don't mind I'll just go ahead and prepare to defend myself with deadly force in such a situation, in order to avoid the Schweders' sad and gruesome fate.

After all, I don't leave my house every morning expecting to be in an auto accident, but I still buckle up every time.

More people who decided to publicly enjoy both their First and Second Amendment rights

Another free citizen decides to openly carry his firearms outside of a President Obama campaign rally to save his socialized medicine scheme appearance, this time at the VFW convention in Phoenix, Arizona (the metro area where the Muckraker is currently headquartered).

This time, though, this latest person, who is seen boldly carrying an AR-15 rifle as well as a handgun (actions which are perfectly legal under Arizona law), is a well-dressed man who happens to be black. This fact apparently causes the talking heads at CNN no small amount of consternation when they discuss the incident because, although they try mightily, they just can't seem to find a convenient and PC way to casually dismiss the man as some kind of nut, as Chris Matthews of MSNBC shamefully attempted to do to New Hampshire resident William Kostric last week:





He wasn't the only one doing so, as the CNN reporter present at the scene notes. In fact, news reports estimate that upwards of a dozen law-abiding people were peaceably openly carrying firearms in the crowd. Total number of problems or arrests resulting from their doing so: Zero.

"Because I can do it," [the man] said when asked why he was armed [at today's protest]. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

Well put, sir. Very well put.

We would be honored to buy you a drink of your choice at some future time. Please contact us at your convenience.

Does he "get it" now?

Tom Barrett, the staunchly anti-gun mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and stalwart member of fellow city boss Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a thinly-disguised gun control organization), was attacked by a man with a metal pipe outside the Milwaukee State Fair last Saturday night, suffering serious head and hand injuries, when he attempted to assist a grandmother who was involved in some kind of domestic dispute:

"'The mayor stopped and said something (to the man) like, "Let's all cool down here, I'm going to call 911,'" the mayor's spokesman Patrick Curley said. 'He said it one or two times according to him. When he took out his phone, that's when the suspect attacked him.'

The suspect hit Barrett in the head and torso with a metal pipe. Barrett apparently fought back, fracturing his hand when he punched the suspect."

A lawfully carried handgun sure would have come in handy when you were trying to defend yourself from that thug's brutal and unprovoked attack, eh, Mayor Barrett?

In math terms, (firearm > metal pipe > fist). Mayor Barrett now fully (and painfully) understands that simple equation.

We never wish to see anyone physically hurt, of course, and we genuinely wish Hizzonor a speedy recovery from his injuries. We also congratulate him for nobly at least trying to come to the aid of a woman in distress.

Perhaps this incident will give him a whole new perspective on why so many Wisconsin citizens are pushing for a concealed carry law of their own.

Glenrock's citizens are fighting back

Faced with a citizen uprising over his officers' seemingly unnecessary TASING of local resident Bud Grose for allegedly "disobeying orders", Glenrock, Wyoming Police Chief Tom Sweet is rethinking his earlier stance that "it didn't appear any policies were violated":

"[Sweet] says two officers 'probably didn't do things the best way' when they used a Taser on a 76-year-old man driving an antique tractor in a parade.

Sweet spoke at a packed town hall meeting Monday"

That meeting had a bunch of witnesses present who apparently saw exactly what happened to Mr. Grose, and they weren't shy about expressing their feelings:

"'Those two were the most out-of-control officers I've ever seen in my life,' said Scott McWilliams, a witness who said he was shoved by one of the officers. 'These two guys got to go.'

Mike Pyatt, a former Glenrock police officer, called on town leaders to make changes at the department.

'We will hold you accountable,' he said." (Emphasis mine)

Agents with Wyoming's Department of Criminal Investigation are looking into the matter, and Glenrock's mayor vows to publicly release the findings, no matter the conclusion.

It seems the good folks in Glenrock have listened to our advice and taken it upon themselves to ensure that this sort of thuggish "policy" is no longer valid in their town.

Good for them.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

This is the Page One, above the fold story in today's Arizona Republic:

"Data: Many deported felons just sneak back across border"

"The government has successfully deported hundreds of thousands of foreign-born criminals in recent years. But a significant number have come back again, illegally, to the United States, often to commit more crimes, according to government data and interviews with law-enforcement authorities, federal prosecutors and criminal-defense lawyers."

You don't say?

Thanks for letting us in on that surprising news, reporter Daniel Gonzalez. You have a real knack for digging up tidbits that no one has ever previously figured out on their own, sir.

Of course, the number of felon illegal aliens in this country is only going to go up in the near future, thanks to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who has seen fit to remove the option for specially trained local law enforcement agencies to hold for deportation illegal aliens arrested for minor offenses, including the crime of their coming here against the law in the first place.

Under the new 287(g) agreements with those certain police departments, they may only refer to ICE those illegals who "commit serious offenses". Those with prior felony criminal histories in this country who are caught committing nuisance crimes? They'll just give a fake name or forged ID, sign their ticket and will quickly be back on our streets causing mayhem, as the police will now be powerless to hold them for ICE, thanks to our wise Secretary.

Thanks a million, Janet.

Today's TASER Travesty

Onondaga County, New York Sheriff's Deputy Sean Andrews pulled over soccer mom Audra Harmon, who was with her two children at the time, in her minivan last January (in front of a soccer center, of all places), and somehow things went all TASERy:

"The deputy, Sean Andrews, accused her of talking on her cell phone. She said she could prove him wrong.

He said she was speeding. She denied it and got out of the van. He told her to get back in. She did, then he ordered her back out.

He yanked her out by the arm, knocked her down with two Taser shots and charged her with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. His rationale on the disorderly conduct charge: She obstructed traffic when she got out of the van. The speeding accusation: going 50 mph in a 45-mph zone."

Charges that were subsequently rapidly thrown out by local prosecutors once they viewed the following dash-cam video, according to the story:

Deputy Tasers Mom In Minivan

"[Harmon] plans to sue the sheriff's office today, claiming Andrews was improperly trained in the use of his Taser. It's not supposed to be used to take down people who pose no threat, she said." (Emphasis mine)

Uhh, yeah, that's pretty much how we've always seen it.

Incidentally, Deputy Andrews has managed to snag himself quite a vacation from street patrol over this incident:

"Andrews, 37, a deputy for four years, was taken off road patrol after the arrest and will remain in a new assignment until an internal affairs investigation is finished, Sheriff Kevin Walsh said."

IA hasn't finished its "investigation" after eight months? What facts could possibly be left to find out? What everyone had for lunch that day?

We think it's likely that "Deputy" Andrews's career with the sheriff's office is likely nearing its end once Ms. Harmon seemingly easily wins her lawsuit, and good riddance to him.

A very good encounter overall, we think

The recorded conversation between William Kostric, who was legally and openly carrying a firearm outside the school where President Obama spoke on Tuesday, and a Portsmouth, New Hampshire police detective lieutenant (who is unfortunately unnamed at this writing), before Kostric moved his protest onto private property (a nearby church) at the invitation of a local clergyman.

Notice how the lieutenant was polite, professional and service-oriented, and how he lacked even a trace of jack-booted thuggedness (Yes, he knew he was being recorded by multiple cameras, as he made reference during his discussion with Kostric, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt anyway and laud his handling of the situation). Even though the officer (as far as we know) is in fact incorrect on that particular point of law (as pointed out by Kostric), his calm and professional demeanor had a huge impact in keeping things civil in the middle of that crowd, in our opinion.

Kudos must also to go Mr. Kostric as well for being polite, calm and reasoned right back, making sure to get his (seemingly correct) interpretation of the law on record, and for ultimately deciding that discretion was the better part of valor, at least in this instance, and peacefully moving onto the church's property in order to continue his protest.

There will be plenty of opportunity for Kostric to follow up with the local chief of police at a later time about his being asked to vacate the school grounds under duress and in violation of the law, although we remind him that he should perhaps thank the chief for at least some of his actions as well when doing so, as numerous other stories reported that the chief went to bat with the Feds and the media regarding Kostric's right to peacefully protest while armed, especially once he was on the church's private property. That counts for a whole lot around here as well.

Overall, even though we think that the officer was wrong to "encourage" Mr. Kostric to leave the school under threat of arrest (and that the lieutenant should have refused that unlawful order from his superiors), we praise the manner in which he ultimately performed his job, and wish that other cops throughout the country take note of how he deftly handled this delicate matter.

Mr. Kostric also admirably demonstrated the fact that law-abiding gun owners respect law-enforcement when the same courtesy is shown them, are knowledgeable and obey the laws regarding the lawful carrying of firearms, are just as polite and respectful (if not more so) than the rest of society, and truly are not the ones that the cops and Secret Service should be worried about.

Bizarre behavior from one of our "betters"

Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, D(ipstick)-Texas, somehow expecting CNN's Rick Sanchez (as well as his viewers) to swallow her line of BS that a YouTube video (which shows her imperiously ignoring one of her constituents by talking on her cell phone while the voter attempts to get some answers out of Lee regarding the proposed government takeover of health care) somehow was "doctored".

Jackson-Lee not only refuses to apologize for her unspeakably rude behavior towards the woman, she then compounds it by proceeding to pretty much ignore all of Sanchez's other questions about the health "reform" bill during her appearance on the show.

And these are the kinds of dedicated "professionals" to whom we're expected to turn over all of our health care decisions, without so much as a peep of concern?

Next up for England - snake control?

"A boy was recovering yesterday after being held down by a gang of yobs and being bitten by a terrifying new weapon - a SNAKE."

Not to worry, it seems to have been just a non-venomous python. Bet it was still quite painful, though.

The martinets who rule England had better quickly snap to and add snakes to the long list of items (such as guns and knives) that the law-abiding peasants of that country are prohibited from possessing, although judging from the following news tidbit at the bottom of the same article, they probably won't have much success in confiscating reptiles from the criminals as well:

"A SCHOOLBOY was in a serious condition last night after being gunned down in a drive-by shooting.

The 15-year-old was walking along a street with a pal aged 21 when a dark blue car pulled up next to them and opened fire in Bromley, South East London.

The victim's injuries were not thought to be life-threatening. His friend, also shot at, was discharged from hospital.

Detectives from Operation Trident which investigates black-on-black shootings, were investigating."

But... we thought guns were banned in Britain? How is such a situation possible?

(It's also quite heartening to know that English cops apparently categorize and investigate crimes based solely on the race of both the criminal and victim. How does one apply for, say, the Asian-on-black squad?)

Awesome

Actor, martial-artist and Second Amendment activist Chuck Norris has a great column up at Townhall.com in which he discovers and dissects one of the "dirty little secrets" (his words) in the proposed socialized medicine health care "reform" bill.

What can't this man do?

(By the way, radio host Roger Hedgecock pointed out on his show yesterday that the Messiah continually refers to "my proposals" when discussing his attempted takeover of one-sixth of our nation's economy in one fell swoop, but in reality he has no plan; only the Congressional Democrats do. Since President Obama has been quite careful to not claim ownership of any of the pending House bills, everyone must be cautioned to not believe a word he says about anything related to this issue until such time as he's forced to solidify his "promises" by putting them on paper.

A Freudian slip?

An alert member of an email group to which we belong picked up on the point that the Messiah inadvertently made during his "town hall" meeting on health care today (if anyone really thinks this latest propaganda session was indeed open to the general public, they're crazy):

"The only remark he made that fascinated me was when he was attempting to equate government health provider(s) and private.

He said (not verbatim)"Look at Fedex and UPS. They're both doing great. It's the Post Office that's in trouble."

Well, duh, yeah.

It's private enterprise that's working and big government that isn't."

Exactly.