... because some idiot fertility doctor thought it was a good idea to implant a litter of kids into this woman:
"CBS News reported Friday that the mother of eight newborns, who already had six children, filed for bankruptcy and abandoned her home less than two years ago. She hasn't been identified publicly yet, though CBS News described her as a woman in her 30s who lives with her parents."
And no husband or boyfriend in the picture at any point, apparently.
"Ye gods", as my grandmother used to say about situations like this. You just know that the responsible citizens of California (if there's any left) are going to be supporting this woman and her brood to the tune of several million dollars over the next two decades or so, adding to the state's already crushing deficit.
That doctor should have their license pulled immediately. There's absolutely no way to classify such a medical decision as ethical.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Don't sweat at the Super Bowl - You won't get in
The TSA is going to be "helping out" law enforcement at the Super Bowl by having behavioral-detection personnel walk around looking for "suspicious behavior" from spectators entering the game.
What constitutes "suspicious"?
"Officers look for obvious signs of nervousness or other behavioral flags, such as sweating, avoiding eye contact or talking evasively."
What happens if one is indeed subjectively determined to have an excess of perspiration, or who declines to answer inane and unreasonably intrusive questions by officious people, which is after all part of one's 4th Amendment rights?
"A flagged person gets a casual interview from an officer who determines if he or she should be formally questioned or arrested."
I am not attending the game tomorrow, but I will promise you this:
The day I attempt to enter a venue to watch an event for which I've paid $1,000 or more, and I'm subsequently denied entry and detained by law enforcement, and the only evidence justifying my detention is that I'm sweating after waiting for hours in security lines in the central Florida sun, and because of that I'm grumpy and don't wish to respond to "casual" questioning, is the day I'm going to own much of the host city's wealth.
"'Police shouldn't be stopping and questioning people unless they have some credible reason to suspect them. Behavior detection is just too vague,' ACLU analyst Barry Steinhardt said. He noted sarcastically, 'If we're going to use this at high-profile sporting events, why not start using it on streets?'"
No need to be sarcastic, Mr. Steinhardt, it's on the way:
"Police around the USA are asking for the TSA training, Kair said."
See? No good jack-booted tactic is left unused these days.
What constitutes "suspicious"?
"Officers look for obvious signs of nervousness or other behavioral flags, such as sweating, avoiding eye contact or talking evasively."
What happens if one is indeed subjectively determined to have an excess of perspiration, or who declines to answer inane and unreasonably intrusive questions by officious people, which is after all part of one's 4th Amendment rights?
"A flagged person gets a casual interview from an officer who determines if he or she should be formally questioned or arrested."
I am not attending the game tomorrow, but I will promise you this:
The day I attempt to enter a venue to watch an event for which I've paid $1,000 or more, and I'm subsequently denied entry and detained by law enforcement, and the only evidence justifying my detention is that I'm sweating after waiting for hours in security lines in the central Florida sun, and because of that I'm grumpy and don't wish to respond to "casual" questioning, is the day I'm going to own much of the host city's wealth.
"'Police shouldn't be stopping and questioning people unless they have some credible reason to suspect them. Behavior detection is just too vague,' ACLU analyst Barry Steinhardt said. He noted sarcastically, 'If we're going to use this at high-profile sporting events, why not start using it on streets?'"
No need to be sarcastic, Mr. Steinhardt, it's on the way:
"Police around the USA are asking for the TSA training, Kair said."
See? No good jack-booted tactic is left unused these days.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Only peasants need to pay taxes
Main Man Marion Barry, the previous mayor of (and current city councilman in) the District of Columbia, has been found to have not filed his 2007 tax return yet, or presumably paid his tax bill for that year.
This, of course, is the man who was previously found to have neither filed returns from 1998 through 2004 nor paid taxes on more than a half a million dollars in income during that period, charges to which he pled guilty in 2005.
Then Barry turned right around and didn't file a return for 2005 either, causing prosecutors to ask that his probation be revoked. They were turned down, naturally. Government officials with tax problems seem to get free passes, of course (see Geithner, Timothy). Peasants who fail to file returns or who willfully evade paying taxes go to prison, though, so make sure to cough up yours.
Perhaps Secretary Geithner should find a spot for Barry on his staff. They seem to have quite a bit of common ground, and the former mayor could provide valuable insights on the "strategic civic accounting" that's going to have to take place in order to justify the more than 800 billion dollars of bloat and pork in the "infrastructure stimulus" bill.
This, of course, is the man who was previously found to have neither filed returns from 1998 through 2004 nor paid taxes on more than a half a million dollars in income during that period, charges to which he pled guilty in 2005.
Then Barry turned right around and didn't file a return for 2005 either, causing prosecutors to ask that his probation be revoked. They were turned down, naturally. Government officials with tax problems seem to get free passes, of course (see Geithner, Timothy). Peasants who fail to file returns or who willfully evade paying taxes go to prison, though, so make sure to cough up yours.
Perhaps Secretary Geithner should find a spot for Barry on his staff. They seem to have quite a bit of common ground, and the former mayor could provide valuable insights on the "strategic civic accounting" that's going to have to take place in order to justify the more than 800 billion dollars of bloat and pork in the "infrastructure stimulus" bill.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Salt control
New York City Mayor and Nanny Michael Bloomberg, having nothing better to do with his time these days, is beginning his next crusade, now that he's vanquished deadly second-hand smoke from bars and restaurants in the city, banished the tasty killer that is trans fats, as well as removed all illegal firearms (giggle).
The new enemy of the state is... sodium. Yes, the mayor, who's not a doctor but apparently thinks he's every New Yorker's, has decided that the peasants who suffer under his benevolent rule are too stupid to control their own salt intake, and if they don't shape up and quick, he's going to do it for them:
"Thomas Frieden, the city's health commissioner, said he wants manufacturers and restaurants to join the war on salt voluntarily. If they don't, the city could pass legislation making it the law."
I would encourage every eatery in the city to revolt by closing shop and going somewhere free, but now that The Messiah is in office, expect national legislation on the order of this crap shortly.
Bloomberg's next proposal after this will probably announce that henceforth, all city residents will receive 100 grams of nutritious gruel every morning, and one must eat every bite of it on pain of imprisonment. We're only doing this for your own good, you know.
The new enemy of the state is... sodium. Yes, the mayor, who's not a doctor but apparently thinks he's every New Yorker's, has decided that the peasants who suffer under his benevolent rule are too stupid to control their own salt intake, and if they don't shape up and quick, he's going to do it for them:
"Thomas Frieden, the city's health commissioner, said he wants manufacturers and restaurants to join the war on salt voluntarily. If they don't, the city could pass legislation making it the law."
I would encourage every eatery in the city to revolt by closing shop and going somewhere free, but now that The Messiah is in office, expect national legislation on the order of this crap shortly.
Bloomberg's next proposal after this will probably announce that henceforth, all city residents will receive 100 grams of nutritious gruel every morning, and one must eat every bite of it on pain of imprisonment. We're only doing this for your own good, you know.
Please don't be a hoax
Via Mitch, the video tale of two presumably Canadian and definitely stupid bullies, eh, in a pickup who decide to pick on another motorist, and then get quite the surprise (at around 4:30):
To paraphrase Chris Rock, I don't recommend breaking the law, but I understand. (Being as how Canada forbids the carrying of firearms for self-protection by the lowly peasants there, and the motorist didn't identify himself as a "special person", he was probably illegally carrying that pistol in his car. It did save him from an undeserved physical attack from those morons, though.)
In all seriousness, this piece of video shows just how useful a firearm can be in defending oneself against violent thugs, especially in a place where the police just aren't around.
To paraphrase Chris Rock, I don't recommend breaking the law, but I understand. (Being as how Canada forbids the carrying of firearms for self-protection by the lowly peasants there, and the motorist didn't identify himself as a "special person", he was probably illegally carrying that pistol in his car. It did save him from an undeserved physical attack from those morons, though.)
In all seriousness, this piece of video shows just how useful a firearm can be in defending oneself against violent thugs, especially in a place where the police just aren't around.
Empty your pockets
The House of Representatives voted to pass the 819 billion dollar "stimulus" package, thankfully without a single Republican vote.
You are now solely responsible for this, Democrats.
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial that points out just how much pork is in the bill for health care alone. Just 90 billion of the bill could reasonably be considered infrastructure spending, the rest is just gravy to be spread among the politicians' supporters.
Here's one sentence that basically sums up the fraudulence of the entire scheme:
"The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don't earn enough to owe federal income taxes."
Pardon me, but people who don't pay taxes can't get a tax cut. It's income redistribution, plain and simple.
I plan on questioning my Congressman, Democrat Harry Reid, quite vigorously tomorrow on just how this monstrosity of federal spending is supposed to solve all of our country's problems.
You are now solely responsible for this, Democrats.
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial that points out just how much pork is in the bill for health care alone. Just 90 billion of the bill could reasonably be considered infrastructure spending, the rest is just gravy to be spread among the politicians' supporters.
Here's one sentence that basically sums up the fraudulence of the entire scheme:
"The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don't earn enough to owe federal income taxes."
Pardon me, but people who don't pay taxes can't get a tax cut. It's income redistribution, plain and simple.
I plan on questioning my Congressman, Democrat Harry Reid, quite vigorously tomorrow on just how this monstrosity of federal spending is supposed to solve all of our country's problems.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Where all the money's going
The state of California is so broke that beginning February 1 it's going to begin issuing IOU's instead of checks to meet its financial obligations for such government debts as tax refunds, social programs and many other items.
(Does that mean that Cali residents can reciprocate if they just don't have the scratch to make their tax payments or pay speeding tickets because they spent too much the previous month on video games and other unnecessary items? Right, those deadbeats immediately get hauled off to jail. That just doesn't seem equitable, now does it? And, by the way, why aren't legislator paychecks the very first thing to be IOU'd? Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream, but it certainly would give them a kickstart, wouldn't it?)
The state is currently looking at a 41.6 billion dollar deficit over the next eighteen months or so unless something changes radically (read: the lawmakers there stop spending like drunken sailors on those very same social programs, as well as passing stupid, onerous regulations and imposing prohibitive tax rates on businesses (Buck Knives, for example) that are forcing them to flee to more welcoming states such as Nevada).
Well, here's one humble suggestion that'll help begin stemming the tidal wave of red ink - stop paying for health care for illegal aliens, which the state is doing with Federal funds, in direct violation of the law that provides those dollars.
For example, according to this article, California spent $51 million on routine kidney dialysis alone for illegal immigrants in 2007, even though the money allocated by the Feds is explicitly banned from being spent on any medical treatment for illegals save for "emergencies", which routine dialysis certainly isn't.
It's so blatant that illegal immigrants actually move to other states for different reasons, only to come running right back when they can't obtain the treatment anywhere else that they've become accustomed to demanding and receiving in California:
"The kidney failed when [Marguerita] Toribio briefly moved to North Carolina, which refused to pay for her anti-rejection drugs. She needed to go back on dialysis three days a week to clear toxins from her blood, but North Carolina didn't cover that, either.
The best a social worker could offer was a prepaid plane ticket back to California.
'When I came back here, I said, 'There is no way I'm leaving for another state again,' ' said Toribio, now 29, before a technician poked two needles into her arm at the St. Joseph Hospital dialysis center in Orange, Calif."
Or back to Mexico, either, the story reports her as saying. Isn't it interesting (and infuriating) how these lawbreaking individuals have no qualms about giving their full names to national journalists, as well as bragging about the quality "free" care they're getting courtesy of the Americanchump taxpayer? These interviewees seem to have no fear whatsoever of being deported once their sweet little deal comes to light.
Here's another illegal immigrant named Teresita Aquino, this time from the Philippines, who is planning to stay in the U.S. forever, specifically because of the "free" health care she receives:
""If I go home, I won't be able to afford this," said Aquino, 56. "No way am I going home."
She can't afford it here, either. You and I are paying for it.
Look, it's extremely difficult to avoid appearing heartless on this topic. We certainly don't wish ill to befall anyone, and it's always a tragedy when someone becomes sick, especially through no fault of their own. It's ludicrously unfair, however, to expect the American peasant to continue to fund (illegally given) health care for more and more illegal immigrants, care which is significantly better than those same Americans can expect to receive for themselves even though they're the ones paying for it, and light-years better than the care that those immigrants would ever receive in their home countries, which usually delight in bashing the U.S. over its lack of "rights" such as "universal health care". In the words of a Dallas social worker quoted in the article,
"'We cannot provide dialysis to the world'"
But California sure is trying, which is but one reason their budget is such a mess these days.
(Does that mean that Cali residents can reciprocate if they just don't have the scratch to make their tax payments or pay speeding tickets because they spent too much the previous month on video games and other unnecessary items? Right, those deadbeats immediately get hauled off to jail. That just doesn't seem equitable, now does it? And, by the way, why aren't legislator paychecks the very first thing to be IOU'd? Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream, but it certainly would give them a kickstart, wouldn't it?)
The state is currently looking at a 41.6 billion dollar deficit over the next eighteen months or so unless something changes radically (read: the lawmakers there stop spending like drunken sailors on those very same social programs, as well as passing stupid, onerous regulations and imposing prohibitive tax rates on businesses (Buck Knives, for example) that are forcing them to flee to more welcoming states such as Nevada).
Well, here's one humble suggestion that'll help begin stemming the tidal wave of red ink - stop paying for health care for illegal aliens, which the state is doing with Federal funds, in direct violation of the law that provides those dollars.
For example, according to this article, California spent $51 million on routine kidney dialysis alone for illegal immigrants in 2007, even though the money allocated by the Feds is explicitly banned from being spent on any medical treatment for illegals save for "emergencies", which routine dialysis certainly isn't.
It's so blatant that illegal immigrants actually move to other states for different reasons, only to come running right back when they can't obtain the treatment anywhere else that they've become accustomed to demanding and receiving in California:
"The kidney failed when [Marguerita] Toribio briefly moved to North Carolina, which refused to pay for her anti-rejection drugs. She needed to go back on dialysis three days a week to clear toxins from her blood, but North Carolina didn't cover that, either.
The best a social worker could offer was a prepaid plane ticket back to California.
'When I came back here, I said, 'There is no way I'm leaving for another state again,' ' said Toribio, now 29, before a technician poked two needles into her arm at the St. Joseph Hospital dialysis center in Orange, Calif."
Or back to Mexico, either, the story reports her as saying. Isn't it interesting (and infuriating) how these lawbreaking individuals have no qualms about giving their full names to national journalists, as well as bragging about the quality "free" care they're getting courtesy of the American
Here's another illegal immigrant named Teresita Aquino, this time from the Philippines, who is planning to stay in the U.S. forever, specifically because of the "free" health care she receives:
""If I go home, I won't be able to afford this," said Aquino, 56. "No way am I going home."
She can't afford it here, either. You and I are paying for it.
Look, it's extremely difficult to avoid appearing heartless on this topic. We certainly don't wish ill to befall anyone, and it's always a tragedy when someone becomes sick, especially through no fault of their own. It's ludicrously unfair, however, to expect the American peasant to continue to fund (illegally given) health care for more and more illegal immigrants, care which is significantly better than those same Americans can expect to receive for themselves even though they're the ones paying for it, and light-years better than the care that those immigrants would ever receive in their home countries, which usually delight in bashing the U.S. over its lack of "rights" such as "universal health care". In the words of a Dallas social worker quoted in the article,
"'We cannot provide dialysis to the world'"
But California sure is trying, which is but one reason their budget is such a mess these days.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Feeling the heat
Actor Benicio del Toro threw a childish hissy fit and walked out of an interview with the Washington Times, after they dared to ask him some pointed (and uncomfortable, but necessary) questions about his apparent hero, Che Guevara, whom he's portraying in a new multi-hour propaganda film. It seems del Toro was expecting the blind idolatry he received from the Cuban press (Who woulda thunk that fact?):
"The film was screened in Cuba, to much applause.
'Del Toro is spectacular in the role of Che, not only in his physical resemblance but also in his brilliant interpretation,' wrote Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party. 'After more than five hours of screening, the Cuban public gave its endorsement with a strong ovation."
Like Uncle Fidel's official press organ would dare say anything different about a movie portraying his good buddy and "Hero of the Revolution".
The Times was asking del Toro to square his "interpretation" of Guevara with the memories of people like Armando Valladares, who was put into a concentration camp by Guevara and personally watched the Communist "leader" execute innocent people, when o'l Benicio got all agitated and left.
I wouldn't ordinarily fault an actor for simply professionally playing a role for which he was paid, except that del Toro, despite supposedly extensively researching Guevara's life, somehow has come to the conclusion that Guevara was some sort of icon to be admired. Del Toro must have missed the following passage from Guevara's writings:
"At the smallest of doubt we must execute."
I guess that wouldn't have made for a very flattering depiction of ol' Che.
"Mr. del Toro won top acting honors at Cannes this year. In his acceptance speech, he dedicated the award to Guevara." (Emphasis mine)
Toro means "bull" in Spanish. How appropriate.
"The film was screened in Cuba, to much applause.
'Del Toro is spectacular in the role of Che, not only in his physical resemblance but also in his brilliant interpretation,' wrote Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party. 'After more than five hours of screening, the Cuban public gave its endorsement with a strong ovation."
Like Uncle Fidel's official press organ would dare say anything different about a movie portraying his good buddy and "Hero of the Revolution".
The Times was asking del Toro to square his "interpretation" of Guevara with the memories of people like Armando Valladares, who was put into a concentration camp by Guevara and personally watched the Communist "leader" execute innocent people, when o'l Benicio got all agitated and left.
I wouldn't ordinarily fault an actor for simply professionally playing a role for which he was paid, except that del Toro, despite supposedly extensively researching Guevara's life, somehow has come to the conclusion that Guevara was some sort of icon to be admired. Del Toro must have missed the following passage from Guevara's writings:
"At the smallest of doubt we must execute."
I guess that wouldn't have made for a very flattering depiction of ol' Che.
"Mr. del Toro won top acting honors at Cannes this year. In his acceptance speech, he dedicated the award to Guevara." (Emphasis mine)
Toro means "bull" in Spanish. How appropriate.
Why they call Africa the "Dark Continent"...
... and no, I'm not referring to skin color, but to some absolutely insane behaviors from Africans that make me wonder why we send so many billions of dollars in obviously wasted aid over there:
1. South African teenagers are actually smoking anti-retroviral AIDS drugs in order to get high, wasting precious resources in a country where one in five are infected with the HIV virus.
"What Nhlapo first thought was an isolated incident may turn out to be a nationwide problem: Many people in the areas she visited were aware of the new way to get high."
Oh, goody.
2. "Witch doctors" in Tanzania, long thought to be one of the most advanced countries in Africa, are defying a recently-imposed official ban and continuing to kill and dismember albino people for their supposed "magical abilities"
"Witchdoctors in Tanzania are defying a government ban announced on Friday,... It comes days after the latest murder of an albino man in Tanzania brought the national death toll to at least 40 since mid-2007." (Emphases mine)
Boy, the "authorities" really moved impressively fast on that one. Two whole years get around to outlawing chopping up people with no melanin for fun and profit. Anyone else think maybe those poor albinos would have benefited from possessing firearms for personal protection, in the most literal sense?
I guess Johnny and Edgar Winter shouldn't plan on climbing Mount Kilimanjaro anytime soon.
3. A bunch of psychopathic animals masquerading as human beings who comprise the "Lord's Resistance Army" in the Democratic Republic of Congo, apparently oblivious to the irony of their little group's name, used the fact that local people were celebrating Christmas Eve to attack and kill 620 of them, as well as abduct 160 children, presumably to use as either prostitutes or new recruits:
"The rebels waited until December 24 for the most devastating of their attacks, waiting until people had come together for Christmas festivities, then surrounding and killing them by crushing their skulls with axes, machetes, and large wooden bats. Most of the few who survived also had head wounds, but two 3-year-old girls had serious neck injuries, suffered when LRA combatants tried to twist off their heads." (Emphasis mine)
Are you crying? I was, after reading that. I was so angry and horrified I couldn't see straight for some time. Every single one of those brutal thugs should be shot on sight.
So where's the famed U.N., which somehow still thinks that worldwide firearms confiscation from law-abiding people is a good idea, despite examples such as this, which prove without a doubt that an urgent need exists for those same people to provide for their own self-defense? The same U.N. that's supposed to be resolving this very crisis?
"The United Nations Mission in Congo, MONUC, has a mandate to protect civilians and provides logistical support to the Congolese army, but is not part of this operation."
"Sorry, that's not our department."
Useless. Absolutely useless. Typical U.N. standard procedure, though. Swoop in, disarm the civilian population and then pull back to safety, leaving the poor peasants to defend themselves with rocks, sticks and whatever else is handy.
Why is America still sending so many aid dollars over to this continent both directly and via the U.N., if these are the kinds of results we get?
1. South African teenagers are actually smoking anti-retroviral AIDS drugs in order to get high, wasting precious resources in a country where one in five are infected with the HIV virus.
"What Nhlapo first thought was an isolated incident may turn out to be a nationwide problem: Many people in the areas she visited were aware of the new way to get high."
Oh, goody.
2. "Witch doctors" in Tanzania, long thought to be one of the most advanced countries in Africa, are defying a recently-imposed official ban and continuing to kill and dismember albino people for their supposed "magical abilities"
"Witchdoctors in Tanzania are defying a government ban announced on Friday,... It comes days after the latest murder of an albino man in Tanzania brought the national death toll to at least 40 since mid-2007." (Emphases mine)
Boy, the "authorities" really moved impressively fast on that one. Two whole years get around to outlawing chopping up people with no melanin for fun and profit. Anyone else think maybe those poor albinos would have benefited from possessing firearms for personal protection, in the most literal sense?
I guess Johnny and Edgar Winter shouldn't plan on climbing Mount Kilimanjaro anytime soon.
3. A bunch of psychopathic animals masquerading as human beings who comprise the "Lord's Resistance Army" in the Democratic Republic of Congo, apparently oblivious to the irony of their little group's name, used the fact that local people were celebrating Christmas Eve to attack and kill 620 of them, as well as abduct 160 children, presumably to use as either prostitutes or new recruits:
"The rebels waited until December 24 for the most devastating of their attacks, waiting until people had come together for Christmas festivities, then surrounding and killing them by crushing their skulls with axes, machetes, and large wooden bats. Most of the few who survived also had head wounds, but two 3-year-old girls had serious neck injuries, suffered when LRA combatants tried to twist off their heads." (Emphasis mine)
Are you crying? I was, after reading that. I was so angry and horrified I couldn't see straight for some time. Every single one of those brutal thugs should be shot on sight.
So where's the famed U.N., which somehow still thinks that worldwide firearms confiscation from law-abiding people is a good idea, despite examples such as this, which prove without a doubt that an urgent need exists for those same people to provide for their own self-defense? The same U.N. that's supposed to be resolving this very crisis?
"The United Nations Mission in Congo, MONUC, has a mandate to protect civilians and provides logistical support to the Congolese army, but is not part of this operation."
"Sorry, that's not our department."
Useless. Absolutely useless. Typical U.N. standard procedure, though. Swoop in, disarm the civilian population and then pull back to safety, leaving the poor peasants to defend themselves with rocks, sticks and whatever else is handy.
Why is America still sending so many aid dollars over to this continent both directly and via the U.N., if these are the kinds of results we get?
Monday, January 26, 2009
It's official
A person who is either a tax cheat or incompetent at a basic level of tax preparation has just been sworn in as Treasury Secretary "because he's the only one in the country smart enough to get us out of this crisis".
Even the resident Senate ex-Klansman (Exalted Cyclops level) understands that Timothy Geithner only paid up when he realized that it was about to derail his nomination:
"'Had he not been nominated for treasury secretary, it's doubtful that he would have ever paid these taxes,' [Senator Robert] Byrd said in a statement."
Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming also pointed out the unfairness of Geithner's getting a pass on his "careless mistakes" to use the nominee's his own words:
"'Nominees for positions that do not oversee tax reporting and collection have been forced to withdraw their nomination for more minor offenses. They have been ridden out of town on a verbal rail,' Enzi told the Senate. 'The fact that we're in a global economic crisis is not a reason to overlook these errors.'"
Gee, I sure hope I don't make any "careless mistakes" on my return this year. If I do, however, I've got one heck of a reason to argue for a mulligan.
Even the resident Senate ex-Klansman (Exalted Cyclops level) understands that Timothy Geithner only paid up when he realized that it was about to derail his nomination:
"'Had he not been nominated for treasury secretary, it's doubtful that he would have ever paid these taxes,' [Senator Robert] Byrd said in a statement."
Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming also pointed out the unfairness of Geithner's getting a pass on his "careless mistakes" to use the nominee's his own words:
"'Nominees for positions that do not oversee tax reporting and collection have been forced to withdraw their nomination for more minor offenses. They have been ridden out of town on a verbal rail,' Enzi told the Senate. 'The fact that we're in a global economic crisis is not a reason to overlook these errors.'"
Gee, I sure hope I don't make any "careless mistakes" on my return this year. If I do, however, I've got one heck of a reason to argue for a mulligan.
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the West Allis, Wisconsin Police officers who saw fit to arrest law-abiding resident Brad Krause on August 22, 2008 for openly carrying a holstered pistol on his own property while he was innocently doing some yardwork.
The open carrying of a handgun in public is perfectly legal in Wisconsin, as even rabidly anti-gun Governor Jim Doyle admitted when he recently ranted against a proposed concealed-carry law:
"The Wisconsin Dells Events quoted him as saying, 'If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip.'"
Hypocrite Doyle also saw fit to acknowledge open carrying's legality when it suited his purposes:
"Then attorney general Jim Doyle used that precise argument before the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin v Hamdan, in which the state carved out a concealed weapon exemption for small business owners."
In addition, the open carrying of a handgun on one's own property happens to be legal in every state. That's kind of why they call it "private" property.
These facts, however, didn't stop the West Allis officers, who decided to invent a reason to take Mr. Krause to the pokey, as firearms instructor Gene German relates:
"'They shortly discovered Brad had no criminal record and was lawfully openly carrying on his own property, but instead of releasing him and returning his weapon, they tried to figure out how to arrest him. A call to the supervising lieutenant provided the answer: claim his action of carrying a weapon is disorderly conduct, and haul him down to the station. His firearm was taken away from him without a receipt, and it has not been returned'"
Because it's so disorderly to quietly plant trees in one's own yard, you see.
Sooner or later, Wisconsin residents who wish to stop these illegal attacks on their rights are going to have to begin openly carrying in large numbers, much like Ohio residents did in 2003 when they were pushing to have their own open carry rights recognized. The Ohioans also successfully obtained a concealed-carry law in that state that year as well, due to a few well-publicized "Self-Defense Walks" in various cities, including the capital of Columbus. Those walks solved their dilemma quite nicely.
Wisconsinites, the ball is in your court.
Full disclosure: I have met and worked with Gene German on a couple of occasions when we were both helping to pass Minnesota's own "shall-issue" carry law.
The open carrying of a handgun in public is perfectly legal in Wisconsin, as even rabidly anti-gun Governor Jim Doyle admitted when he recently ranted against a proposed concealed-carry law:
"The Wisconsin Dells Events quoted him as saying, 'If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip.'"
Hypocrite Doyle also saw fit to acknowledge open carrying's legality when it suited his purposes:
"Then attorney general Jim Doyle used that precise argument before the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin v Hamdan, in which the state carved out a concealed weapon exemption for small business owners."
In addition, the open carrying of a handgun on one's own property happens to be legal in every state. That's kind of why they call it "private" property.
These facts, however, didn't stop the West Allis officers, who decided to invent a reason to take Mr. Krause to the pokey, as firearms instructor Gene German relates:
"'They shortly discovered Brad had no criminal record and was lawfully openly carrying on his own property, but instead of releasing him and returning his weapon, they tried to figure out how to arrest him. A call to the supervising lieutenant provided the answer: claim his action of carrying a weapon is disorderly conduct, and haul him down to the station. His firearm was taken away from him without a receipt, and it has not been returned'"
Because it's so disorderly to quietly plant trees in one's own yard, you see.
Sooner or later, Wisconsin residents who wish to stop these illegal attacks on their rights are going to have to begin openly carrying in large numbers, much like Ohio residents did in 2003 when they were pushing to have their own open carry rights recognized. The Ohioans also successfully obtained a concealed-carry law in that state that year as well, due to a few well-publicized "Self-Defense Walks" in various cities, including the capital of Columbus. Those walks solved their dilemma quite nicely.
Wisconsinites, the ball is in your court.
Full disclosure: I have met and worked with Gene German on a couple of occasions when we were both helping to pass Minnesota's own "shall-issue" carry law.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Gobbledygook
"Rapper" T.I. had the following to say at the Hip Hop Inaugural Ball, one of whose sponsors was the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, whose catchphrase is apparently "Taking Back Responsibility":
"I want to thank God for somehow … I know he perfect. So I'mma thank him for everything. I'mma thank him for making me drop out of school. I'mma thank him for making me run the streets. I'mma thank him for making me sell crack. I'mma thank him for making me have shoot-outs. I'mma thank him for allowing me to watch my partners die in my arms, So I'd be fearful enough for my life and paranoid enough to go out and cop machine guns and silencers so I catch a fed case and I have to put up $3 million for my bond so I have to spend seven months of my life in my house, so I have to spend a year of my life in prison just so I be validated enough to get out there and touch the youth because they know that I done been through it, and if I say it, it means something. You know what I'm saying?"
Actually, no I don't, sir.
I don't see very much about "responsibility", either, for that matter.
If this was representative of the quality of the speakers, I'm glad I didn't bother to watch any television coverage of the balls.
"I want to thank God for somehow … I know he perfect. So I'mma thank him for everything. I'mma thank him for making me drop out of school. I'mma thank him for making me run the streets. I'mma thank him for making me sell crack. I'mma thank him for making me have shoot-outs. I'mma thank him for allowing me to watch my partners die in my arms, So I'd be fearful enough for my life and paranoid enough to go out and cop machine guns and silencers so I catch a fed case and I have to put up $3 million for my bond so I have to spend seven months of my life in my house, so I have to spend a year of my life in prison just so I be validated enough to get out there and touch the youth because they know that I done been through it, and if I say it, it means something. You know what I'm saying?"
Actually, no I don't, sir.
I don't see very much about "responsibility", either, for that matter.
If this was representative of the quality of the speakers, I'm glad I didn't bother to watch any television coverage of the balls.
Another senseless preventable tragedy
Eulalio Haro, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had already been deported three times, once after serving 15 months for a vehicle crash that killed his brother, was convicted Thursday in the Chicago area on reckless homicide charges for a hit-and-run accident that left a motorcyclist dead.
Counting the two fatal crashes Haro was found to have been responsible for, this latest case is his fourth drunken-driving conviction.
Illinois residents now get to feed and house Haro for a number of years on their dime, until he serves his sentence and gets deported yet again.
Our country's lax immigration enforcement policies are costing American lives. If the politicians in Chicago, an official "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens, were just a little more concerned about protecting their constituents, Dean Knospe (who had every right to be on that road, unlike Haro) would be alive today to enjoy some more motorcycling.
Counting the two fatal crashes Haro was found to have been responsible for, this latest case is his fourth drunken-driving conviction.
Illinois residents now get to feed and house Haro for a number of years on their dime, until he serves his sentence and gets deported yet again.
Our country's lax immigration enforcement policies are costing American lives. If the politicians in Chicago, an official "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens, were just a little more concerned about protecting their constituents, Dean Knospe (who had every right to be on that road, unlike Haro) would be alive today to enjoy some more motorcycling.
Friday, January 23, 2009
So much for "transparency"
The press is complaining mightily about being denied access to President Obama's second round of oath-taking, and is moaning about a new policy of being handed "official" photos rather than being allowed to take their own:
"Representatives from Obama's press office held a conference call with photo editors, who are concerned that the administration prefers distributing photos taken by a White House photographer in cases where photojournalists have been permitted access in the past." (Emphasis mine)
You mean after three whole days they're already missing the "good old days" of the Chimpy McHitler Administration, when the pressers were allowed to do their jobs instead of being managed like a herd of sheep? Well, you guys championed Obama's election, so deal with it.
In related news, The Messiah got a little irritated with the White House Press Corps when he stopped in to say hello, and they had the "audacity" to actually ask him some questions about his immediately breaking yet another campaign promise by nominating a lobbyist for Raytheon to be a Deputy Defense Secretary:
"'Ahh, see,' he said, 'I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here.'"
How dare those people do their job of holding you accountable for your promises instead of just blindly worshipping you, eyes shining with wonder, eh? You're going to find out very soon, sir, that you're no longer the adored candidate they wanted to win, but are now the guy in charge that makes the news, and the more conflict and strife that they report about that guy, the more money they make. Good luck with that.
Of course, there's always one star-struck lackey in every crowd:
"The president was quickly saved by a cameraman in the room who called out: 'I’d like to say it one more time: ‘Mr. President.’' ”
Pathetic. I'll bet he moonlights as a paparazzi.
"Representatives from Obama's press office held a conference call with photo editors, who are concerned that the administration prefers distributing photos taken by a White House photographer in cases where photojournalists have been permitted access in the past." (Emphasis mine)
You mean after three whole days they're already missing the "good old days" of the Chimpy McHitler Administration, when the pressers were allowed to do their jobs instead of being managed like a herd of sheep? Well, you guys championed Obama's election, so deal with it.
In related news, The Messiah got a little irritated with the White House Press Corps when he stopped in to say hello, and they had the "audacity" to actually ask him some questions about his immediately breaking yet another campaign promise by nominating a lobbyist for Raytheon to be a Deputy Defense Secretary:
"'Ahh, see,' he said, 'I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here.'"
How dare those people do their job of holding you accountable for your promises instead of just blindly worshipping you, eyes shining with wonder, eh? You're going to find out very soon, sir, that you're no longer the adored candidate they wanted to win, but are now the guy in charge that makes the news, and the more conflict and strife that they report about that guy, the more money they make. Good luck with that.
Of course, there's always one star-struck lackey in every crowd:
"The president was quickly saved by a cameraman in the room who called out: 'I’d like to say it one more time: ‘Mr. President.’' ”
Pathetic. I'll bet he moonlights as a paparazzi.
Piggy Perks for Ex-Presidents
Interesting article here about how the good ol' American peasant is subsidizing the lavish office lifestyles of millionaire former Presidents.
As you might imagine, the biggest sucker-up of tax money is Bill Clinton. Despite the fact that his "speaking fees earned him more than $40 million in addition to the $12 million his book deals have put in his pocket since he left office", you and I are paying his phone bill, which was $104,000 in 2006 (For 1-800-INTERNSEX calls? My God, I get unlimited long distance for under $50. Why can't he?), and his "satellite TV in his office, complete with eight separate receivers and all the movie channels that come with the "entertainment package". Your cost? $1,800 per year."
Skinemax movies being supremely important for getting post-Presidential business done, apparently.
Maybe he needs those flicks because the little blue pills don't work so well for him anymore. That's what he likes to do in offices, remember.
As you might imagine, the biggest sucker-up of tax money is Bill Clinton. Despite the fact that his "speaking fees earned him more than $40 million in addition to the $12 million his book deals have put in his pocket since he left office", you and I are paying his phone bill, which was $104,000 in 2006 (For 1-800-INTERNSEX calls? My God, I get unlimited long distance for under $50. Why can't he?), and his "satellite TV in his office, complete with eight separate receivers and all the movie channels that come with the "entertainment package". Your cost? $1,800 per year."
Skinemax movies being supremely important for getting post-Presidential business done, apparently.
Maybe he needs those flicks because the little blue pills don't work so well for him anymore. That's what he likes to do in offices, remember.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Sneaky
Phoenix, Arizona Mayor Phil Gordon's supporters are the impetus behind a ballot initiative that would align the mayoral and city-council terms to the same election cycle of once every four years. The terms are currently staggered, which requires more frequent elections.
The ostensible reason for this change is saving money by reducing the number of elections that have to be held. Okay, fine. But what the proposal would also do is extend Mayor Gordon's term by two years, something that isn't currently possible because he is term-limited and can't legally serve beyond 2012. Additionally, the current staggered system was voted into place by residents in 1991 to ensure that there would always be at least some officials with civic experience in place, which is probably a prudent idea.
If Phoenix residents wish to revert to more tidy election timings, so be it. Mayor Gordon, however, should not benefit from this by receiving two more "free" years in office that no one else can have, which would also "conveniently" allow him to run for governor in 2014 as a sitting mayor instead of a private citizen, which would be a huge advantage for him:
"Under the proposed extension, Gordon would be able to stay in office until January 2014, when the governor's seat comes up for election again"
Just as Bill Clinton signed into law a Presidential pay raise that didn't take effect until George W. Bush took office, ethical sitting politicians should not support changes in the law that give them a perceived benefit over others without instead deferring those benefits to the next officeholder. Let the next mayor, whoever he or she may be, have the two extra years, in order to remove the inherent conflict of interest.
The ostensible reason for this change is saving money by reducing the number of elections that have to be held. Okay, fine. But what the proposal would also do is extend Mayor Gordon's term by two years, something that isn't currently possible because he is term-limited and can't legally serve beyond 2012. Additionally, the current staggered system was voted into place by residents in 1991 to ensure that there would always be at least some officials with civic experience in place, which is probably a prudent idea.
If Phoenix residents wish to revert to more tidy election timings, so be it. Mayor Gordon, however, should not benefit from this by receiving two more "free" years in office that no one else can have, which would also "conveniently" allow him to run for governor in 2014 as a sitting mayor instead of a private citizen, which would be a huge advantage for him:
"Under the proposed extension, Gordon would be able to stay in office until January 2014, when the governor's seat comes up for election again"
Just as Bill Clinton signed into law a Presidential pay raise that didn't take effect until George W. Bush took office, ethical sitting politicians should not support changes in the law that give them a perceived benefit over others without instead deferring those benefits to the next officeholder. Let the next mayor, whoever he or she may be, have the two extra years, in order to remove the inherent conflict of interest.
Official futility
Where else but England would cops unsuccessfully attempt to prosecute a college student 22 times for "impersonating a police officer" because he wears a faux cop outfit in his stripper routine?
I'm certainly fooled. (Pic is from the article)
Stuart Kennedy's been cleared of all charges each time, and taxpayers there are now outraged about the $238,000 bill they've been stuck with, as that's how much the combined police, court and Legal Aid costs add up to.
"Assistant Chief Constable of Grampian Police, Colin Menzies, said his force had a duty to investigate all reports of alleged criminal behaviour."
Except for 999 (British 911) calls and reports of auto theft and burglary, as the many English commenters on the story complain. Then the cops are nowhere to be found, and are presumably at one of Mr. Kennedy's shows once again, collecting more evidence.
"He was spotted by two plain-clothes female officers who asked if he needed any help.
When Mr Kennedy said he was a stripper, the officers watched him perform his act with batons and a spray at the city's Paramount venue before taking him in for questioning." (Emphases mine)
See what I mean?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Speechless
You simply must read this article about recently suspended Colorado State University Police Chief Dexter Yarbrough. Your jaw will drop in utter disbelief.
To properly comment on the disgusting and criminal behavior alleged to have been committed by this "professional" would take more time than we currently have. We'll confine ourselves to three observations:
1. Chief Yarbrough is apparently an ex-Chicago police officer. Read into that what you will.
2. How in God's name did it take 5 years for the university administration to finally catch on to what an utter thug they hired as chief? And why didn't the officers under Yarbrough's "leadership" revolt en masse long before then?
"several timid police officers say the President's Office had plenty of alarming evidence to take action long ago but turned a blind eye to a handful of alleged abuses of power." (Emphasis mine)
Just great. An entire force of cowards who let this reign of terror go on for entirely too long. They should all resign in shame.
3. Based on the picture of Chief Yarbrough in the article,
(Photo: Aaron Montoya of the Rocky Mountain Collegian)
Chaska, Minnesota Police Chief Scott Knight
San Francisco, California Police Chief Heather Fong
(Picture: Brant Ward of the San Francisco Chronicle)
Washington, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier
To properly comment on the disgusting and criminal behavior alleged to have been committed by this "professional" would take more time than we currently have. We'll confine ourselves to three observations:
1. Chief Yarbrough is apparently an ex-Chicago police officer. Read into that what you will.
2. How in God's name did it take 5 years for the university administration to finally catch on to what an utter thug they hired as chief? And why didn't the officers under Yarbrough's "leadership" revolt en masse long before then?
"several timid police officers say the President's Office had plenty of alarming evidence to take action long ago but turned a blind eye to a handful of alleged abuses of power." (Emphasis mine)
Just great. An entire force of cowards who let this reign of terror go on for entirely too long. They should all resign in shame.
3. Based on the picture of Chief Yarbrough in the article,
(Photo: Aaron Montoya of the Rocky Mountain Collegian)I'm modifying the Rule of Law-Enforcement Head Bling, which states that "The more stars, medals and other assorted hardware a police official has on his uniform, the likelier it is that he/she is a clueless idiot." Please allow me to demonstrate:
Chaska, Minnesota Police Chief Scott Knight
San Francisco, California Police Chief Heather Fong(Picture: Brant Ward of the San Francisco Chronicle)
Washington, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier All of the above are law-enforcement "professionals" who don't seem to understand the concept of the Second Amendment, at least as it regards to the right of self-defense by law-abiding individuals.
Because of Chief Yarbrough, we're now going to have to add "or an out-of-control thug" to the Rule, it seems.
"Despite a consistent flow of complaints of harassment, fraud and threatening behavior to the school's Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) and to former CSU President Larry Penley, Yarbrough was promoted last year to vice president of public safety in addition to being chief of police."
Absolutely unbelievable.
It's definitely time for some new blood
The news on the radio is reporting that both Senators Kennedy and Byrd have been removed from a lunch on stretchers, Kennedy due to convulsions and Byrd because of being overcome with emotion for Kennedy's condition.
Is it too harsh to be concerned about the fact that a significant percentage of our government is made up of old and sick individuals who should not be working at any job at this stage of their lives, yet they continue to cling to power with every ounce of strength their withered claws can muster?
(And no, this argument isn't ideological. I thought it was an absolute travesty how everyone pretended that Senator Thurmond still retained the cognitive ability to serve in that body, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. The recently-convicted Senator Stevens also appeared well on his way to senility. I'm also begining to feel the same way about Justice Stevens that I felt at one time about Justices Rhenquist and Marshall, that his clerks appear to be performing all of his duties, not Stevens himself.)
Is it too harsh to be concerned about the fact that a significant percentage of our government is made up of old and sick individuals who should not be working at any job at this stage of their lives, yet they continue to cling to power with every ounce of strength their withered claws can muster?
(And no, this argument isn't ideological. I thought it was an absolute travesty how everyone pretended that Senator Thurmond still retained the cognitive ability to serve in that body, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. The recently-convicted Senator Stevens also appeared well on his way to senility. I'm also begining to feel the same way about Justice Stevens that I felt at one time about Justices Rhenquist and Marshall, that his clerks appear to be performing all of his duties, not Stevens himself.)
Unclear on that whole "freedom" concept
The NYPD is investigating ways to disrupt cell-phone service to the entire city in the event of an emergency. They're apparently worried that bad guys will be able to communicate with each other too easily in a terrorist attack, a la the incident in India last year.
They're attempting to go down this route despite the availability of 2o-mile range walkie-talkies at any local Radio Shack which would easily have the capability to cover the New York metro area, and despite the fact that people wish to have access to cell phones during a crisis, which is why they pay large amounts of money to the phone companies for that privilege.
"Kelly stressed the need for law enforcement to be able to disrupt cell phone calls and other communications during an attack, pointing to threats posed by the media when they disclose law enforcement tactics during live coverage that can get passed back to the attackers"
Well, how about shutting down the media itself? That's roughly about as stupid as the idea of depriving New Yorkers of the chance to establish communications with loved ones during such a scenario.
The obvious way of solving this perceived problem is to simply ask the cell providers to voluntarily shut down themselves when asked. They'll never agree to do so, as they would immediately lose their sane customers, so that option is out.
One of the costs of living in a free society is that sometimes evildoers will take advantage of the freedoms that this country provides. That's no excuse for arbitrarily cutting them off whenever some police official deems it necessary, however.
They're attempting to go down this route despite the availability of 2o-mile range walkie-talkies at any local Radio Shack which would easily have the capability to cover the New York metro area, and despite the fact that people wish to have access to cell phones during a crisis, which is why they pay large amounts of money to the phone companies for that privilege.
"Kelly stressed the need for law enforcement to be able to disrupt cell phone calls and other communications during an attack, pointing to threats posed by the media when they disclose law enforcement tactics during live coverage that can get passed back to the attackers"
Well, how about shutting down the media itself? That's roughly about as stupid as the idea of depriving New Yorkers of the chance to establish communications with loved ones during such a scenario.
The obvious way of solving this perceived problem is to simply ask the cell providers to voluntarily shut down themselves when asked. They'll never agree to do so, as they would immediately lose their sane customers, so that option is out.
One of the costs of living in a free society is that sometimes evildoers will take advantage of the freedoms that this country provides. That's no excuse for arbitrarily cutting them off whenever some police official deems it necessary, however.
Monday, January 19, 2009
This is getting ridiculous
People are actually going out and getting Obama tattoos. And Obama haircuts. And defacing the American flag in order to better honor their Messiah.
Not to mention that Obama's also "redefining the male physique". By being a chain-smoker, probably.
And he's not even officially sworn in until tomorrow. What's going to happen when (if?) he actually accomplishes something notable?
Hopefully they're won't be too many "Obamagasms" in the massive crowd tomorrow. It could get messy.
Not to mention that Obama's also "redefining the male physique". By being a chain-smoker, probably.
And he's not even officially sworn in until tomorrow. What's going to happen when (if?) he actually accomplishes something notable?
Hopefully they're won't be too many "Obamagasms" in the massive crowd tomorrow. It could get messy.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Zones of futility
"[Washington, D.C.] police have placed signs along 5th and I Streets. They read, "Warning, Prostitution Free Zone." Those who disobey could be fined 300 dollars, and even jailed. But will the city's plan work?"
I doubt it.
By the way, those signs apply to you as well, Secret Service officers.
"DC City Councilman Jim Graham said officers cannot enforce [existing] loitering laws"
Then why are they still on the books, if they're unenforceable (because I imagine they're not Constitutional)?
I doubt it.
By the way, those signs apply to you as well, Secret Service officers.
"DC City Councilman Jim Graham said officers cannot enforce [existing] loitering laws"
Then why are they still on the books, if they're unenforceable (because I imagine they're not Constitutional)?
Here we go again
Just like Australia and the U.S., England is experiencing an epidemic of law-enforcement officers who just can't seem to understand the fact that taking pictures in public, even of the cops themselves, is quite legal:
"But to the police officers who arrested [famous local artist Reuben Powell] last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk." (Emphasis mine)
Incredibly, the building he was taking pictures of wasn't even the station, but was merely too close by it for the officers' tastes. How close is too close? If the cop shop is somewhere in the same zip code, apparently.
This audacious act got Mr. Powell handcuffed and jailed at the local lockup for five hours, and resulted in having his DNA collected and added permanently to the intrusive database they have over there. He was only released after a local Member of Parliament got involved.
Faced with this and many other similar complaints, the police heads spout that "Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're aware this kind of activity is legal, what's the issue? ":
"Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. 'Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places,' a spokeswoman said."
Well, the issue is that these incidents keep happening with irritating regularity, despite law enforcement's feeble protestations to the contrary. Many more examples similar to Mr. Powell's are documented in the article, proving that this was no isolated incident.
Maybe a few court judgments awarding damages from the officers' own pockets to the aggrieved photographers will be the catalyst that speeds the process of getting the knowledge of the law regarding public photography filtered down to the street cops.
"But to the police officers who arrested [famous local artist Reuben Powell] last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk." (Emphasis mine)
Incredibly, the building he was taking pictures of wasn't even the station, but was merely too close by it for the officers' tastes. How close is too close? If the cop shop is somewhere in the same zip code, apparently.
This audacious act got Mr. Powell handcuffed and jailed at the local lockup for five hours, and resulted in having his DNA collected and added permanently to the intrusive database they have over there. He was only released after a local Member of Parliament got involved.
Faced with this and many other similar complaints, the police heads spout that "Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're aware this kind of activity is legal, what's the issue? ":
"Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. 'Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places,' a spokeswoman said."
Well, the issue is that these incidents keep happening with irritating regularity, despite law enforcement's feeble protestations to the contrary. Many more examples similar to Mr. Powell's are documented in the article, proving that this was no isolated incident.
Maybe a few court judgments awarding damages from the officers' own pockets to the aggrieved photographers will be the catalyst that speeds the process of getting the knowledge of the law regarding public photography filtered down to the street cops.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tripped up by taxes. Not good if you're the Treasury nominee
The U.S. Tax Code is so bizarrely complicated that even Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary can't figure it out.
Or maybe he did figure it out, and just decided to willfully ignore paying his fair share, just like all the rest of us peasants are forced to do on pain of imprisonment:
"Timothy Geithner, whose nomination as Treasury secretary has been delayed by his past failure to pay taxes, was repeatedly advised in writing by the International Monetary Fund that he would be responsible for any Social Security and Medicare taxes he owed on income he earned at the IMF between 2001 and 2004."
$34,000 worth, according to the article. Certainly not nickel and dime amounts. He wasn't too eager to settle up, either, until he realized it might be a sticking point for his new position:
"Only after Mr. Obama picked him for Treasury secretary last fall did Mr. Geithner pay the Social Security and Medicare tax he owed for 2001 and 2002."
When you or I are guilty of the same oversight, even if it's for far less money, it's called tax fraud and we're prosecuted with the zeal of Inspector Javert. In this individual's case, it's merely an "error" that apparently shouldn't disqualify him politically from overseeing the country's money supply.
"'These are not the times to think in small political terms,' said Sen. Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican. 'He has a great résumé.'"
Oh, I'm sorry. We're supposed to be seeing the big picture here, I guess. You're right, Senator, why would we expect the nominee to be able to handle his personal finances correctly? That's clearly asking too much of the poor man.
When the tax system is such that even the people who run it can't get their numbers correct, I would submit that it's time for a change in policy. Radio host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder have an elegantly simple solution in the Fair Tax proposal, which is why it probably won't ever be adopted. Not enough loopholes for the connected, you know.
Or maybe he did figure it out, and just decided to willfully ignore paying his fair share, just like all the rest of us peasants are forced to do on pain of imprisonment:
"Timothy Geithner, whose nomination as Treasury secretary has been delayed by his past failure to pay taxes, was repeatedly advised in writing by the International Monetary Fund that he would be responsible for any Social Security and Medicare taxes he owed on income he earned at the IMF between 2001 and 2004."
$34,000 worth, according to the article. Certainly not nickel and dime amounts. He wasn't too eager to settle up, either, until he realized it might be a sticking point for his new position:
"Only after Mr. Obama picked him for Treasury secretary last fall did Mr. Geithner pay the Social Security and Medicare tax he owed for 2001 and 2002."
When you or I are guilty of the same oversight, even if it's for far less money, it's called tax fraud and we're prosecuted with the zeal of Inspector Javert. In this individual's case, it's merely an "error" that apparently shouldn't disqualify him politically from overseeing the country's money supply.
"'These are not the times to think in small political terms,' said Sen. Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican. 'He has a great résumé.'"
Oh, I'm sorry. We're supposed to be seeing the big picture here, I guess. You're right, Senator, why would we expect the nominee to be able to handle his personal finances correctly? That's clearly asking too much of the poor man.
When the tax system is such that even the people who run it can't get their numbers correct, I would submit that it's time for a change in policy. Radio host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder have an elegantly simple solution in the Fair Tax proposal, which is why it probably won't ever be adopted. Not enough loopholes for the connected, you know.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The parallels get more frightening by the day
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Barack Obama is planning on keeping his national network of volunteers around for good, and will be hiring on a number of them as full-time staffers in a separate organization. This group's mandate would be to help push for his legislative agenda by leaning on members of Congress (especially Democrats who don't immediately sign on to all of his ideas), as well as help plan for his reelection four years hence by keeping the masses motivated.
He's not even inaugurated yet, but he's apparently already thinking ahead to his next campaign. Fair enough, I suppose. What's not so fair, however, is the other use he's mulling over for his legions of mindless troops:
"In what would be another unprecedented step, Obama's political staff is deciding whether to create a service organization that would use the vast corps of its grass-roots campaign supporters. As described by one source knowledgeable with the discussions, this nonprofit arm would be used to help victims of natural disasters, but would do so under the Obama umbrella while continuing to build the overall network's massive e-mail database."
This group is for now being code-named "Barack Obama 2.0", you know, to make it cool for the young people and whatnot. The "2.0" part means it's hip and fun to be a part of, in case you're an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't get the reference.
Hmmm. An extragovernmental organization, accountable to no one in government save The Messiah, that would be dispatched whenever and wherever he felt like it, regardless of whether the "official" government wants or needs them. Sound like any other historical groups?
Chillingly, an anonymous spokesman goes even farther towards making just that comparison, by choosing some unfortunate words:
"'The only way to keep this thing going is to have boots on the ground,' said a strategist familiar with the plan who spoke on condition of anonymity because campaign officials have not granted permission to talk about it." (Emphasis mine)
"Jack"-boots, perhaps? Hey, they teed that one up, not me.
The story reports that the ultimate goal is to have at least one full-time apparatchik per legislative district, a "Party official", if you will, whose job it will be to "persuade" local politicians to go along with the program, or presumably face the consequences come reelection time in their districts.
All they are missing is a Siberia to send the recalcitrant lawmakers to when they don't clap long enough at the Messiah's appearances, just like the Politburo under Stalin. The surreal situation at that time eventually necessitated using a bell to announce when it was safe to finally quit cheering without risking death, as none of the terrified Soviet lawmakers wished to be the first to stop. Without such a signal, the adulation would otherwise have gone on for hours:
In other Messiah news, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin is calling out the media for playing to perfection the role of the obedient lapdog:
"The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."
We were told that Obama's administration was going to be the height of "transparency". This isn't a good start to that goal, unless he was blatantly lying about this aspect of his Presidency as well.
Obama voters, is this the kind of Presidency you wanted to have? I thought you didn't want to have a "dictator" in the White House?
Well, that's exactly what we seem to be getting. Thanks a lot.
He's not even inaugurated yet, but he's apparently already thinking ahead to his next campaign. Fair enough, I suppose. What's not so fair, however, is the other use he's mulling over for his legions of mindless troops:
"In what would be another unprecedented step, Obama's political staff is deciding whether to create a service organization that would use the vast corps of its grass-roots campaign supporters. As described by one source knowledgeable with the discussions, this nonprofit arm would be used to help victims of natural disasters, but would do so under the Obama umbrella while continuing to build the overall network's massive e-mail database."
This group is for now being code-named "Barack Obama 2.0", you know, to make it cool for the young people and whatnot. The "2.0" part means it's hip and fun to be a part of, in case you're an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't get the reference.
Hmmm. An extragovernmental organization, accountable to no one in government save The Messiah, that would be dispatched whenever and wherever he felt like it, regardless of whether the "official" government wants or needs them. Sound like any other historical groups?
Chillingly, an anonymous spokesman goes even farther towards making just that comparison, by choosing some unfortunate words:
"'The only way to keep this thing going is to have boots on the ground,' said a strategist familiar with the plan who spoke on condition of anonymity because campaign officials have not granted permission to talk about it." (Emphasis mine)
"Jack"-boots, perhaps? Hey, they teed that one up, not me.
The story reports that the ultimate goal is to have at least one full-time apparatchik per legislative district, a "Party official", if you will, whose job it will be to "persuade" local politicians to go along with the program, or presumably face the consequences come reelection time in their districts.
All they are missing is a Siberia to send the recalcitrant lawmakers to when they don't clap long enough at the Messiah's appearances, just like the Politburo under Stalin. The surreal situation at that time eventually necessitated using a bell to announce when it was safe to finally quit cheering without risking death, as none of the terrified Soviet lawmakers wished to be the first to stop. Without such a signal, the adulation would otherwise have gone on for hours:
In other Messiah news, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin is calling out the media for playing to perfection the role of the obedient lapdog:
"The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."
In other words, don't rock the boat by daring to ask a legitimate question that may embarrass for fluster the Dear Leader, or you'll be frozen out. Why do the other journalists even bother to show up, if they're not among the lucky ones to be blessed with a question opportunity that day? As Warner Todd Huston of Newsbusters.org points out, where's the outrage and incendiary columns that surely would have resulted had President Bush's press people tried to pull the same stunt? Is the press really that much in the tank for Obama?
Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.
This is another too-close-for comfort eerie parallel to Soviet Russia, where the news was whatever the government wished it to be, and reporters who asked the wrong questions no longer were able to ask them, because they were in Siberia or worse. I wonder who will be assuming the Walter Duranty role in the White House press corps, and be chosen to disseminate the most juicy tidbits in exchange for blindly positive coverage?We were told that Obama's administration was going to be the height of "transparency". This isn't a good start to that goal, unless he was blatantly lying about this aspect of his Presidency as well.
Obama voters, is this the kind of Presidency you wanted to have? I thought you didn't want to have a "dictator" in the White House?
Well, that's exactly what we seem to be getting. Thanks a lot.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Expensive, taxpayer-paid chauffeurs for Fox Sports
A lawyer for the U.S. Marshals Service named Joseph Band has rightly been smacked down by the findings of an investigation by the Justice Department's Inspector General.
Mr. Band, who also works part-time as a statistician for Fox Sports, leaned on his day employer to provide escorts for himself as well as Fox broadcasters during the 2007 national championship college football game in Arizona, the 2007 World Series and the 2008 Super Bowl. No less than three U.S. Marshals (Yvonne Bonner (Acting) in Massachusetts, Thomas Hurlburt in Tampa and David Gonzales in Phoenix) agreed to help, and provided deputy U.S. Marshals in government vehicles to provide transportation and escorts during those events, even though obviously none qualified as official Marshals Service business. Those escorts used emergency lights to speed the broadcasters through traffic both before and after the events cited. In exchange, at least at the World Series event, Mr. Band provided passes to the games for the personnel involved.
Thankfully, the report finds at least one U.S. Marshal who told Band what he could do with his perk requests when the marshal was asked to provide free rides to a baseball All-Star game in San Francisco:
"U.S. Marshal Federico Rocha declined to provide any assistance in response to Band's request and instead told Band he could take a taxi or trolley to the ballpark. Rocha advised his staff that Band could not be transported in a USMS vehicle while conducting personal business."
Thank you for your integrity, Marshal Rocha. It's admired and appreciated.
In the investigation, Mr. Band was also found to be less than forthcoming about his involvement in the assignments:
"he lacked candor when we interviewed him about these instances"
Lied, in other words. That's not real good when you work in the Office of General Counsel and are supposed to be making and enforcing ethical policies, not breaking them, as one poor hoodwinked deputy marshal pointed out:
"[The deputy] said that because Band was with the USMS OGC, 'and who was the guy who advises us on ethics' he concluded there was no problem with doing as Band asked."
He concluded wrongly, of course. The report ultimately found that Band and the U.S. Marshals who provided the deputies and transportation "misused government resources and violated USMS ethical rules".
Obviously. I wonder what other whacked-out "ethical rules" the Service is operating under, thanks to this boob Band.
The Inspector General's Office reported their findings to two U.S. Attorneys, in Boston and Virginia, both of whom apparently declined to prosecute Band or any of the U.S. Marshals involved (for theft, we'd imagine).
We'll follow up to see if any of these individuals save Marshal Rocha are still employed with the Marshals Service, and if so, why. As for Rocha, we recommend that he be promoted immediately, as he shows admirable ethical standards both for himself and his local office. It sounds like the Marshals could badly use a person like him as their head honcho, in order to weed out the numerous bad apples that apparently work there.
Mr. Band, who also works part-time as a statistician for Fox Sports, leaned on his day employer to provide escorts for himself as well as Fox broadcasters during the 2007 national championship college football game in Arizona, the 2007 World Series and the 2008 Super Bowl. No less than three U.S. Marshals (Yvonne Bonner (Acting) in Massachusetts, Thomas Hurlburt in Tampa and David Gonzales in Phoenix) agreed to help, and provided deputy U.S. Marshals in government vehicles to provide transportation and escorts during those events, even though obviously none qualified as official Marshals Service business. Those escorts used emergency lights to speed the broadcasters through traffic both before and after the events cited. In exchange, at least at the World Series event, Mr. Band provided passes to the games for the personnel involved.
Thankfully, the report finds at least one U.S. Marshal who told Band what he could do with his perk requests when the marshal was asked to provide free rides to a baseball All-Star game in San Francisco:
"U.S. Marshal Federico Rocha declined to provide any assistance in response to Band's request and instead told Band he could take a taxi or trolley to the ballpark. Rocha advised his staff that Band could not be transported in a USMS vehicle while conducting personal business."
Thank you for your integrity, Marshal Rocha. It's admired and appreciated.
In the investigation, Mr. Band was also found to be less than forthcoming about his involvement in the assignments:
"he lacked candor when we interviewed him about these instances"
Lied, in other words. That's not real good when you work in the Office of General Counsel and are supposed to be making and enforcing ethical policies, not breaking them, as one poor hoodwinked deputy marshal pointed out:
"[The deputy] said that because Band was with the USMS OGC, 'and who was the guy who advises us on ethics' he concluded there was no problem with doing as Band asked."
He concluded wrongly, of course. The report ultimately found that Band and the U.S. Marshals who provided the deputies and transportation "misused government resources and violated USMS ethical rules".
Obviously. I wonder what other whacked-out "ethical rules" the Service is operating under, thanks to this boob Band.
The Inspector General's Office reported their findings to two U.S. Attorneys, in Boston and Virginia, both of whom apparently declined to prosecute Band or any of the U.S. Marshals involved (for theft, we'd imagine).
We'll follow up to see if any of these individuals save Marshal Rocha are still employed with the Marshals Service, and if so, why. As for Rocha, we recommend that he be promoted immediately, as he shows admirable ethical standards both for himself and his local office. It sounds like the Marshals could badly use a person like him as their head honcho, in order to weed out the numerous bad apples that apparently work there.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Brady Campaign's shopping list revealed
After Barack Obama won election in November, gun owners and potential gun owners were mocked by many anti-gun people for stocking up on firearms and ammunition that they believed an Obama Administration, in concert with a Democratic Congress, would attempt to ban or restrict.
Paul Helmke, the head of the Brady Campaign, went so far as to label the fact that gun-owners were frantically buying weapons they feared would be outlawed "ridiculous", and stated that "We just want to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous guns."
Oh, really?
Here's the table of contents from a memo, pulled directly from the Brady website, that outlines just what they want to have happen in the first months of Obama's term:
THE CASE FOR COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS............................................................1
PART ONE: REVERSING THE DAMAGE DONE DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION..............................................................................................................2
REPEAL THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT’S UNWARRANTED RESTRICTIONS ON ATF............2
REPEAL RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF CRIME GUN DATA..............................2
REPEAL THE 24-HOUR BRADY RECORD DESTRUCTION REQUIREMENT................2-3
REPEAL THE PROHIBITION ON ATF’S POWER TO REQUIRE DEALER INVENTORY AUDITS.....................................................................................................................3
REPEAL NEW RULES ALLOWING CONCEALED CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS...............3-4
REPEAL OR AMEND THE FEDERAL GUN INDUSTRY LEGAL PROTECTION STATUTE
TO RESTORE EQUAL JUSTICE FOR GUN VIOLENCE VICTIMS...........................................4
PART TWO: MOVING FORWARD TO REDUCE CRIME AND PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE............................................................................................................................5
EXTEND AND STRENGTHEN BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO KEEP GUNS FROM DANGEROUS PURCHASERS.................................................................................................5
EXTEND BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO ALL GUN SALES, INCLUDING ALL
GUN SHOW SALES....................................................................................................5
FULLY FUND THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT..........................................................6
CLOSE THE "TERROR GAP" TO DENY FIREARMS TO TERRORISTS..........................6
PROHIBIT GUN POSSESSION BY VIOLENT MISDEMEANANTS AND PERSONS
CONVICTED OF VIOLENT ACTS AS JUVENILES........................................................7
STRENGTHEN ATF AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DEALERS, CRACK DOWN ON
CORRUPT DEALERS, AND FIGHT GUN TRAFFICKING........................................................7
RESTRICT LARGE-VOLUME HANDGUN SALES TO REDUCE TRAFFICKING...............7
GIVE ATF STRONGER AND MORE FLEXIBLE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
LAW AGAINST CORRUPT DEALERS...........................................................................8
STRENGTHEN ATF’S ABILITY TO CRACK DOWN ON GUN DEALERS WHO SELL TO STRAW PURCHASERS................................................................................................8
REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS...............................8-9
REQUIRE LICENSED DEALERS TO ADOPTMINIMUM SECURITY SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT GUN THEFTS............................................................................................9
REQUIRE LICENSED GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THEIR EMPLOYEES.......................................................9
PREVENT DEALERS FROM LIQUIDATING THEIR INVENTORY WITHOUT
BACKGROUND CHECKS AFTER THEIR LICENSES HAVE BEEN REVOKED...........9-10
STRENGTHEN TRACING OF CRIME GUNS TO HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT SOLVE
CRIMES.............................................................................................................................10
REQUIRE ALL NEW GUNS TO HAVE MICROSTAMPING CAPABILITY BY A DATE CERTAIN ................................................................................................................10
REQUIRE DEALERS TO REPORT INFORMATION ABOUT GUNS SOLD TO MANUFACTURERS TO STREAMLINE TRACING OF CRIME GUNS.............................10
RESTRICT MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS..........................................................................11
REQUIRE CONSUMER SAFETY STANDARDS AND CHILDPROOF SAFETY FEATURES
FOR FIREARMS..................................................................................................................11
REQUIRE MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR HANDGUN OWNERS AND IMPROVE RECORDKEEPING OF HANDGUN TRANSFERS..............................................................11-12
IMPROVE NATIONAL VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM DATA, AND RESTORE FIREARMS RESEARCH FUNDING FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION.....................................................................................................................12
Still with me? That's quite a list from people who only wish for us to adopt a few "sensible" changes.
Repeal, repeal, repeal, strengthen, expand, require, "improve" and my favorite, "restrict", which is just the Bradyites' fancy term for "ban".
Yep, just a few "common-sense laws on guns". No draconian and onerous, freedom-sapping changes here whatsoever. Keep on moving, citizen.
Laughably, Helmke et al claim in the memo's introduction that all of these proposed new regulations "pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners".
Sure, sure. Unless one wishes to own a semiautomatic rifle, or wants to sell a firearm to a law-abiding friend or relative without expensive and intrusive government involvement, or who plans to buy a firearm without identifying technology such as "microstamping" that has been proven to be unworkable, or who vacations in public national parks and desires to retain the right to self-defense in remote areas where law enforcement isn't present, or who wants a firearm without a malfunctioning child-proof lock, or who sees the danger and folly in giving even more money and power to the original "Jack-Booted Thug" government agency, the BATFE.
Nope, no threat to any law-abiding gun owner's interests in that exhaustive list whatsoever. Oh, and in case anyone thinks that this is all the Bradyites wish to enact, you would be quite mistaken. They admit right in the introduction that this is just a jumping-off point:
"This memo is not intended to present an exhaustive list of effective measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence, but does provide a starting point for consideration"
A starting point to what? Mandatory registration of all firearms, and then eventual confiscation, which has already happened in England and Australia and is currently underway in Canada. That's the ultimate goal of the Brady Campaign, no matter what lies they'll state right to your face.
Please get ready to fight back against this coordinated attack on everyone's natural-born and Second-Amendment protected right of self-defense. It's coming soon, folks.
Paul Helmke, the head of the Brady Campaign, went so far as to label the fact that gun-owners were frantically buying weapons they feared would be outlawed "ridiculous", and stated that "We just want to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous guns."
Oh, really?
Here's the table of contents from a memo, pulled directly from the Brady website, that outlines just what they want to have happen in the first months of Obama's term:
THE CASE FOR COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS............................................................1
PART ONE: REVERSING THE DAMAGE DONE DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION..............................................................................................................2
REPEAL THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT’S UNWARRANTED RESTRICTIONS ON ATF............2
REPEAL RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF CRIME GUN DATA..............................2
REPEAL THE 24-HOUR BRADY RECORD DESTRUCTION REQUIREMENT................2-3
REPEAL THE PROHIBITION ON ATF’S POWER TO REQUIRE DEALER INVENTORY AUDITS.....................................................................................................................3
REPEAL NEW RULES ALLOWING CONCEALED CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS...............3-4
REPEAL OR AMEND THE FEDERAL GUN INDUSTRY LEGAL PROTECTION STATUTE
TO RESTORE EQUAL JUSTICE FOR GUN VIOLENCE VICTIMS...........................................4
PART TWO: MOVING FORWARD TO REDUCE CRIME AND PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE............................................................................................................................5
EXTEND AND STRENGTHEN BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO KEEP GUNS FROM DANGEROUS PURCHASERS.................................................................................................5
EXTEND BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO ALL GUN SALES, INCLUDING ALL
GUN SHOW SALES....................................................................................................5
FULLY FUND THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT..........................................................6
CLOSE THE "TERROR GAP" TO DENY FIREARMS TO TERRORISTS..........................6
PROHIBIT GUN POSSESSION BY VIOLENT MISDEMEANANTS AND PERSONS
CONVICTED OF VIOLENT ACTS AS JUVENILES........................................................7
STRENGTHEN ATF AUTHORITY TO REGULATE DEALERS, CRACK DOWN ON
CORRUPT DEALERS, AND FIGHT GUN TRAFFICKING........................................................7
RESTRICT LARGE-VOLUME HANDGUN SALES TO REDUCE TRAFFICKING...............7
GIVE ATF STRONGER AND MORE FLEXIBLE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
LAW AGAINST CORRUPT DEALERS...........................................................................8
STRENGTHEN ATF’S ABILITY TO CRACK DOWN ON GUN DEALERS WHO SELL TO STRAW PURCHASERS................................................................................................8
REQUIRE GUN OWNERS TO REPORT LOST OR STOLEN GUNS...............................8-9
REQUIRE LICENSED DEALERS TO ADOPTMINIMUM SECURITY SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT GUN THEFTS............................................................................................9
REQUIRE LICENSED GUN MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THEIR EMPLOYEES.......................................................9
PREVENT DEALERS FROM LIQUIDATING THEIR INVENTORY WITHOUT
BACKGROUND CHECKS AFTER THEIR LICENSES HAVE BEEN REVOKED...........9-10
STRENGTHEN TRACING OF CRIME GUNS TO HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT SOLVE
CRIMES.............................................................................................................................10
REQUIRE ALL NEW GUNS TO HAVE MICROSTAMPING CAPABILITY BY A DATE CERTAIN ................................................................................................................10
REQUIRE DEALERS TO REPORT INFORMATION ABOUT GUNS SOLD TO MANUFACTURERS TO STREAMLINE TRACING OF CRIME GUNS.............................10
RESTRICT MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS..........................................................................11
REQUIRE CONSUMER SAFETY STANDARDS AND CHILDPROOF SAFETY FEATURES
FOR FIREARMS..................................................................................................................11
REQUIRE MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR HANDGUN OWNERS AND IMPROVE RECORDKEEPING OF HANDGUN TRANSFERS..............................................................11-12
IMPROVE NATIONAL VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM DATA, AND RESTORE FIREARMS RESEARCH FUNDING FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION.....................................................................................................................12
Still with me? That's quite a list from people who only wish for us to adopt a few "sensible" changes.
Repeal, repeal, repeal, strengthen, expand, require, "improve" and my favorite, "restrict", which is just the Bradyites' fancy term for "ban".
Yep, just a few "common-sense laws on guns". No draconian and onerous, freedom-sapping changes here whatsoever. Keep on moving, citizen.
Laughably, Helmke et al claim in the memo's introduction that all of these proposed new regulations "pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners".
Sure, sure. Unless one wishes to own a semiautomatic rifle, or wants to sell a firearm to a law-abiding friend or relative without expensive and intrusive government involvement, or who plans to buy a firearm without identifying technology such as "microstamping" that has been proven to be unworkable, or who vacations in public national parks and desires to retain the right to self-defense in remote areas where law enforcement isn't present, or who wants a firearm without a malfunctioning child-proof lock, or who sees the danger and folly in giving even more money and power to the original "Jack-Booted Thug" government agency, the BATFE.
Nope, no threat to any law-abiding gun owner's interests in that exhaustive list whatsoever. Oh, and in case anyone thinks that this is all the Bradyites wish to enact, you would be quite mistaken. They admit right in the introduction that this is just a jumping-off point:
"This memo is not intended to present an exhaustive list of effective measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence, but does provide a starting point for consideration"
A starting point to what? Mandatory registration of all firearms, and then eventual confiscation, which has already happened in England and Australia and is currently underway in Canada. That's the ultimate goal of the Brady Campaign, no matter what lies they'll state right to your face.
Please get ready to fight back against this coordinated attack on everyone's natural-born and Second-Amendment protected right of self-defense. It's coming soon, folks.
One law that's working quite well
2009 has barely begun, yet Alamo City, Texas, a suburb of San Antonio, has already recorded three shootings that have been ruled justifiable. One was by police; two were by homeowners defending themselves against invaders. The latest incident resulted in two juvenile gangbangers who will no longer be committing any crimes, as they are now deceased.
The article goes on to report that justified shootings in San Antonio increased from 7 in 2007 to 17 in 2008, in part because Texas now has a "castle doctrine" law, which allows citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves from attackers in their own homes.
Why the rapid increase? It seems the word is getting out about one's rights in that state:
"George R. Franks Jr., a criminal justice professor at Stephen F. Austin University, said publicity of high-profile justified shootings has inspired others to take up arms.
'As people see these things happening to folks they identify with, they decide it’s time for them to arm themselves,' he said."
Good for them. Maybe the word will get out amongst the criminal element down there that residents are willing and able to fight back, and the robbery and breaking and entering rates will plummet accordingly.
Of course, the Brady Campaign and most big-city governments are vehemently against the very idea of a castle doctrine law. Maybe the likes of Mayors Daley, Bloomberg and others should visit this town and speak with real people who have successfully fought off real bad guys, in order to see the advantages of having such legislation.
The article goes on to report that justified shootings in San Antonio increased from 7 in 2007 to 17 in 2008, in part because Texas now has a "castle doctrine" law, which allows citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves from attackers in their own homes.
Why the rapid increase? It seems the word is getting out about one's rights in that state:
"George R. Franks Jr., a criminal justice professor at Stephen F. Austin University, said publicity of high-profile justified shootings has inspired others to take up arms.
'As people see these things happening to folks they identify with, they decide it’s time for them to arm themselves,' he said."
Good for them. Maybe the word will get out amongst the criminal element down there that residents are willing and able to fight back, and the robbery and breaking and entering rates will plummet accordingly.
Of course, the Brady Campaign and most big-city governments are vehemently against the very idea of a castle doctrine law. Maybe the likes of Mayors Daley, Bloomberg and others should visit this town and speak with real people who have successfully fought off real bad guys, in order to see the advantages of having such legislation.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
It's an epidemic
Another big-city mayor has been indicted on felony corruption charges. This time, the wheel has stopped and pointed to Baltimore, Maryland Mayor Sheila Dixon.
"Viewed as an energetic and charismatic leader, she has earned praise from residents for implementing an easy-to-use recycling program"
Well, that success is certainly worth a little under-the-table bonus, now isn't it?
With Dixon charged, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick jailed and gone, and his own hand-picked governor under indictment for auctioning off an open Senate seat, I wonder if King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley of Chicago, who appears to be the runaway leader in the big-city corruption game (at least judging by the amount of scandals under his watch), is starting to lose a little sleep?
"Viewed as an energetic and charismatic leader, she has earned praise from residents for implementing an easy-to-use recycling program"
Well, that success is certainly worth a little under-the-table bonus, now isn't it?
With Dixon charged, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick jailed and gone, and his own hand-picked governor under indictment for auctioning off an open Senate seat, I wonder if King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley of Chicago, who appears to be the runaway leader in the big-city corruption game (at least judging by the amount of scandals under his watch), is starting to lose a little sleep?
Unenforceable. So why try?
The National Safety Council, a "congressionally chartered" group (we pay for it) has come out with a recommendation for a total ban on cell-phone use while driving, including the hands-free variety.
In other news, this group is also expected to advocate outlawing listening to the radio and blowing your nose while driving. You're just going to have to let your schnozz run until you get where you're going. Naw, I made this last part up, but I wouldn't put it past these Nanny-staters to target such activities in the future.
Look, using one hand to hold a phone while driving is dangerous, and texting while underway is just plain stupid, which is why I don't do either. I prefer to not make calls at all while driving, or at least use a Bluetooth unit and keep the chat to a minimum if the call is absolutely necessary. If these people think a complete ban on phone use in the car is workable, however, they're in Fantasyland.
Putting aside the question of how to put the genie of people being used to talking anytime, anywhere back into the bottle, how can such a policy possibly be enforced, particularly for drivers using Bluetooth hands-free through their car radios? Are we going to have roadblocks where cops look for the little blue light of an active Bluetooth connection? Are cell records going to somehow be tied to some kind of online database of when one was actually behind the wheel?
The only way to make such a law workable is to further reduce our freedoms to the point where a government official is able to monitor one's whereabouts and activities in real-time 24 hours a day. I do not wish to live in such a society, as any life worth living is not going to be completely safe, but I don't think we have to worry too much about this scenario becoming a reality. Based upon my observations of how much time most people actually spend on their cell phones, I am sure that the majority would quickly bounce any politician who would actually vote to further limit their precious airtime opportunities.
"Council officials said they will press Congress to address the issue when it takes up a highway construction bill this year, possibly by offering incentives to states that enact cell phone laws."
More bribery by the Feds using the taxpayers' own money, just like they did to force the states to enact seat belt laws and blood-alcohol limits.
States that give up their Tenth Amendment rights for a little highway loot are selling their souls far too cheaply.
In other news, this group is also expected to advocate outlawing listening to the radio and blowing your nose while driving. You're just going to have to let your schnozz run until you get where you're going. Naw, I made this last part up, but I wouldn't put it past these Nanny-staters to target such activities in the future.
Look, using one hand to hold a phone while driving is dangerous, and texting while underway is just plain stupid, which is why I don't do either. I prefer to not make calls at all while driving, or at least use a Bluetooth unit and keep the chat to a minimum if the call is absolutely necessary. If these people think a complete ban on phone use in the car is workable, however, they're in Fantasyland.
Putting aside the question of how to put the genie of people being used to talking anytime, anywhere back into the bottle, how can such a policy possibly be enforced, particularly for drivers using Bluetooth hands-free through their car radios? Are we going to have roadblocks where cops look for the little blue light of an active Bluetooth connection? Are cell records going to somehow be tied to some kind of online database of when one was actually behind the wheel?
The only way to make such a law workable is to further reduce our freedoms to the point where a government official is able to monitor one's whereabouts and activities in real-time 24 hours a day. I do not wish to live in such a society, as any life worth living is not going to be completely safe, but I don't think we have to worry too much about this scenario becoming a reality. Based upon my observations of how much time most people actually spend on their cell phones, I am sure that the majority would quickly bounce any politician who would actually vote to further limit their precious airtime opportunities.
"Council officials said they will press Congress to address the issue when it takes up a highway construction bill this year, possibly by offering incentives to states that enact cell phone laws."
More bribery by the Feds using the taxpayers' own money, just like they did to force the states to enact seat belt laws and blood-alcohol limits.
States that give up their Tenth Amendment rights for a little highway loot are selling their souls far too cheaply.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
What happens when even the "professionals" aren't "professional enough"?
One needs a scorecard to keep track of this one, but I'll do my best. I actually had to read the article twice before I could make sense of it.
Ashland, Massachusetts police officer Ed Pomponio, who lives in and used to work for the police department in nearby Milford, had his firearm carry permit canceled last week by his former boss, Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin, apparently because Pomponio has difficulty staying out of trouble:
"Pomponio resigned from the Milford force in 2005 after being accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty. Since that time, O'Loughlin has counted 16 incidents involving Pomponio, including one where he threatened a Milford officer and swore at a lieutenant."
Apparently, if I understand the facts correctly, Massachusetts law requires police officers to obtain firearm carry permits before being allowed to carry a firearm off-duty, just as any other citizen would have to do (actually, some towns in that state go so far as to mandate that officers obtain a current permit to carry before carrying on-duty, but the two mentioned in this story do not). In any event, Officer Pomponio no longer possesses such a license.
This development means that OfficerFife Pomponio gets to carry his service pistol all day long while he does his job, but then has to lock it up at the office at the end of the day before he goes home, because his town of residence's local chief has decided that he can't be trusted with carrying a personal firearm off-duty.
Here's some quick background on how the permit system generally works, for those who don't know the process. People who know this stuff already, feel free to skip ahead two paragraphs.
Massachusetts is a "may-issue" state, in which local law-enforcement officials enjoy wide latitude over which lucky peasants get issued a permit to carry, and often decide whether to grant or deny a permit based on any criteria they choose, however unrelated or obscure. In practice, this system usually means that the only people who receive permits are celebrities, politicians and friends and supporters of the issuing bureaucrat. We here at The Northern Muckraker have documented numerous instances in which this authority has been abused in just such a manner by hypocritical and corrupt heads of police departments.
Instead of this unfair and much misused system, we here at this blog advocate the "shall-issue" system that's currently law in thirty-six states (and working quite well, by the way), in which law-enforcement officials are required to issue citizens who pass training and background check requirements their carry permits, unless the officials can cite compelling evidence to the contrary. Arguments such as the ones that Chief O'Loughlin claim make Pomponio unfit to carry off-duty would be presented to an judge who would decide if the permit denial is truly warranted, and not based solely on office gossip, as Pomponio seems to claim. No muss, no fuss. Everyone goes through the same fair and impartial process, and the bad apples who don't qualify are rightly barred from carrying.
In this particular case, there is another way for Officer Pomponio to obtain his carry permit. According to the article, the law in Massachusetts regarding carry permits used to require that only the chief in one's town of residence could issue a citizen their permit, regardless of the person's employer. This ordinance was changed last July to allow police chiefs to issue a permit to "any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority." Therefore, all Pomponio has to do is get his new chief to rubber-stamp a new permit and everything is hunky-dory, right?
Hah.
Incredibly, Ashland Police Chief Scott Rohmer, Pomponio's current boss, shuffles and weaves when asked directly if he'll use his new authority under the updated law to issue his employee a permit:
"'When asked if he would consider applying for a license from Rohmer, Pomponio said, 'I'll cross that bridge when I get there... 'He has not yet, and if he applied, I don't know what the outcome would be,' Rohmer said."
This is frankly the most ludicrous situation that I've seen on this topic since I began this blog, and I've seen some doozies. One chief flatly puts his reputation on the line to deny an officer a carry permit due to apparent anger management issues, another chief ducks the question when asked if he'll issue another permit to his own employee, and meanwhile this man gets to show up for work, arm himself (something most likely denied to most, if not all of the local law-abiding peasants), and then gets dispatched to go sort out volatile and stressful situations? Can anyone say "disaster waiting to happen"?
Really, the only compelling question here is "If not one but two chiefs think that a given cop can't be trusted to carry a firearm off-duty, why the heck is he still being allowed (and even paid) to carry while on-duty? Good Lord, just typing that question makes me shake my head in wonder.
Meanwhile, the same old line that "Only trained law-enforcement officers are professional enough to carry firearms in public" keeps getting spit out by folks such as the Brady Campaign and many (but not all, thankfully) law-enforcement heads, especially those in big cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
I disagree. Every permit holder I know (and I know quite a few) is far more "professional" and qualified to carry a firearm in public than Officer Pomponio. I've attended meetings and been in rooms with hundreds of armed permit holders more than once, and I have felt perfectly comfortable and safe in every instance.
I can't say the same if I were to encounter this good officer on the side of a Massachusetts roadway, sadly.
Ashland, Massachusetts police officer Ed Pomponio, who lives in and used to work for the police department in nearby Milford, had his firearm carry permit canceled last week by his former boss, Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin, apparently because Pomponio has difficulty staying out of trouble:
"Pomponio resigned from the Milford force in 2005 after being accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty. Since that time, O'Loughlin has counted 16 incidents involving Pomponio, including one where he threatened a Milford officer and swore at a lieutenant."
Apparently, if I understand the facts correctly, Massachusetts law requires police officers to obtain firearm carry permits before being allowed to carry a firearm off-duty, just as any other citizen would have to do (actually, some towns in that state go so far as to mandate that officers obtain a current permit to carry before carrying on-duty, but the two mentioned in this story do not). In any event, Officer Pomponio no longer possesses such a license.
This development means that Officer
Here's some quick background on how the permit system generally works, for those who don't know the process. People who know this stuff already, feel free to skip ahead two paragraphs.
Massachusetts is a "may-issue" state, in which local law-enforcement officials enjoy wide latitude over which lucky peasants get issued a permit to carry, and often decide whether to grant or deny a permit based on any criteria they choose, however unrelated or obscure. In practice, this system usually means that the only people who receive permits are celebrities, politicians and friends and supporters of the issuing bureaucrat. We here at The Northern Muckraker have documented numerous instances in which this authority has been abused in just such a manner by hypocritical and corrupt heads of police departments.
Instead of this unfair and much misused system, we here at this blog advocate the "shall-issue" system that's currently law in thirty-six states (and working quite well, by the way), in which law-enforcement officials are required to issue citizens who pass training and background check requirements their carry permits, unless the officials can cite compelling evidence to the contrary. Arguments such as the ones that Chief O'Loughlin claim make Pomponio unfit to carry off-duty would be presented to an judge who would decide if the permit denial is truly warranted, and not based solely on office gossip, as Pomponio seems to claim. No muss, no fuss. Everyone goes through the same fair and impartial process, and the bad apples who don't qualify are rightly barred from carrying.
In this particular case, there is another way for Officer Pomponio to obtain his carry permit. According to the article, the law in Massachusetts regarding carry permits used to require that only the chief in one's town of residence could issue a citizen their permit, regardless of the person's employer. This ordinance was changed last July to allow police chiefs to issue a permit to "any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority." Therefore, all Pomponio has to do is get his new chief to rubber-stamp a new permit and everything is hunky-dory, right?
Hah.
Incredibly, Ashland Police Chief Scott Rohmer, Pomponio's current boss, shuffles and weaves when asked directly if he'll use his new authority under the updated law to issue his employee a permit:
"'When asked if he would consider applying for a license from Rohmer, Pomponio said, 'I'll cross that bridge when I get there... 'He has not yet, and if he applied, I don't know what the outcome would be,' Rohmer said."
This is frankly the most ludicrous situation that I've seen on this topic since I began this blog, and I've seen some doozies. One chief flatly puts his reputation on the line to deny an officer a carry permit due to apparent anger management issues, another chief ducks the question when asked if he'll issue another permit to his own employee, and meanwhile this man gets to show up for work, arm himself (something most likely denied to most, if not all of the local law-abiding peasants), and then gets dispatched to go sort out volatile and stressful situations? Can anyone say "disaster waiting to happen"?
Really, the only compelling question here is "If not one but two chiefs think that a given cop can't be trusted to carry a firearm off-duty, why the heck is he still being allowed (and even paid) to carry while on-duty? Good Lord, just typing that question makes me shake my head in wonder.
Meanwhile, the same old line that "Only trained law-enforcement officers are professional enough to carry firearms in public" keeps getting spit out by folks such as the Brady Campaign and many (but not all, thankfully) law-enforcement heads, especially those in big cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
I disagree. Every permit holder I know (and I know quite a few) is far more "professional" and qualified to carry a firearm in public than Officer Pomponio. I've attended meetings and been in rooms with hundreds of armed permit holders more than once, and I have felt perfectly comfortable and safe in every instance.
I can't say the same if I were to encounter this good officer on the side of a Massachusetts roadway, sadly.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Would you or I get away scot-free with this behavior?
"Chattanooga Police Det. Kenneth Freeman will not face charges in an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Wal-Mart in Collegedale to the floor after he tried to stop him while doing a receipts check."
On Christmas Eve, no less.
"Detective" Freeman shoved another customer who tried to intervene through a glass door, according to the article. This also isn't the first time the temperamental officer has been caught not being able to keep his hands to himself:
"Det. Freeman was involved in a scuffle with attorney Lloyd Levitt at the Courts Building in May 2007."
The only reason we haven't given "Detective" Freeman Jack-Booted Thug of the Week status is that he seems not to have been on duty at the time of the Wal-Mart incident. We can, however, give Freeman the public shaming he so richly deserves.
Hopefully Wal-Mart has banned this cowardly bully from ever shopping there again.
On Christmas Eve, no less.
"Detective" Freeman shoved another customer who tried to intervene through a glass door, according to the article. This also isn't the first time the temperamental officer has been caught not being able to keep his hands to himself:
"Det. Freeman was involved in a scuffle with attorney Lloyd Levitt at the Courts Building in May 2007."
The only reason we haven't given "Detective" Freeman Jack-Booted Thug of the Week status is that he seems not to have been on duty at the time of the Wal-Mart incident. We can, however, give Freeman the public shaming he so richly deserves.
Hopefully Wal-Mart has banned this cowardly bully from ever shopping there again.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
A Democrat I could grow to like
My Congressman, Harry Mitchell, voted against the unconstitutional bailouts of both the financial and the auto industries, voted to repeal D.C.'s gun ban when it looked like the martinets who rule that city were going to drag their feet indefinitely once Heller was decided, and has now introduced (for the third year in a row) legislation with Ron Paul to get rid of Congress's automatic pay raises. He donates his raises to charity in the meantime.
Well done, sir. Now if I can only convince you to quit backing the execrable "card-check" bill that would get rid of secret-ballot union elections, I think that I would happily vote for you next Election Day.
Well done, sir. Now if I can only convince you to quit backing the execrable "card-check" bill that would get rid of secret-ballot union elections, I think that I would happily vote for you next Election Day.
Eating their own
Demonstrators protesting what they consider to be the racist execution of Oscar Grant in San Francisco on January 1 are apparently unclear on the concept of choosing appropriate targets to vent their anger:
"The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.
'This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?'"
Here's some truly frightening words from an upstanding citizen who actually had the gall to give her name to a reporter:
"'I feel like the night is going great,' said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. 'I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male.'
Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.
'She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life,' Sykes said."
Make some noise, indeed. You go, girl!
"Nearby, Godhuli Bose stood near her smashed Toyota Corolla as a man walked by, repeatedly called her a misogynist slur and then added, 'F- your car.'"
This just gets better and better, doesn't it? What a way to get people to respect and understand your so-called "outrage". Any excuse for a riot, I guess.
It's unfortunate that San Francisco has one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation, effectively preventing these law-abiding business owners from protecting their hard-earned property from being damaged as well as themselves from being assaulted, as several Korean convenience store owners managed to do during the LA riots after the police officers there were (wrongly) acquitted of beating Rodney King in 1992.
Further down the article, we find out who is really responsible for the rabble-rousing:
"The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the "Revolution" newspaper - whose tagline is "voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A.""
Why is it that the socialists, who purport to champion the cause of the common peasant, always seem to target their small businesses, and not the ones of the supposed "masters"? Convenience? Cowardice?
More evidence that the party of Mao, Stalin and Castro hasn't changed one bit, and that violence and intimidation against "their own people" are still their preferred tools. The fact that their heroes murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century doesn't faze them one bit, it seems. These morons apparently wish to continue that legacy into today.
Sometimes people ask me why I choose to carry a firearm on a daily basis. In response, I often point out situations such as this, which illustrate just how thin the skin of our civilization is over anarchy and mob-rule. The questioners usually quickly get my point.
"The mob smashed the windows at Creative African Braids on 14th Street, and a woman walked out of the shop holding a baby in her arms.
'This is our business," shouted Leemu Topka, the black owner of the salon she started four years ago. "This is our shop. This is what you call a protest?'"
Here's some truly frightening words from an upstanding citizen who actually had the gall to give her name to a reporter:
"'I feel like the night is going great,' said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. 'I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male.'
Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids.
'She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life,' Sykes said."
Make some noise, indeed. You go, girl!
"Nearby, Godhuli Bose stood near her smashed Toyota Corolla as a man walked by, repeatedly called her a misogynist slur and then added, 'F- your car.'"
This just gets better and better, doesn't it? What a way to get people to respect and understand your so-called "outrage". Any excuse for a riot, I guess.
It's unfortunate that San Francisco has one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation, effectively preventing these law-abiding business owners from protecting their hard-earned property from being damaged as well as themselves from being assaulted, as several Korean convenience store owners managed to do during the LA riots after the police officers there were (wrongly) acquitted of beating Rodney King in 1992.
Further down the article, we find out who is really responsible for the rabble-rousing:
"The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the "Revolution" newspaper - whose tagline is "voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A.""
Why is it that the socialists, who purport to champion the cause of the common peasant, always seem to target their small businesses, and not the ones of the supposed "masters"? Convenience? Cowardice?
More evidence that the party of Mao, Stalin and Castro hasn't changed one bit, and that violence and intimidation against "their own people" are still their preferred tools. The fact that their heroes murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century doesn't faze them one bit, it seems. These morons apparently wish to continue that legacy into today.
Sometimes people ask me why I choose to carry a firearm on a daily basis. In response, I often point out situations such as this, which illustrate just how thin the skin of our civilization is over anarchy and mob-rule. The questioners usually quickly get my point.
Naturally
The wannabe-Senator from Illinois is also a first-class hypocrite when it comes to gun rights, unsurprisingly:
"But logic has never been his strong suit. A longtime advocate of a national handgun ban, Burris organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-in Day in 1993. But when he ran for governor the following year, he admitted that he owned a handgun ("for protection,") and did not hand it over to police as he urged others to do."
What's with all the Chicago politicians who feel that they're entitled to protect themselves, while their poor law-abiding peasants can go pound sand?
Expect this sort of elitist thinking on a national level very soon. We're going to have the fight of our lives in very short order.
(h/t to SCC)
"But logic has never been his strong suit. A longtime advocate of a national handgun ban, Burris organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-in Day in 1993. But when he ran for governor the following year, he admitted that he owned a handgun ("for protection,") and did not hand it over to police as he urged others to do."
What's with all the Chicago politicians who feel that they're entitled to protect themselves, while their poor law-abiding peasants can go pound sand?
Expect this sort of elitist thinking on a national level very soon. We're going to have the fight of our lives in very short order.
(h/t to SCC)
Today's TASER Travesty
Early on January 1, Oscar Grant III was shot and killed at the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit system station by BART police officer Johannes Mehserle. Grant was unarmed and was allegedly resisting arrest at the time by as many as FIVE officers.
Video taken by cell phones of witnesses is not very clear, but the one below shows at least two other officers backing away from Grant at :34 before Mehserle draws and fires at him.
Most theories about what happened in this incident consider the scenario in which the officer's handgun was mistakenly drawn instead of his TASER as the likeliest reason for the tragic outcome. The only other alternative would seem be a deliberate execution on Mehserle's part, and the chance of that being the case would appear to be extremely remote, given the public nature of the arrest attempt.
Mehserle has submitted his resignation to the department, which this article confirms effectively ends any internal investigation of the incident by the force:
"BART officials said Mehserle was scheduled to meet with agency investigators on Wednesday, but did not show up. His attorney and union representative turned in the resignation letter."
This is only speculation, but that action probably wouldn't be taken by Mehserle if he had had a justified reason for shooting Grant.
This is a sad and tragic situation all around, if indeed the mistaken TASER theory mentioned above is proven accurate. We only mention the incident here to further highlight the folly of using a TASER as a pain compliance tool, instead of taking suspects such as Grant into custody by physical means, as one witness states was already being done:
"'One officer was kneeling over his neck and head, and another standing over him,' Burris said. 'He was not kicking, and one officer was pulling on his arm. The standing officer pulled out his weapon and, within moments, fired the gun into Mr. Grant's back.'"
Video taken by cell phones of witnesses is not very clear, but the one below shows at least two other officers backing away from Grant at :34 before Mehserle draws and fires at him.
Most theories about what happened in this incident consider the scenario in which the officer's handgun was mistakenly drawn instead of his TASER as the likeliest reason for the tragic outcome. The only other alternative would seem be a deliberate execution on Mehserle's part, and the chance of that being the case would appear to be extremely remote, given the public nature of the arrest attempt.
Mehserle has submitted his resignation to the department, which this article confirms effectively ends any internal investigation of the incident by the force:
"BART officials said Mehserle was scheduled to meet with agency investigators on Wednesday, but did not show up. His attorney and union representative turned in the resignation letter."
This is only speculation, but that action probably wouldn't be taken by Mehserle if he had had a justified reason for shooting Grant.
This is a sad and tragic situation all around, if indeed the mistaken TASER theory mentioned above is proven accurate. We only mention the incident here to further highlight the folly of using a TASER as a pain compliance tool, instead of taking suspects such as Grant into custody by physical means, as one witness states was already being done:
"'One officer was kneeling over his neck and head, and another standing over him,' Burris said. 'He was not kicking, and one officer was pulling on his arm. The standing officer pulled out his weapon and, within moments, fired the gun into Mr. Grant's back.'"
One wonders why the officers didn't simply finish overpowering Grant, especially since three officers already had him on the ground and Grant apparently only weighed around 160 pounds.
Once again, we find ourselves being forced to stress that the TASER is designed to be a "less-than lethal" weapon, to be deployed in defense of self and others ONLY. It should not be used as a compliance tool to effect an easy arrest, in the same manner that beating a suspect with a baton for not placing his arms behind his back quickly enough would be tolerated.Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Cash is better than a medal
Late last summer, while commenting on the botched no-knock raid in Berwyn Heights, Maryland, we noted in passing what happened to homeowner Vang Khang and his family in their Minneapolis, Minnesota home on December 17, 2007:
When Minneapolis, Minnesota police officers had a wrong-house raid themselves several months ago, narrowly avoiding killing a Hmong immigrant family because of false informant information about drugs, information that wasn't checked out or verified in any way, not only was no one disciplined, the officers involved were actually given medals and commendations for "heroism" during the operation. They were rewarded with the bling because they came under fire from the father of the family, who had the unmitigated gall to shoot at the goons busting down his home's door in the middle of the night for what seemed to him no reason at all. (Interestingly, despite all of the gunfire from the Minneapolis SWAT officers, Vang Khang, the homeowner, was the only one who managed to hit someone in the debacle, slightly injuring three officers without sustaining any injuries to himself. Where's his medal?)
Now, for the update. The city of Minneapolis has agreed to pay $612,498 of taxpayer money to the Khang family as compensation for the trauma that they went through that night. No one to date has been disciplined for the shoddy police work that precipitated the wrong-house raid that Khang and his family were subjected to, and which now has cost the city more than half a million dollars of their peasants' funds. As far as I know, the officers involved got to keep their medals for their involvement in this fiasco.
Please, Minneapolis Police Department, no more "heroism and valor". You'll bankrupt the city.
When Minneapolis, Minnesota police officers had a wrong-house raid themselves several months ago, narrowly avoiding killing a Hmong immigrant family because of false informant information about drugs, information that wasn't checked out or verified in any way, not only was no one disciplined, the officers involved were actually given medals and commendations for "heroism" during the operation. They were rewarded with the bling because they came under fire from the father of the family, who had the unmitigated gall to shoot at the goons busting down his home's door in the middle of the night for what seemed to him no reason at all. (Interestingly, despite all of the gunfire from the Minneapolis SWAT officers, Vang Khang, the homeowner, was the only one who managed to hit someone in the debacle, slightly injuring three officers without sustaining any injuries to himself. Where's his medal?)
Now, for the update. The city of Minneapolis has agreed to pay $612,498 of taxpayer money to the Khang family as compensation for the trauma that they went through that night. No one to date has been disciplined for the shoddy police work that precipitated the wrong-house raid that Khang and his family were subjected to, and which now has cost the city more than half a million dollars of their peasants' funds. As far as I know, the officers involved got to keep their medals for their involvement in this fiasco.
Please, Minneapolis Police Department, no more "heroism and valor". You'll bankrupt the city.
Papers, please
The Florida Highway Patrol has announced that they're going to be performing random traffic stops this month in two counties in the Tampa Bay area in order to perform vehicle inspections, ostensibly to ensure the "safety" of the motorists:
"Troopers will look for bad brakes, worn tires, defective lights and other vehicle problems that pose a danger to drivers, authorities said."
The only problem is that these sorts of roadblocks are illegal under Florida law, as one commenter to the story notes:
"Look up Florida Statute 316.610. It states:
(1) Any police officer may at any time, upon reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, or that its equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair, require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection and such test with reference thereto as may be appropriate.
Random stops are not reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe." (Emphasis mine)
I'm not an attorney, but it seems pretty clear to me that law enforcement officers in Florida must have an articulable reason to "stop and submit" a vehicle for inspection, and that randomly stopping a car at a checkpoint doesn't meet that threshold.
Stops such as these are also in complete violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights, in addition to violating Florida law. However, the side of a highway is a poor place to argue the point if one isn't prepared with full knowledge of their rights. Therefore, Florida drivers, I recommend that you follow the advice of Wisconsin attorney William Pangman, who has written an informative article outlining one's rights at a roadblock stop. It's written with DUI checkpoints in mind, but the tips should be applicable in any given roadblock situation.
I would add that the drivers should ask the troopers for their ASE mechanic certifications, but perhaps that's too cheeky, no?
"Troopers will look for bad brakes, worn tires, defective lights and other vehicle problems that pose a danger to drivers, authorities said."
The only problem is that these sorts of roadblocks are illegal under Florida law, as one commenter to the story notes:
"Look up Florida Statute 316.610. It states:
(1) Any police officer may at any time, upon reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, or that its equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair, require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection and such test with reference thereto as may be appropriate.
Random stops are not reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe." (Emphasis mine)
I'm not an attorney, but it seems pretty clear to me that law enforcement officers in Florida must have an articulable reason to "stop and submit" a vehicle for inspection, and that randomly stopping a car at a checkpoint doesn't meet that threshold.
Stops such as these are also in complete violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights, in addition to violating Florida law. However, the side of a highway is a poor place to argue the point if one isn't prepared with full knowledge of their rights. Therefore, Florida drivers, I recommend that you follow the advice of Wisconsin attorney William Pangman, who has written an informative article outlining one's rights at a roadblock stop. It's written with DUI checkpoints in mind, but the tips should be applicable in any given roadblock situation.
I would add that the drivers should ask the troopers for their ASE mechanic certifications, but perhaps that's too cheeky, no?
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The Bobbies are going to begin warrantless online snooping
Thanks to a new EU rule, British "authorities" are now free to root around in the computers of their subjects, and they only have to come up with the flimsiest of excuses in order to do so.
Actually, since it's an EU directive, any country in the EU is free to dispatch its police to muck around in the hard drives of any of its member nations' citizens.
"Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property"
Who wants to bet that it won't be "rarely used" from now on? Governments have rarely if ever been granted a power that they didn't immediately abuse.
Here's the incredibly low threshold that must be met in order to allow the warrantless secret searches:
"A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years."
The operative word in that statement is "prevent". By definition, that means that no crime has been committed, yet the cops are still apparently empowered to conduct these searches, in some kind of random casting about for "maybe going to be committed someday" acts.
That means, if I've got this correctly, that if some cop in charge "believes" that he can "prevent" some nebulous unnamed crime by intruding into someone's personal life, even with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by that user, then he can invoke this rule and everything will be nice and legal.
The only problem with that is, of course you can prevent crimes by randomly searching thousands and thousands of computers for the one that's being used (or potentially going to be used) for criminal activity. One can also accomplish much the same results by searching thousands and thousands of houses as well. Is that level of intrusiveness next to be approved by Brussels? After all, it's the logical next step, as wrong as it is.
Fortunately for U.S. citizens, we defeated that kind of scheme in this country back in 1993. Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's famous Clipper Chip, which would have allowed back-door access into any American computer by law enforcement? That sort of hardware would have made it much easier on the Europeans of today, who apparently aren't above committing hacker crimes in order to gain access to their targets:
"Police might also send an e-mail to a suspect’s computer. The message would include an attachment that contained a virus or “malware”. If the attachment was opened, the remote search facility would be covertly activated."
Any Americans still wish to be in some kind of world government after hearing about this kind of nonsense?
Residents of England who still care about their privacy, I suggest you decline to open attachments from anyone you don't trust, and immediately employ an encryption solution in order to protect your personal information from being hoovered up by some nosy gendarme who simply feels like doing so. I use and recommend Cryptainer, which is inexpensive and offers the strongest levels of encryption available, as well as being incredibly easy to use (Just don't lose your passphrase, or you're toast). They even offer a free version to try (No, I don't have any financial interest in the product. I just think it works great).
Actually, since it's an EU directive, any country in the EU is free to dispatch its police to muck around in the hard drives of any of its member nations' citizens.
"Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property"
Who wants to bet that it won't be "rarely used" from now on? Governments have rarely if ever been granted a power that they didn't immediately abuse.
Here's the incredibly low threshold that must be met in order to allow the warrantless secret searches:
"A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years."
The operative word in that statement is "prevent". By definition, that means that no crime has been committed, yet the cops are still apparently empowered to conduct these searches, in some kind of random casting about for "maybe going to be committed someday" acts.
That means, if I've got this correctly, that if some cop in charge "believes" that he can "prevent" some nebulous unnamed crime by intruding into someone's personal life, even with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by that user, then he can invoke this rule and everything will be nice and legal.
The only problem with that is, of course you can prevent crimes by randomly searching thousands and thousands of computers for the one that's being used (or potentially going to be used) for criminal activity. One can also accomplish much the same results by searching thousands and thousands of houses as well. Is that level of intrusiveness next to be approved by Brussels? After all, it's the logical next step, as wrong as it is.
Fortunately for U.S. citizens, we defeated that kind of scheme in this country back in 1993. Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's famous Clipper Chip, which would have allowed back-door access into any American computer by law enforcement? That sort of hardware would have made it much easier on the Europeans of today, who apparently aren't above committing hacker crimes in order to gain access to their targets:
"Police might also send an e-mail to a suspect’s computer. The message would include an attachment that contained a virus or “malware”. If the attachment was opened, the remote search facility would be covertly activated."
Any Americans still wish to be in some kind of world government after hearing about this kind of nonsense?
Residents of England who still care about their privacy, I suggest you decline to open attachments from anyone you don't trust, and immediately employ an encryption solution in order to protect your personal information from being hoovered up by some nosy gendarme who simply feels like doing so. I use and recommend Cryptainer, which is inexpensive and offers the strongest levels of encryption available, as well as being incredibly easy to use (Just don't lose your passphrase, or you're toast). They even offer a free version to try (No, I don't have any financial interest in the product. I just think it works great).
Even the powerful need to show up on time to get their seats
Apparently Vice President-elect Joe Biden and his wife attempted to go see the new Brad Pitt movie in Delaware last Saturday night, only to be turned away because the theater had already sold out.
Why is this news? That's how things are supposed to work in this country, where we don't have royalty that's allowed to rudely brush by the peasants and grab the best seats in the house, forcing the poor ticketholders to see a later showing.
To their credit, the Bidens didn't try to weasel their way in by playing the "Don't you know who we are?" card, although that would have probably worked on the hyperventilating manager:
"'I was a little excited -- I'm not gonna lie,' said Muhamut, a 21-year-old senior at West Chester University. 'The Secret Service guy told me to calm down.'"
Dear God. They're just ordinary people the same as you, dear.
Hopefully the couple will arrive a little bit earlier the next time they decide to take in a flick, so that they won't be thwarted by the same situation. I know how frustrating it can be to get up for a movie, only to have to settle for a different one because I procrastinated and didn't get there on time.
Why is this news? That's how things are supposed to work in this country, where we don't have royalty that's allowed to rudely brush by the peasants and grab the best seats in the house, forcing the poor ticketholders to see a later showing.
To their credit, the Bidens didn't try to weasel their way in by playing the "Don't you know who we are?" card, although that would have probably worked on the hyperventilating manager:
"'I was a little excited -- I'm not gonna lie,' said Muhamut, a 21-year-old senior at West Chester University. 'The Secret Service guy told me to calm down.'"
Dear God. They're just ordinary people the same as you, dear.
Hopefully the couple will arrive a little bit earlier the next time they decide to take in a flick, so that they won't be thwarted by the same situation. I know how frustrating it can be to get up for a movie, only to have to settle for a different one because I procrastinated and didn't get there on time.
Useless
"I am profoundly troubled that the call of this council, issued nearly four days ago, for an end to the violence has gone unheeded,"
UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, impotently raging against the fact that Israel is finally putting an end to the constant rocket and mortar barrage from Gaza that has killed so many of its innocent citizens.
Considering the fact that groups such as Hamas has never paid one bit of attention to his organization's pronouncements, I'm wondering why he's so surprised.
Here's some more from the would-be "world leader":
"'Even as this crisis rages, let us never forget the underlying issue: there must be an end to occupation, an end to conflict, and the creation of a Palestinian State,' he said. 'Let us not lose sight of our goal: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region.'"
That's great and all, except for the fact that the religous fanatics who rule Gaza have stated unequivocally that they won't stop until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth, and the fact that there is no Palestine and no Palestinians, only a mostly Jordanian population that no other Arab country wants to have as citizens because they are so completely useless, except for throwing rocks and chanting slogans. Even Yasser Arafat himself was nothing more than an Egyptian carpetbagger who excelled at stirring up trouble in the region.
It's obvious, as is sadly all too true throughout history, that the Jewish people are going to have to defend themselves from savage attacks, instead of waiting for someone in "authority" to come and discipline the aggressors. I'm not Jewish, but I'm quite proud that my country is backing Israel's defense of itself so completely.
UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, impotently raging against the fact that Israel is finally putting an end to the constant rocket and mortar barrage from Gaza that has killed so many of its innocent citizens.
Considering the fact that groups such as Hamas has never paid one bit of attention to his organization's pronouncements, I'm wondering why he's so surprised.
Here's some more from the would-be "world leader":
"'Even as this crisis rages, let us never forget the underlying issue: there must be an end to occupation, an end to conflict, and the creation of a Palestinian State,' he said. 'Let us not lose sight of our goal: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region.'"
That's great and all, except for the fact that the religous fanatics who rule Gaza have stated unequivocally that they won't stop until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth, and the fact that there is no Palestine and no Palestinians, only a mostly Jordanian population that no other Arab country wants to have as citizens because they are so completely useless, except for throwing rocks and chanting slogans. Even Yasser Arafat himself was nothing more than an Egyptian carpetbagger who excelled at stirring up trouble in the region.
It's obvious, as is sadly all too true throughout history, that the Jewish people are going to have to defend themselves from savage attacks, instead of waiting for someone in "authority" to come and discipline the aggressors. I'm not Jewish, but I'm quite proud that my country is backing Israel's defense of itself so completely.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Electoral theft
The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today that sums up exactly why the recount in the Minnesota Senatorial race stinks to high heaven. It's truly eerie how similar the circumstances are to the 2004 Washington governor's race recount, in which at least one of Franken's advisors also participated.
Senator Coleman had better line up some heavy-hitter election lawyers, because this race is being stolen right out from under him. There's just no rational way statistically for Franken to have made up the vote deficit he had, and then actually pull hundreds of votes ahead.
"This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote."
That there's called Chicago-style vote counting. Ask the Messiah. He'll explain how it works.
Senator Coleman had better line up some heavy-hitter election lawyers, because this race is being stolen right out from under him. There's just no rational way statistically for Franken to have made up the vote deficit he had, and then actually pull hundreds of votes ahead.
"This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote."
That there's called Chicago-style vote counting. Ask the Messiah. He'll explain how it works.
Police officers afraid of their own firearms
When England and Australia confiscated just about all private firearms from their subjects, one of the arguments made at the time was that a well-trained police force made such ownership unnecessary.
Well, you can now take the "well-trained" part out of the equation, at least in New South Wales, Australia, where "authorities" are now being forced to build a 2 million dollar virtual reality simulator because the currently mandated one day a year firearms requalification training isn't cutting the mustard and "senior officers blame a lack of training for recruits being frightened of firearms."
Practicing any skill just one day a year, whether it be shooting firearms, playing guitar or salsa dancing, ensures that one will certainly be unprepared to utilize that skill successfully should the need for it arise.
The fancy new videogame simulator is apparently necessary because there is only one official six-lane live shooting range in all of New South Wales (a 309,500 square mile state approximately the size of California, with a population of over six million people) and all of the private shooting ranges have apparently gone out of business due to the forced lack of firearm ownership among the peasants.
"'We have a lot of young cops who are scared of guns,'" a senior officer told The Sun-Herald."
That doesn't generate a lot of confidence in one's public safety officers, now does it?
One can scarily imagine an officer who doesn't know which end of the pistol to hold, or who is forced to discharge their weapon and subsequently drops it while shrieking madly like a horror movie refugee.
"Opposition police spokesman Michael Gallacher said officers should have more firearms training.
'These simulators are very advanced but quite simply nothing will replace live fire training needed to allow officers to learn how to use their weapons at a moment's notice,' he said. 'The idea of the training is to get a feel for the pressure of the situation of actually using the firearm that you're going to be issued. I'd be concerned we're now reducing live fire training and replacing it with the Nintendo Wii.'"
Absolutely correct. "Virtual" shooting has no distracting noise, no blinding flash to adjust for, no realistic tactile feedback and no provision for equipment failure drills, among many other deficits, and it definitely has no place for being used as a primary qualification exercise for those who are given the power to use officially-sanctioned deadly force as part of their profession. It will certainly not solve the problem of the laughably inadequate training schedule of these Australian police officers.
"Mr [Assistant Commissioner Michael] Corboy said he had received no complaints about the yearly training program or officers being concerned about using their guns."
Consider this a complaint then, you blissfully ignorant fool.
Well, you can now take the "well-trained" part out of the equation, at least in New South Wales, Australia, where "authorities" are now being forced to build a 2 million dollar virtual reality simulator because the currently mandated one day a year firearms requalification training isn't cutting the mustard and "senior officers blame a lack of training for recruits being frightened of firearms."
Practicing any skill just one day a year, whether it be shooting firearms, playing guitar or salsa dancing, ensures that one will certainly be unprepared to utilize that skill successfully should the need for it arise.
The fancy new videogame simulator is apparently necessary because there is only one official six-lane live shooting range in all of New South Wales (a 309,500 square mile state approximately the size of California, with a population of over six million people) and all of the private shooting ranges have apparently gone out of business due to the forced lack of firearm ownership among the peasants.
"'We have a lot of young cops who are scared of guns,'" a senior officer told The Sun-Herald."
That doesn't generate a lot of confidence in one's public safety officers, now does it?
One can scarily imagine an officer who doesn't know which end of the pistol to hold, or who is forced to discharge their weapon and subsequently drops it while shrieking madly like a horror movie refugee.
"Opposition police spokesman Michael Gallacher said officers should have more firearms training.
'These simulators are very advanced but quite simply nothing will replace live fire training needed to allow officers to learn how to use their weapons at a moment's notice,' he said. 'The idea of the training is to get a feel for the pressure of the situation of actually using the firearm that you're going to be issued. I'd be concerned we're now reducing live fire training and replacing it with the Nintendo Wii.'"
Absolutely correct. "Virtual" shooting has no distracting noise, no blinding flash to adjust for, no realistic tactile feedback and no provision for equipment failure drills, among many other deficits, and it definitely has no place for being used as a primary qualification exercise for those who are given the power to use officially-sanctioned deadly force as part of their profession. It will certainly not solve the problem of the laughably inadequate training schedule of these Australian police officers.
"Mr [Assistant Commissioner Michael] Corboy said he had received no complaints about the yearly training program or officers being concerned about using their guns."
Consider this a complaint then, you blissfully ignorant fool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
