They're steaming ahead on all fronts

Drunk with power after saddling the American peasant with trillions more dollars in debt, including arrogantly demanding another $634 billion dollars (on top of all of the other recent mass spending sprees we taxpayers are now on the hook for) to begin setting up a nationalized health care system (Much, much more on this subject in a later post), the Obama administration, through U.S. Attorney General Eric "Neutral, Leaning Towards Favorable" Holder, is floating the trial balloon of stating their intention to reinstate the failed "assault" weapons ban that (thankfully) expired in 2004.

Holder's main reason for forcing law-abiding Americans to give up their constitutionally-protected rights? That Mexico has a corrupt and incompetent government:

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference"

You're not the Attorney General of Mexico, sir. You're the the AG of the United States, and it's the height of stupidity to ask the people your purport to serve to give up their natural-born, constitutionally-protected rights because the Third-World country next door to us can't get its act together.

"'As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make'" (Emphasis mine)

Umm, excuse me. I seem to recall The Messiah assuring us during his run for office that he had absolutely no intention of robbing us of our Second Amendment rights. How quickly the worm turns once he's elected, eh? Here's some of the other "just a few" changes Obama's minion Holder wishes to quickly impose, while simultaneously making all of the other changes they're planning to make to our country:

"'I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent'"

Let's look at these issues one at a time, shall we?

1. There is no gun show loophole. This issue was specifically addressed and not included in the Brady Bill, so as to allow law-abiding citizens to sell their firearms to other law-abiding citizens without going through a licensed dealer, which costs anywhere from $25 to $50 or more per transaction. Imagine having to go to a car dealer and pay an extra fee every time you wished to sell a motor vehicle you wanted to be rid of, instead of putting an ad in the paper or on eBay? This is nothing more than an expensive, onerous bureaucratic inconvenience that will prove utterly useless, because criminals aren't law-abiding, strangely enough. They will still obtain firearms, whether by stealing them or by purchasing them from shady individuals on the street.

Additionally, all Federally licensed gun dealers who sell firearms at gun shows are already required to run Brady checks on anyone they sell to, so any new requirement would only serve to duplicate what's already being done.

2. There is no such thing as "cop-killer" bullets. This term is generally used by rabidly anti-gun organizations to refer to ammunition that can defeat the bullet-proof vests worn by police officers, and/or standard hollow-point rounds that expand on contact, causing significant injuries to people hit by them in non-vest-protected areas (which is exactly what they're designed to do).

The problem? Most calibers of ammunition, especially those large enough for legal hunting, are capable of doing exactly that. The government would have to ban just about all types of ammunition currently available for sale today in order to ensure that nothing powerful enough to penetrate body armor would be available. Of course, lawbreakers would only buy their ammo on the black market or from overseas sources, just like they currently do for their drugs and firearms, so this wouldn't slow them down one bit, but would only serve to prevent law-abiding citizens from hunting successfully and adequately protecting themselves and their loved ones from these same criminals.

The hollow-point rounds? The exact same ammunition is issued to most police departments in the U.S., for the simple reason that they work very well at the task they're asked to perform. The rounds transfer most of their energy into the person they contact, greatly increasing the chance that a criminal struck by such a round will immediately stop their attack on an victim, which is advantageous to both cops and legally carrying citizens. There is also much less risk with this type of round of overpenetration and the possible injuring of innocent people that sometimes occurs when using military-style full-metal-jacket rounds, making hollow-points much more exact, and therefore safer, when used in public by law enforcement and legally firearm-carrying citizens.

Again, criminals don't much care for safety, so this requirement would also be lost on them. They'll simply use whatever they can get their hands on, and if innocent bystanders are harmed, well, tough for them.

3. The "assault" weapons ban didn't work at all when it was in effect. The crime rate wasn't affected one bit by the ban during the time it was in effect, because criminals simply ignored it, just as they do all the laws that get in their way. In addition, since most of the features causing certain firearms to be put on the banned list were merely cosmetic, not functional, in nature (The dreaded "evil black rifle" label, despite the fact that they were semi-automatice firearms that were not military-style fully automatic "machine guns"), firearm manufacturers simply made a few changes in their designs in order to legally comply, and production simply continued.

Any new ban would undoubtedly be quite different this time around and affect many more styles and types of firearms, since most guns used for hunting, sport and defense function identically to the guns that were banned previously, and they would certainly be affected by any new restrictions put into place to prevent any further "workarounds" by gun makers. This would mean that shooters would be unfairly restricted to firearms unsuited to their needs and preferences.

Naturally, these won't be the only changes Obama will make (despite the protestations of "just a few changes"), if we're stupid enough to let him. Here's one more item that's come across the newswire today From the Virginia State Shooting Association, and courtesy of Kimberman at the Twin Cities Carry Forum, who has proven for years to be utterly reliable in his information-gathering on this subject:

"It looks like those who said the Obama Administration would strike while the iron is hot may have been correct, and the Administration may be doing it in a way that does not require them to even get a vote in Congress. In this morning's edition of the Shooting Wire, Jim Shepherd writes that Canadian officials have it on "good authority" our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.

Ammo listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we're hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.

In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance. Canadian elected officials who have directed this information to me say the move seems to be motivated by "emboldened" anti-gun officials who think they have a kindred spirit in President Obama.

Shepherd continues that there may also be a plan to ban exports on certain firearms to Canada from the US, resulting in the State Department hammering gun manufacturers, distributors and exporters in the United States while simultaneously making firearms -and ammunition - ownership and acquisition more difficult for Canadians. Many in the pro-rights community have said since the election that Obama could circumvent Congress by using regulations in his various cabinet departments to attack gun owners. It appears that it may have already begun."

In other words, pretty much all calibers of pistol and rifle ammunition commonly used by law-abiding American citizens for personal protection, hunting and sport shooting would be unable to be imported, causing massive shortages and price increases, which would in effect deny those citizens their natural right to self-defense; a defacto "gun ban without actually banning the guns", if you will, because a firearm without ammunition is merely a hunk of metal, plastic and/or wood.

Law enforcement agencies would of course be exempt from this ban, it's imagined, further (wrongly, in our opinion) separating the "special people" from everyone else, since cops would enjoy unrestricted access to valuable defensive tools that would be denied to the common peasant.

Folks, this has got to be the line in the sand that far-left liberals in government dare not cross. I urgently implore everyone to call their elected representatives, as well as the White House, and let them know in no uncertain terms what a rotten idea this is, and that anyone who attempts to put these restrictions into place will enjoy a long and happy retirement from public service, which is exactly what happened in 1994, after the first ban was put into place.

More on this subject later, once I research Mr. Holder's proposals further.

Belated congratulations are in order...

... to U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), who was first sworn into office on February 11, 1955.

To put that into perspective, Mr. Dingell has been "ruling" over some of the peasants in Michigan since two years before the iconic '57 Chevy was the cool new car on the block. Does anybody really think he has any clue about what it's like to be an ordinary peasant today?

Our system of government was never designed to include lifelong monarchs in the House and Senate who have never held employment outside of the public sector, and who too often grow far too powerful for the country's welfare by hijacking the government purse-strings for decades for their own personal gain, both political and monetary. For example, try touring West Virginia sometime and counting the public projects named after Sen. Robert Byrd. Bring a lunch; you'll be there for awhile.

Some voters just don't seem to understand the vital importance of limiting the power and influence of any one individual because of this very reason, so today we find ourselves burdened with "rulers" such as Dingell and Byrd, along with other lifers such as Ted Kennedy and John Conyers, who stubbornly refuse to give up any of their precious power and "authority" right up until they die in office, as is rumored to be happening to Sen. Kennedy right now and will surely happen to Sen. Byrd before long.

We suppose the aides for these men will soon begin largely taking over their work in a blatantly unconstitutional manner, as was long rumored to be taking place when Sen. Strom Thurmond was still in office at age 100.

Term limits aren't the answer; people should be free to run for office as much as they wish. It's up to an informed populace to enforce discipline on their elected leadership.

Well, it's a nice idea, in any event.

Take the hint already

A small sampling of the honorable left-leaning institutions and politicians who have formally asked Senator Roland Burris (D-eep doodoo-IL) to resign:

The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times newspapers

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn

Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias

Illinois U.S. Representatives Janice Schakowsky and Phil Hare

Many other Democratic Illinois state legislators and officials

And, as of today, the latest and most embarrassing resignation plea comes from Dick Durbin, his fellow Illinois compatriot in the Senate.

That's pretty much everyone in the state who matters, save for His Dishonor, King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley, who refuses to join the growing chorus for some unknown reason. Maybe Burris knows too much about where Daley's political bodies are buried for the mayor to join his fellow Democrats in throwing the shameful senator under the bus, which is where he so richly deserves to be.

Of course, the Republicans on both the state and national levels who are demanding that Burris resign are too numerous to list.

To no one's surprise, the man with enough ego to name his children Roland II and Rolanda isn't leaving:

"Burris said he would not."

It's beginning to appear obvious that Sen. Reid himself is going to have to clean up the mess he created when he allowed an impeached governor's completely compromised pick to be seated in the Senate.

"Comprehensive immigration reform" is rearing its ugly head again

The Messiah was a recent guest on a Chicago Spanish-language radio program hosted by a person named "El Pistolero". The host pressed Obama on his campaign promise to deliver "comprehensive immigration reform" (or "illegal alien amnesty", as we call it around here) in his first 90 days. Here's some tidbits from analysis of that interview, as reported by Univision:



"Well, here he clearly said that the possibility exists in the near future to be able to give citizenship to people without documents"

Without even the burden of having to go back to their home countries and apply for a visa, which would at least have been required under one provision of the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. To sum up:

Step 1: Arrive here illegally

Step 2: ?

Step 3. Profit by being able to quickly and inexpensively become a citizen, even though they jumped the line and butted in front of the many thousands of people worldwide who are applying and waiting for immigration in a lawful and correct (not to mention polite) manner.

Obama was also asked on the program about stopping the deportation of illegals who arrive here and then immediately have "anchor babies" in a desperate attempt to justify their staying here. Here's Univision's analysis of that:

"but he said stopping the separation of families will definitely be considered"

No, what Obama actually said was "Let's evaluate the laws that are working, the laws that are not working". The law requiring the deportation of people here illegally is working very well, so I don't know how Univision arrived at that conclusion. The illegal immigrants involved made a conscious choice to have those children while fully knowing that their legal status would certainly cause just such a predicament if they were caught. A cynic would postulate that the pregnancies were most likely deliberate, in order to use those children as tools to generate sympathy and hopefully a stay of that possible deportation.

"El Pistolero" also asked Obama about the proposal these newly minted legal residents be able to bring their extended families over once they have that status, and here's Univision's take on that:

"he said that we could also consider reductions in the fees for documents in the legalization process and also for bringing family members to the United States from Mexico or other countries"

I thought the U.S. was flat broke? If that's the case, why should immigration fees be reduced, while the costs for everything else are raised across the board? In terms of bringing families over, remember that this proposal is inclusive of all of a given immigrant's family, not just their nuclear one. Uncles, cousins, relatives by marriage, etc., are all to be given the green light to come here, with no set limit per immigrant. Can you imagine each new legal resident bringing double-digit numbers of other immigrants to this country with no means of support, and the chaos that would undoubtedly ensue?


In a related development, here's the latest fine fellow who only wants to be here in order to work hard and make a better life for himself:

Adrian Gonzalez Cruz, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, is currently at large after escaping from Maricopa County Superior Court last Tuesday, where he was on trial for kidnapping, sexual assault and sexual contact with a minor against two women, one who was under 15 years old. Cruz was already serving a life sentence for another case, in which he raped and impregnated a nine-year-old girl.

Most illegal immigrants are quiet, hard-working people whose misguided choice to break the law is their only contact with American law enforcement. Unfortunately, the same lax policies that allowed millions of these otherwise law-abiding people to come here also made it possible for this monster to enter our country and then commit unspeakable crimes against our citizens. For this reason, we must redouble our efforts to strictly and fairly enforce our immigration laws in order to maintain better control of who is allowed to arrive on our shores and stay, and particularly to keep thugs like Cruz out.

ACORN's up to their old tricks again

ACORN, the "community activist group" currently being investigated by 14 states as well as the FBI for suspected voter registration fraud in the 2008 election (members of the group have previously been convicted in numerous states on such charges), and which now stands to be given free access to up to $4 billion dollars by a grateful Messiah as part of his "stimulus" bill (in addition to the $53 million dollars or so of taxpayer money already given to the group in recent years, has now added burglary and property theft to their impressive resume:

"A community organization breaks into a foreclosed home in what they are calling an act of civil disobedience."

Sorry. Sitting at the front of a bus because you have been denied that seat because of your race is civil disobedience. Illegally occupying someone else's legally acquired property is simply your garden variety breaking and entering.

The group's members actually have the gall to come right out and admit to the press that what they are doing are crimes that are no different than shoplifting or auto theft:

"'We are actually trespassing, and so this is a way of civil disobedience to try to stay in the house," said [ACORN thug Louis] Beverly. 'Legally it's wrong, but homesteading is the only means that she has left to stay in her house.'" (Emphases mine)

Ironically, it was the irresponsible "Community Reinvestment Act" lending policies forced on banks by groups like ACORN that ended up putting people like this into houses that they could in no way afford in the first place.

"'This is our house now,' said Louis Beverly, ACORN."

You've certainly got that right.

Oh, wait a minute, for a second there I thought he was talking about the White House, not this woman's abode. My mistake, although what I first understood his statement to mean is probably much more likely to be proven true than the latter.

UPDATE: ...and that didn't take long:

"An activist with ACORN — the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now — faces criminal charges after breaking into a home in southeast Baltimore on Thursday to protest the foreclosure crisis sweeping the country."

Yep, it's the aforementioned Mr. Beverly, who now is facing fourth-degree burglary charges.

This latest news story also documents the rampant "failure" of ACORN's voter registration efforts in getting the Messiah elected:

"Its large-scale voter registration drives most recently came under scrutiny during the 2008 presidential race, during which ACORN reportedly gathered more than 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states. Approximately 400,000 forms were reportedly rejected for duplications, incomplete forms and fraudulent applications."

Fully one-third of the registration forms the group submitted were rejects, in other words. And that's not counting the ones that slipped through the cracks and were counted as legitimate votes, cheapening yours and mine. That's not a very good success rate, when falsifying such documents is a serious crime punishable by prison time.

That's the obvious kind of results one gets when one pays people by the form to sign people up for something.

Criminal idiocy

The State of New York recently spent $500,000 of their peasants' hard-earned tax money, confiscated from them on pain of imprisonment, on a boat that was to be used for transporting people between Manhattan and Governors Island. They really got a heck of a deal, too:

"'We were the winning bidder,' said Jon Meyers, director of real estate for the Governors Island Preservation & Education Corp. He added that the state got the boat for $250,000 less than the asking price from the Martha's Vineyard and Woods Hole Steamship Authority"

Wow, what a great score for the taxpayer, right? Used boat instead of a new one, recycling and reusing, and all of that. There's only one small thing standing in the way of the happy ending, however - and you have to know what's coming, right? - the doofuses at the "Governors Island Preservation & "Education" Corp." didn't bother to inspect the boat before they bid on it, and when it was delivered the bureaucrats found that they had spent all of that money (that isn't really theirs, so who cares, right?) on a junk boat that would require at least six million dollars in repairs to make seaworthy.

The agency has now given up on their prize, and the boat has been listed on eBay in a no-reserve auction. Top bid at the time of this writing? $23,112, probably mostly in scrap metal value. The state even helpfully includes a document that details all of the many repairs that would have to be made to bring the boat up to functioning status, prepared by an inspection company named Seaworthy Systems, Inc. The obvious question begs - why didn't they hire that outfit to go look at the boat in the first place, before they bought it themselves?

Of course, Mr. "Genius" Meyers insists that he and his organization haven't done anything wrong whatsoever:

"Meyers insists he does not suffer from buyer's remorse. 'We had three weeks. ... We had a limited amount of time to inspect it,' he said by way of explanation."

And it surely isn't a very good one. Judging from the condition of the boat as determined by Seaworthy, it sure sounds like one look at the derelict would have been enough to clue in even a non-mariner that this "great deal" was for a hunk of junk that was lucky to still be floating.

Here's a bonus laugh - the state's eBay auction page clearly states that

**INSPECTION IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.**

They should've paid attention to their own advice.

The article doesn't relate whether Mr. Meyers is still employed by the state, so we must sadly assume that he's still running his department, and as efficiently as ever. If you had cost your employer a net loss of $476,888 because of your complete incompetence, would you still have a job?

We didn't think so.

Congratulations really must be extended to Woods Hole, though, for not only unloading their very large paperweight on those sucker New Yorkers, but for actually making them think that they were putting one over on those chucklehead New Englanders by getting the darned thing for 1/3 off!

That kind of grifting takes real skill.


UPDATE: While further perusing the auction page, we found that Mr. Meyers has helpfully included his official phone number. New Yorkers (and others, perhaps from Nigeria) who wish to question him about his excellent purchasing skills or who wish to offer him another "amazing, can't miss" deal can contact him directly at 212-440-2215.

We're here to help in any way we can.

They sure could have picked a better example

CNN recently ran this profile of one of the families facing foreclosure due to the collapsing housing market. Minta Garcia (her husband was probably too embarrassed about her shameless plea to appear on camera), a school bus driver,

"admits she and her husband bought more house than they could afford"

An $800,000 house, to be exact, and a very nice one, judging by the video. So why should they be allowed to remain in it, if they weren't victims of fraud and can no longer afford the home? Should they also be able to keep a Maserati they purchased as well, if they can no longer make the payments?

"but that the lender made the purchase all too easy"

A classic example of putting the blame onto someone else. If it's too good to be true, it almost always is.

You have to know exactly what you're getting into when you sign up for such a large loan, which is why every financial expert on the subject I've ever listened to begs people to spend the couple of hundred dollars to have an attorney review the mortgage documents before they sign them. Very cheap insurance indeed for what is likely the largest purchase people will ever make in their lives.

"Her message to the President Messiah: 'Stop the foreclosures'... What we gonna do?"

Begging the His Holiness to intervene and unilaterally change the provisions of private, lawful contracts between two parties is not a reasonable solution to this crisis, in our opinion, and will only serve to anger responsible homeowners who deferred buying their current home until they could reasonably afford to do so.



(H/T to Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog It)

Arizona rancher wins (mostly)

Roger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who was sued by illegal aliens for false imprisonment, battery and violating their civil rights (?) after he detained them for trespassing on his property, was cleared of those allegations by a federal jury on Tuesday.

He was, however, found liable "on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive."

Painful, but a much better result than the 32 million dollars the illegals were seeking in total. Barnett's attorney David Hardy, who blogs at Of Arms and the Law, feels that Barnett has a very strong chance of having even those reduced damage awards reversed on appeal. In fact, here's what Hardy stated on his blog the damages from the "assault" awards added up to:

"Assault: defense verdict as to two, two got $1400 each (minus 25% for their own fault), two got a nominal $1."

He also posted a picture of one of the plaintiffs who claimed to have been kicked in the leg, one of the assault charges that Barnett was cleared of. Take a look for yourself to see if there's evidence of an injury; I surely don't see any.

Those amounts awarded to the plaintiffs aren't exactly a strong statement in favor of their arguments, are they? I must confess that I'm even less impressed with the "emotional distress" award, that category being the vast majority of the monies awarded,

"Infliction of emotional distress: Two got $1,000 each (minus 25% for their fault) plus $10,000 punitives each, two got $7,500 each actuals (-25%) plus $20,000 each, two got a defense verdict."

since Barnett was merely doing his best to protect his own property from being overrun by thousands of migrants who cared not a whit about the damage they were doing and the mountains of trash they were leaving behind. Here's a picture of what Barnett's land looked like after illegals passed through it, and here's some pictures of the large amounts of narcotics recovered from his property after being abandoned by drug mules.

"All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending"

So they're still here illegally, even after having been caught red-handed trying to enter the country through Mr. Barnett's private property. Why?

If anyone cares to donate to Barnett's apparently excellent defense, here's the info:

"This from a supporter of Roger: "Anyone interested in making a contribution to Roger's defense by check, please send and address funds directly to:

Roger Barnett Legal Defense Fund
1498 E. Fry Blvd.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

or by Credit Card: call Barnett's Towing: 1-800-722-2303"

Well done, Mr. Hardy.

Watching the shameful official scofflaws scurry like cornered rats when they get caught

A Boston Globe reporter, one of several investigating the blatant abuse of handicapped parking spaces by able-bodied, uncaring cops in front of police headquarters, makes a phone call and unleashes a mass exodus from the building:

"One repeat scofflaw: the driver of a Toyota Corolla registered to Irene Landry, the city's supervisor of Parking Enforcement, who oversees the 194 parking enforcement officers who write 1.3 million tickets a year.

When a Globe reporter called Landry's office on Feb. 10 to ask about the Toyota, Landry was stunned. "I will investigate," she said. "Trust me when I tell you that."

Within five minutes of that call, her son Anthony, a police dispatcher, and three other police officials hastened out of Police Headquarters in shirtsleeves, got into their illegally parked cars, and drove away." (Emphasis mine)

Not only is Landry fils a lawbreaker, he can't even seem to afford to pay for his own transportation, instead sponging off of Mom. I wonder how he would manage to pay for the large amount of parking tickets he should have received, seeing as how each one is $120, plus a $93 charge if the car is towed?

Before anyone asks, these aren't marked cruisers on official emergency business. They are personal cars parked at the same places day after day while the owners are supposedly at work enforcing the city's laws.

The article goes on to detail the mass ignoring of parking laws in that area by police department employees (including sworn officers, who give out hundreds of tickets a day to peasants for the exact same offense), including leaving their cars in front of fire hydrants, in crosswalks, at day-care drop offs, and even at bus stops, blocking access for people who ironically don't even use parking spots.

"The only ticket books seen by the Globe over the six weeks' observation were those that officers left on the dashboards of their cars - a time-honored signal to fellow officers. Others left uniform shirts hanging in back windows."

A shameful little fringe benefit of being a "special person". Maybe the peasants should visit the local police-supply store to get their own substitute parking pass.

According to the above-mentioned Ms. Landry's boss, the parking enforcement agents don't patrol the area because police headquarters is full of people who are able to write the same tickets her employees do, which frees up the parking agents to be deployed to other areas (an excuse that actually makes sense, if the cops were holding up their end of the bargain and "policing" themselves. Which they're not.).

"Some cars, like Landry's, were regular offenders. Another frequent user of handicapped spots, David McClelland, an Emergency Medical Services dispatcher who works at Police Headquarters, acknowledged in a call he returned to a reporter that he has never been ticketed there, and said he took the risk because there is so little parking in the area."

Imagine the irony (and tragedy) if Mr. McClelland was to dispatch EMS to a call for assistance because a handicapped person had a health emergency, all because the permit holder had to walk a much greater distance because McClelland's own car was in the handicapped space they wished to use, preventing them from parking closer to their destination.

Boston residents should clip and save this article, in order to use it in court to demonstrate the blatant unequal enforcement of the traffic laws in that city, and to ask why they don't get the same consideration. Maybe some mass dismissals of tickets by judges (and the subsequent outrage by city officials over the drop in fine revenue) will embarrass the cops into playing by the same rules as everyone else.

He's getting at least a couple of things right

In the interests of fairness, here's two items which the Obama Administration is seemingly handling correctly:

1. A White House spokesman has definitively put on the record that Obama does not wish to have the "Fairness" Doctrine reinstated:

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com."

This is welcome news, as previous statements by Obama's people had been wishy-washy at best, and seemed to endorse the recent pro-doctrine movement championed by some liberal Democrats in Congress.


2. Obama's Justice Department is (correctly, in our view) fighting an attempt to block the legally put-into-place rule that now allows the lawful concealed carrying of firearms in national parks, subject to the laws and restrictions of the state where the park is located:

"The three groups seeking to overturn the rule -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- have argued that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also argue that the new policy could deter some visitors, such as school groups, from visiting national landmarks." (Emphasis mine)

Ludicrous arguments, which are to be expected from disingenuous groups such as the Brady Campaign, which uses hysteria and panic to obfuscate facts and reasonable arguments. How could carrying (and not discharging, save for a true emergency) a firearm possibly impact the environment in any way? It doesn't, of course, which is why this attempt to overturn the new rule will likely fail. Similarly, the Brady Campaign doesn't address the fact that their precious little snowflakes have traveled without incident for decades through portions of those states with the exact same rules for lawful firearm carry now in place in the parks to reach those supposedly "pristine" locations, which of course never have evildoers or potentially lethal wild animals in them to attack said snowflakes or other visitors to the areas.

We are heartened that the current Chief Executive has taken these positions, and are hopeful that he will also "see the light" on other issues of importance to us.

Another high-up Brit decries her country's loss of freedom and privacy

Dame Stella Rimington, who used to head MI5 (England's domestic CIA) has come out and blasted the British government for the current blizzard legislation that is turning that once-proud country into a police state by severely limiting the rights of the population.

Of course, just like "Sir" Ken McDonald, the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Ms. Rimington waited until after she retired from government service to begin speaking up about the many abuses of freedom her former employer is foisting onto her countrymen, which isn't all that helpful.

It's not all her fault, though; she retired in 1996, before England really got serious about depriving the peasants of their rights, and at least she fully understands what is happening to her nation and communicates her criticisms effectively:

"It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, which is precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state."

Her views are also shared by former musician-turned-activist Brian Eno:

"When the government passed its 'anti-terror' laws, it reassured those who campaigned against them that they would only ever be used in the most extreme circumstances"... "Within a couple of years they had been used to eject an 80-year-old heckler from a Labour Party Conference, to arrest a woman for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq, and to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks in England. This is the problem with vague legislation of this type: it invariably gets called into use whenever anybody does anything that the government finds embarrassing or the police find inconvenient."

One great example of the kind of "vague legislation" that Eno references is the brand-new anti-photography law we commented on yesterday, the provisions of which are so murky as to be laughable, and which can be easily misused by police in a number of ways, seemingly depending on how their lunch is sitting with them that day.

In fact, we hereby predict that virtually all people of the who get arrested under this law won't in fact be terrorists or would-be terrorists at all, but rather innocent people whose only "crime" was cheesing off the wrong cop.

An important day for freedom in Wisconsin and across the country

West Allis, Wisconsin resident Brad Krause, whose arrest last year for legally openly carrying a holstered firearm on his own property won the West Allis Police Department Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week status here, was acquitted today of the bogus disorderly conduct charge by a judge.

"Municipal Judge Paul Murphy said he had reviewed several state statutes and court cases related to the right to keep and bear arms. 'There being no law whatsoever dealing with the issue of an unconcealed weapon or the so-called open carry is why we're here today,' Murphy said."

Exactly. If openly carrying a holstered handgun in Wisconsin, just like any other behavior or activity there, is not made specifically illegal by statute (which it isn't), then it is by definition legal. The peasants are not (yet) in the position of having to prove a negative when it comes to their lifestyle choices - in other words, it's up to the police to prove that something is against the law, rather than the citizen having to prove that it isn't.

Actually, all the justification Krause needed is contained right in the Wisconsin Constitution (Article I, Section 25):

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

That seems pretty darn clear to me, along with the statement by Governor Jim Doyle (unsuccessfully attempting to justify his multiple vetoes of concealed-carry legislation) that "If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip."

Which is exactly what Mr. Krause did, Governor. How about a little support for a constituent who was merely following your wishes to the letter?

Of course, some law officers in that state are determined to keep rediscovering the phenomenon of this particular practice being legal the hard way, which is bound to eventually cost their employers (the taxpayers, naturally) bundles of money in wrongful arrest settlements:

"West Allis Deputy Chief Rick Balistrieri said Tuesday's verdict will not change the way his officers respond to similar calls, noting they must assess all calls on a case-by-case basis, particularly when a gun is involved."

So this particular call, in which a neighbor apparently contacted police to inquire about the legality of Krause's carrying openly in his yard without alleging any suspicious, threatening or odd behavior in any way, justified the massively overblown police response, which involved confronting a man quietly working in his yard with drawn guns in a manner more consistent with meth house busts or bomb threats?

I think not, good sir. Keep responding to such non-incident calls with stunts such as this at your own job's risk.


PSA: Before Wisconsin residents get overly excited and strap on their carry piece tomorrow, we feel it prudent to caution them that there are certain places there where openly carrying a firearm is specifically prohibited by statute. Checking the valuable resource handgunlaw.us, these places are the following (keeping in mind, of course, that I am not a lawyer and that it would be a really good idea to independently verify this information for yourself):

K-12 schools
Colleges and universities
In motor vehicles (unless unloaded and cased)
In public buildings
Where alcohol beverages may be sold and consumed (presumably bars and on-sale restaurants)
State parks and forests

Please be lawful and safe when exercising your rights.

The truth slowly dribbles out

First, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois denies under oath to the Illinois House Impeachment Committee that he had any contact with representatives of disgraced ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich before he was appointed seemingly out of nowhere to serve the rest of President Obama's unexpired Senate term, testifying only that he had had a "brief conversation" with the governor before being named as Obama's replacement, as well as having "discussed the seat with a longtime Blagojevich friend last summer".

Then, Burris is forced to admit in a cute little memo over the weekend that Blago's brother Robert did indeed hit him up for a campaign donation for his ol' bro before the appointment, a pretty relevant and important development that Burris conveniently forgot to mention during his sworn testimony, especially since he was asked directly if such a conversation took place:

"The new affidavit submitted to the impeachment panel indicated contact not only with Robert Blagojevich, but with Blagojevich's former chief of staff John Harris and two other close friends — all of whom Burris had been specifically asked about by the committee's top Republican." (Emphasis mine)

Just a slight oversight, I'm sure. The bad memory and all.

Now, Burris lets out yet another belated little nugget of information, this time that he actively attempted to raise campaign funds for the embattled governor well before Obama's election, a detail that he forgot to include not only in his House testimony, but in the affidavit correcting his sworn statements as well.

"Burris also said he planned to release later this week "a concise document" related to his testimony, but he would not elaborate."

Yet another affidavit, we suppose. It should make for interesting reading. What else hasn't he disclosed?

Is it any wonder that lawmakers in that hotbed of rotten official corruption have introduced legislation banning putting state officials' names on highway signs, billboards and the like? They apparently are wasting too much money changing the "Welcome" signs every time a public official gets bounced out of office and into the pen, an all-too-common occurrence there.

The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...

... are the Tampa Bay, Florida police officers who arrested local resident Walsh Ian Nichols for wearing a Batman costume (including a presumably expensive custom-made mask, which was confiscated) in public:

"Nichols' attorney, Kevin Hayslett, said police didn't read the whole law. It is only illegal to wear a mask, he said, if the person is violating someone's civil rights or committing a crime.

"He was eating sushi," Hayslett said."

The judge in Hillsborough County, John Conrad, ordered the confiscated mask returned and dismissed all charges in the case.

Nichols is apparently well-known in the area for walking around Ybor City in his get-up. Even if he wasn't, what trouble was he possibly causing by doing so, and why did the cops feel like they needed to jail him in the name of public safety, except for maybe to assuage their burning need to roust someone before they got off duty? Those officers must get real busy down there at Halloween, locking up all of the revelers because of their criminally poor interpretation of that obscure law.

Sure, the man sounds a little odd, but since when is that illegal? He was obviously not bothering anyone, wherever he got the sushi was happy to sell it to him, and no one called 911 in a panic about him, which would admittedly have necessitated an investigation, so leave him alone already, willya?

Watching a once-free society circle the drain

Unbelievably (or not, for those who visit here regularly), a spiffy new law has just gone into effect in Great Britain that basically gives police the authority to demand that people not photograph them in public whenever and wherever they feel like doing so. The martinets who run things over there claim that it's an "anti-terrorism" law, but it really operates more like an anti-freedom law:

"The new act makes it a crime to "elicit, publish or communicate information" about British police or military personnel."

So the filming of public safety officers going about the public's business in public is apparently now illegal, and the cops can freely bust peasants who see and record them committing abuses of their power. Or maybe they can't - the author of the article can't even seem to puzzle it out:

"In many cases, officers could allow photographers to keep taking pictures. In other cases, they could ask them to stop or threaten them with arrest."

Wow, that clears things up nicely, doesn't it? No one can be sure of anything over there anymore, save that the "authorities" are going to get their way no matter what. The bobbies must be ecstatic - this will give them them the ability to finally get rid of those pesky crime journalists that irritatingly insist on chronicling how well (or poorly) the officers do their jobs.

And, of course, the punishment is way out of line with the supposed "crime":

"Photographers who refuse to stop taking pictures after a warning face arrest, up to 10 years in prison or unspecified fines." (Emphasis mine)

Somewhere, Winston Churchill weeps.

The most idiotic quote of the day

"A little state control wouldn't hurt anybody"

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, discussing the possible re-imposition of the "Fairness" Doctrine, while being interviewed on The Savage Nation radio program.

That depends on just what the state wishes to control, in this case all free speech on the public airwaves. Liberal Democrats are angry because their pet propaganda projects such as Air America Radio can't get any traction in the ratings because their offerings are amateurish, preachy and boring, so they wish to force privately-owned stations to put their crap on the air in a facade of "fairness", instead of letting the free market decide. Howard Kurtz, media reporter for the Washington Post, documented one such example recently:

"President Obama may be riding high in Washington, but OBAMA 1260 is not.

The area's only progressive talk station is changing formats, dropping such syndicated liberal hosts as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press in favor of financial news, starting next week.

The move by Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who purchased the station, WWRC, and others in Washington last summer, leaves the city without a liberal radio outlet. Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election.

But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at Snyder's conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett." (Emphases mine)

Money talks, and businessmen such as Snyder aren't stupid; if people wanted to listen to liberal talk radio, there would be an ample selection to choose from. Nobody listens, so there isn't. The concept's pretty easy to understand. (I mourn the passing of WRC, though. It used to be a powerhouse talk station with dynamic local hosts such as Joel A. Spivak and Joe Madison, who weren't ideologues by any means, but were entertaining personalities who possessed great political analytical skills.)

I don't know what the liberals have got to complain about; don't they pretty much rule NPR, which depends mainly on taxpayer largess instead of ad revenue for its operating budget?

Restrictions on freedom such as the above proposed legislation always start small and then increase incrementally. Just ask the relatives of the estimated 100 million people who died at the hands of Communist governments during the 20th century, and they'll tell you just how dangerous doltish pronouncements such as this from supposedly learned people like Brown can be.

This T-shirt logo sums current events up very nicely

(Snorgtees.com)

Illegal photography's perfectly OK when the government wishes to engage in it, apparently

They may not want us taking their picture (however legal and protected that activity is), but the Federal Government, along with their compadres at the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, doesn't seem to have any problems with trespassing onto private land (without a warrant or any evidence of criminal activity whatsoever) in order to set up a videocamera to catch alleged law-breaking.

The subject being filmed in this case was farmer Steve VanKesteren, who was convicted of killing two hawks that he had found in traps he had set out in order to catch non-protected birds which had been eating his crops. He claims that they were too injured to recover, and that he ended their suffering.

Regardless of the debatable merits of the government's case or whether one believes that VanKesteren was indeed wrong in dispatching the birds, the way the evidence used to convict him was acquired is not in dispute (my comments in bold):

"In late 2006, someone - VanKesteren doesn't know who - called the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to report seeing a protected bird caught in a trap on VanKesteren's farmland.

A game warden, technically called a conservation police officer, went to the site [without a warrant] and found a cage trap, about 2 feet high, with two caught pigeons. Pigeons are not protected birds. [So no evidence of criminal activity was found]

In January 2007, the officer and special operations agents returned to the farmland, off Acorn Road with no homes in sight, and set up a hidden video camera." [Again, without obtaining a warrant]

The remote surveillance continued for 21 straight days, until investigators obtained what they felt was evidence of wrongdoing. As the initial judge in the case wondered to the prosecutors:

"'Assuming that you are right in that regard, can you still go onto somebody's private property and install a video camera?' [U.S. District Judge Rebecca B.] Smith asked. 'So we are just going to keep it rolling for 24 hours to see if we find something?'"

In other words, a "fishing" expedition, if one will pardon the pun. The admission from the government that they indeed felt that this sort of action was legal and proper didn't help VanKesteren, though. Judge Smith still ruled against him.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied VanKesteren's claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated during the investigation. He is currently considering appealing to the Supreme Court, but his finances may make that course of action impossible.

This is outrageous behavior on the part of our government, and hopefully publicity of the case will allow VanKesteren to obtain the necessary funds for the further appeal of his conviction on the crystal-clear grounds that his privacy rights were indeed blatantly violated by the fish and game people.

Hurry up, we're in dire straits. Actually, why don't you sit and wait whilst I romance the wife?

The Democrats in Congress claimed that it was so vitally important that their "stimulus" bill be enacted right now that they broke their promise to hold off the vote for 48 hours so that legislators and the public could read and digest the 1,071 page monument to socialism.

Well, it passed the Senate on Friday, so why hasn't the Messiah signed it yet? Oh, it seems he'll take care of that sometime on Tuesday, you know, when he gets around to it. He's currently too busy jetting off to Chicago for a romantic three-day Valentine's weekend with the Mrs., including a romantic dinner at a place called Table Fifty-Two. He's apparently so stressed out that he needs to take some time off after just three weeks on the job.

What was the all-fired hurry, then? Let people read the bill over the long weekend, have Congress vote on it first thing on Tuesday, then courier it right over to the White House for the obligatory signing photo-op. It still gets signed at the same time, and the legislators (along with us poor peasants, who actually have to fund this monstrosity) could actually read the darned thing before they blindly voted on it.

Ah, the perks of power. Claim extreme urgency and that the country is in imminent danger of melting down in order to ram through a bill without any debate or discussion, and then go ahead and take your own sweet time signing it.

What arrogance.

Venezuela at a crossroads

Last-minute polls show that Venezuelan wannabe-absolute dictator (and one of "actor" Sean Penn's bestest buddies) Hugo (Pugsley) Chavez is close to getting his wish to be able to run for re-election forever. This will be the second time in two years that Chavez has tried to lock up the job of El Presidente for life, just like his hero (and Penn's other good pal) Fidel Castro managed to do in Cuba until very recently, when he passed power to his younger brother Raul because of illness.

"On Saturday, Chavez said he lost in 2007 because of a weak get-out-the-vote effort, which he has now overhauled, making him "infinitely more" confident of victory on Sunday."

Meaning: His goons' arms are going to be mighty sore from pushing all of those uppity citizens who declined to vote for his last naked power grab to the polls at gunpoint this time around.

Venezuelans should take a close look at today's Cuba and think long and hard about whether they wish to emulate that prison state before deciding which lever to pull today.


Speaking of the hateful Mr. Penn (who has a long history of violence-related arrests, including being charged with felony domestic assault against his then-wife Madonna, yet despite this shameful record was still issued a handgun carry permit in Marin County, California, something that's denied to virtually all law-abiding peasants there), here's two excerpts from a recent interview he did for Rolling Stone magazine:

"The gist was, they praised you as an actor but said you're a naive journalist."

'Well, I think that they're professionally naive journalists. I have no regard for 90 percent of American journalism. That's why I travel and look for things for myself. If you're going to get on Cuba for its lack of free press, well, we don't have any press, as far as I'm concerned.'

Except for a lapdog music magazine that interviews uneducated media whores like Penn, a person who is famous mainly for playing make-believe for a living, as well as for getting into multiple scrapes with the law. That fills his definition of hard-hitting journalism, it seems.

Said periodical then allows this self-proclaimed "expert" to prattle on for pages on end, heaping abuse on the country that has given him so much in life and extolling the virtues of places that he himself would never deign to live in, as his lifestyle would be curtailed too much by having to simply barely exist from day to day, just like any other oppressed peasant in those hellholes.

"Do you have any regrets about not challenging Raul Castro more during your visit on things like the historic repression of gays in Cuba?"

'I wasn't intending to paint the whole picture. I was talking about the United States and our gullibility. Just a few weeks ago, I was doing a reading for Paul Newman's foundation, and we had people outside with "Matthew Shepard, burn in hell" signs. We've got a few closet-cleaning numbers to do before we start attacking them.'

Because, you know, Cuba has it all over us in the freedom department. You know, Mr. Penn, Walter Duranty didn't "paint the whole picture" of the Soviet Union under Stalin, either, and he ended up winning the Pulitzer Prize for his mostly made-up portrait of idyllic Communism. Is that the kind of journalism you idolize and wish to emulate?

The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week, Bonus Edition...

...is the unnamed (and inappropriately officious, but oh so wrong) Federal Reserve Police officer who struts out and hassles a news cameraman, telling him that it's illegal to film the building from a public sidewalk unless he obtains special "permission" from the apparatchiks at Public Affairs.



This photog claims that he had previously filmed such places as the White House, the Capitol and the Treasury building with absolutely no problems, as it should be.

"Really, you can't take pictures of a Federal building. Period."

Is that so? Please cite the appropriate statute that justifies you making such an asinine statement. Take your time, we'll wait while you look it up.

Apparently, according to this learned fount of non-existent and made-up laws, a tourist walking by and "snapping a quick picture" is OK. Linger a little too long or have too big of a camera, and the black-clad thugs are going to start giving you a hard time, even if you're taking pictures FROM ACROSS THE STREET.

"But this is the Federal Reserve, sir"

Big whoop. It's a PUBLIC BUILDING, paid for by OUR MONEY, being filmed from a PUBLIC PLACE. Try to get that concept through your skull, ma'am. I know it's difficult, but I'm sure you can get there if you try hard enough.

It's becoming clear that lots of us are going to have to begin a new hobby of documenting the architecture of Federal buildings in the near future, just to make sure that the concept of "a public place" is pounded into these goons.

We're keeping track

Here are the seven brave Democratic members of the House who voted against the utterly pork-filled "stimulus" bill today:

Bobby Bright (AL)
Peter DeFazio (OR)
Parker Griffith (AL)
Walt Minnick (ID)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Heath Shuler (TN)
Gene Taylor (MS)

Heartfelt admiration and gratitude is due these gentlemen for the undoubtedly gut-wrenching stand they made today. If they are your Congressmen, please take the time make a quick phone call thanking them. Unfortunately my own Democratic representative, Harry Mitchell, didn't have the courage to stand with them.

On the other hand, there was one Democratic coward who wouldn't vote yea or nay on the hijacking of the peasantry's money, instead choosing to vote "present":

Daniel Lipinski (IL)

Ironically continuing the proud voting tradition begun by then-Senator Obama, we see. It's got to be quite the embarrassment when someone in your own political machine won't commit to voting for your nakedly Socialist bill, eh, Mr. President?

Something tells me that this is Mr. Lipinski's last term in Congress. He made a powerful enemy today, that's for sure.

Another lawmaker spills the beans

Senator John Kerry showed his true elitist colors on the Senate floor last Friday when he spoke about the "stimulus" bill, as caught and analyzed by Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard:

I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.

If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there's no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America.

They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest.

God forbid that the peasantry would actually get to keep their own money and spend it (or not) on whatever they wish, instead of mindlessly doing what the Senators think they should be doing with it, because only the mighty overlords know what's best for the unwashed.

What a patronizing jerk.

"Professionalism" in action

Two of Fresno's finest "people who are the only ones professional enough to carry firearms in public" caught on tape punching a homeless person repeatedly in the head for no apparent reason while attempting to effect an arrest. That's really not the proper way to do it, as one former law enforcement officer comments at the news website.

I especially enjoyed watching the one thug at the end of the clip who was checking his dainty knuckles for damage. He should have worn "tactical" gloves to protect his wittle fingers if he was so concerned about them.

I don't want to either deify or demonize cops in general - just like the rest of the population of this country, the majority of them are good, upstanding people, but there's always a few rotten apples in every bunch, like the two shown above.

That being the case, why, then, especially in a state such as California, are cops allowed to carry firearms in public not just on duty, but everywhere they choose to go while off duty as well, and then are granted a special dispensation to carry in every state in America once they retire, something denied every other law-abiding citizen?

Seems just a wee bit unfair to me. After all, journalists don't get some sort of special permission denied everyone else to publish a newspaper or interview people once they retire just because of what they did for a living, as the natural right of free speech, as specifically delineated in the First Amendment, is protected for everyone. The same should apply to the Second Amendment as well.

Mesmerizing the masses

Below is video of one of President Obama's "Sell the Stimulus to the Suckers" tours, in which he fields a question from an audience member seemingly desperate for help.

Don't watch her, though. Watch the other lady, the one in the white blazer behind the questioner's right shoulder, when she at around :44 in the clip lovingly mouths "I love you, Barack" with an expression that clearly demonstrates her utter willingness to show him how much she loves him right then and there, if you catch my drift.



I used to watch History Channel documentaries about the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930's, and wonder how people could be so stupid as to blindly fall in love with politicians, of all people, and cheerfully line up for hours on the side of the road just to have the chance to throw flowers at them.

I don't wonder so much about that anymore. Now, seeing the same sort of lovefest live on cable news, I fear that we've come right back around to once again seeing that kind of blatant idolatry.

I'm really concerned about this. Anyone else?

I'll pass, thanks

The human clown car now has an Internet site soliciting donations for her and her instant battalion of kids.

Although I won't be contributing, I do see an enormous marketing opportunity for a company like Nike or Reebok. All they would have to do is come up with a giant shoe for her and her brood to live in.

Now that's pure genius, you must admit. Think of all the possible Mother Goose tie-ins. Bonus -the tales are in the public domain, so no licensing fees!

Overkill, to say the least

Police in London, England dispatched eight squad cars filled with an armed response team to investigate a very serious offense at a bus stop.

A terror suspect? A bank robber?

Hardly. A man who used a toy space gun in an attempt to make a passerby's baby laugh.

"The man (who has not yet been named) allegedly, approached the baby and its mother with a "silver ray-gun", which lights up and makes a buzzing noise when the trigger is pulled. He pointed the toy at the baby and said, "Pow-pow!"

I've been guilty of trying to entertain little kids with toy props on numerous occasions. The parents usually quite enjoy seeing their children laugh and giggle at a man making silly faces and noises. I suppose those days are over for me now.

"Police seized the man's toy ray gun and arrested him on suspicion of possessing an imitation firearm in a public place." (Emphasis mine)

Cap guns probably get kids the death penalty over there in Sarah Brady's Paradise.

We can always count on England to set the bar ever lower for asinine official behavior, that's for sure.

You can't win

Some Pennsylvania state troopers staged one of those unconstitutional DUI roadblocks last Saturday night in Perry County, inconveniencing nearly a hundred motorists while blindly searching for impaired drivers. Part of their haul was nabbing two people for drunkenness.

Two pedestrians.

"troopers also cited two pedestrians for public drunkenness after they were observed to be intoxicated as they walked through the checkpoint area."

Not "drunk and disorderly", not interfering with the troopers and their Stasi-like checkpoint, but apparently merely walking home after a fun night out, something that we're told to do instead of trying to pilot a car with a snootful of booze.

This isn't as bad as the moronic Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission and city of Irving police officers who in 2006 were actually going into bars and arresting people for being drunk (even traveling guests in a hotel bar who clearly weren't going anywhere) as part of some idiotic plan called "Operation Last Call", until they were embarrassed into ending the program.

But it's close.

Much, much more in the bill than just "stimulus"

The Messiah's "stimulus" bill has passed the Senate, and will now go to conference committee.

Here are the three traitorous Republicans who voted to impose this Atlas-sized burden on the American people:

"As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill."

No surprises there, especially Senator "Scottish law" Specter, who has a long history of wussing out when important votes are recorded.

As regular readers of this blog know, we have a special interest in health care issues as well, particularly in preventing the imposition of the type of nationalized system that's been proven in other countries to not work effectively at all.

Unfortunately, the "stimulus" bill creates a new government agency that will speed us down that road. What these provisions have to do with "stimulating" the economy we don't know, but here's the scary details:

"The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” ([pages] 445, 454, 479 [in the bill]). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system."

All of them. Sure, it will improve record-keeping efficiency, if that's all one is after. But what if you don't wish to have your private health issues recorded in a national database? You know, like people get to do in a supposedly "free" society? Sorry, you don't have a chance to opt out.

"One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446)."

Translation: A nice, intimidating phone call from some government bean counter to your physician asking "Are you sure John Smith needs that hip replacement? There's no other way for him to get around?" So much for autonomy of doctor decisions, which is exactly the point:

"According to Daschle [in his latest book, which details the master plan now unfolding before us], doctors have to give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners.'"

"Doctor Jones, we government busybodies know how to practice medicine better than you. Here's the new treatment plans for your patients. Ignore them at your license's peril."

Of course, the elderly, who blindly voted for Obama and the Democrats after being subjected to massive scare tactics and lovingly promised all kinds of wonderful free drugs and medical treatments if they'd only pull the lever with the "D" on it, are going to be receiving the short end of the stick, despite assurances to the contrary:

"The Federal Council [The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, yet another bureaucracy created by the "stimulus" bill] is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis."

Here are some more examples from Canadian Nadeem Esmail in the Wall Street Journal of how older people get screwed over in countries like Canada, which already has the sort of scheme that ideologue dolts such as Daschle idolize and wish to impose upon us:

"In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well."

Esmail confirms what we at the Muckraker have known to be fact for years:

"Health-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting."

We can't say we weren't warned.

By the way, what are those hurting Canadians going to do when they can't come to America and pay cash for desperately needed procedures that their benevolent overlord medical system insists they can't have?

Another Zenk update, for those who care

Peter Bernard Zenk Jr., the violent alcoholic and (presumably, but MFD won't confirm this) ex-Minneapolis fire captain convicted of two felonies in the drunken beating of his sixteen-month old son (and who lived two doors down from me when I resided in Minnesota), was released from jail at 6 a.m. this morning after serving most of his six-month sentence in the Dakota County Jail for his crimes.

He got off way too lightly, in our opinion, based on his violence against women-filled prior criminal history.

Here's yet another example of how utterly selfish this man is: I was informed by someone close to the case that had Zenk served the entire six months he was given, he would have been granted the right to see his son (supervised closely, we fervently hope) six months from now. Because Zenk chose to leave early (for good behavior or some similar reason, we surmise), he now will be (thankfully, for the child) barred from seeing the boy until he reaches 10 years of age. I'm not quite sure how this particular circumstance came about, but it was possibly a condition set by the judge in the case to ensure that Zenk served six full months in jail for his horrific crimes. I will attempt to get more information about this order.

Would any of you fathers out there trade getting out of the pokey about eight weeks early for an additional 8 years or so of not seeing your child, especially if it was your fault that you were there in the first place?

I didn't think so.

Pure chutzpah

16 illegal immigrants actually have the unmitigated gall to sue an Arizona ranch owner who apprehended them trespassing on his land and turned them over to ICE.

Worse, they've actually convinced Federal Judge John Roll that their case has enough merit to go forward.

I can't see why. None of the illegals were harmed in any way, save for their unlawful journey through the man's private land being interrupted.

"Mr. [Roger] Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home"

If law enforcement and immigration officials aren't going to give Mr. Barnett any help, I can certainly see how he'd certainly be justified in protecting his property himself.

"The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998."

Why isn't Barnett immediately made head of the Border Patrol? That man gets results.

All kidding aside, that outrageous number starkly defines the magnitude of the problem that Barnett was dealing with. Imagine a small city's worth of people tramping all over your property on a regular basis.

We here at the Muckraker hope that the jury sees this lawsuit for the travesty of justice that it is, and returns a favorable verdict for Mr. Barnett in record time.

"'This is my land. I´m the victim here,' Mr. Barnett said. 'When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back.'"

Absolutely.

The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...

... is the unidentified (but presumably CIA-supplied) goon that assaulted a reporter who had the temerity to approach CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta after his confirmation hearing and attempt to ask him a question, according to Politico:

"Tim Starks, a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, said he witnessed [CongressDaily reporter Chris] Strohm approach Panetta and ask a question, just before the man began 'grabbing him by the arm and moving him away.'"

More evidence of the "new way of doing things in Washington" that Obama keeps promising us? Had a Bush 43 nominee's bobo done something similar, the "elite" Washington press corps would have been (rightly) screaming bloody murder about "journalist rights" and demanding an apology, as well as the thug's prompt sacking.

"After today’s hearing, there was no similar incident: Panetta briefly answered questions from reporters."

The attack dog seems to have been re-leashed, for now. Look for a return to form once Panetta is confirmed.

A simpleton spouts weasel words

"if you are on the no-fly list, because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America".

No evidence needed, and no appeal process to redress mistakes. In Rahm's view, once you appear on his magic list, your Second Amendment rights should be gone for good.

So such an august person as Senator Ted Kennedy, mistakenly put on the no-fly list for some unknown reason, is a "maybe a possible terrorist" and should be forever barred from his Constitutional right to own a firearm?

What about Congressman Don Young? He was in the same boat (or plane, as it were). Or, better yet, how about the very air marshals that fly armed on planes to "protect" the flying public, yet who ended up on the list? Why isn't ol' Rahm pulling their guns?

"If you're on that no-fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is canceled, because you're not part of the American family"

You mean the same no-fly list that now tops 1 million people, that's so top secret no one can ascertain whether or not they're on it until they try to fly somewhere, and that has no established procedure for removing one's mistakenly added name that actually works? That one, Rahm?

And of course, no one would ever end up on that list as a result of a little political intimidation or petty payback, right? Tell that laugher to CNN reporter Drew Griffin, who mysteriously wound up on the list after an unflattering piece on the TSA aired, or former Justice Department ethics attorney Jesselyn Radack, who blew the whistle on her agency and then also managed to somehow find herself officially labeled as a bad guy. Have these two (and thousands of other innocent people) regale you with the stories about their futile efforts to get off the list, despite presenting the apparatchiks with a mountain of evidence that proves without a doubt that they shouldn't be on it.

"with another 20,000 names being added each month" (from the CNN story)

How long until you or I get added, and thus lose our rights forever with no hope of appeal?

I know I speak for millions of people, dear Rahm, when I tell you in the politest possible way to go pound sand.



(Thanks to Tam for the heads-up on the video)